DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 11/28/2025, claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17 are amended. Claims 6, 12, and 19 are canceled. Claims 13-15 and 17 remain withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 7-11 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and it has introduced new ones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant presents references from a single inventor (Polish patent PL 235814 B1 which corresponds to US 2021/0189678 and US 2022/0267981) and asserts that these references indicate that the present invention is novel. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s citation on page 11 of the Remarks highlights a phrase “it is practically impossible to produce a hexagonal netting of a steel wire having the tensile strength above 700 MPa” from paragraph 8 of US 2022/0267981; however, the context of full citation clearly indicates that the reference is discussing issues with prior technology and conventional machines and how it is difficult to make hexagonal netting with a high tensile strength on those conventional machines (see how the cited paragraph begins with “the problem connected with the known machines”), and the rest of the reference describes how a hexagonal netting with a high-tensile steel wire was made by the inventor. Applicant submits that “the reason those meshes did not exist before lies in the specific mechanical properties of high-tensile steel wires that are produced by die-drawing of initially low-tensile wire rods” (Remarks, page 12) and goes on to describe the issues with the conventional manufacturing processes. In response, Examiner notes that the claimed invention is a product, not a method of manufacturing. Claim 1 does not recite particular process steps related to the Applicant’s alleged inventive solution for making hexagonal meshes out of high-tensile steel, but rather recites the structure of a hexagonal mesh made with steel wires. The prior art, including the US 2022/0267981 reference Applicant has referenced (see: figure 6 of US 2022/0267981, which clearly shows the high tensile steel wires being twisted as claimed), supports that high-tensile steel wires are physically capable of being twisted consecutively in the manner that is required by the claim, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use high-tensile steel wires to make a hexagonal wire mesh for at least the reasons described in the rejection, as high-tensile steel is a known material that has been used for making hexagonal meshes. Even if Applicant did amend the claim to recite particular process steps, MPEP 2113 states, “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Applicant further argues that Wendeler-Goeggelmann teaches a different type of netting than “hexagonal netting”, which Examiner has interpreted as an argument that Wendeler-Goeggelmann teaches non-analogous art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wendeler-Goeggelmann teaches wire netting that is intended for use for “a slope protection, a safety fence, a guard fence, a protective net against rockfall, a blocking fence, a fish farming net, a safety net against predators, a corral fence, a tunnel safeguarding, a protection from earth flows, a protection fence for motor sports, a street fence, an avalanche protection or similar” and “for power plants, factory buildings, residential buildings or other buildings, for explosion protection, bullet proofing, shielding against flying objects, fishing nets, collision protection, or similar” (column 2, lines 55-60). Applicant describes the intended use of the instant invention for “civil engineering purposes” which was defined as “purposes to be understood which comprise planning, execution performance and/or modification carried out on a construction. Examples for applications in a protection against natural hazards are the aforementioned gabions, like slope protection gabions, stone rolls, coast protection gabions or gully nets, but also cross-terrain spans, catchment fences, and the like” (instant specification, page 3, lines 22-27). Clearly, the fields of endeavor of Wendeler-Goeggelmann and the instant application overlap, as both wire nettings are used as fencing in civil engineering and construction, therefore Examiner maintains that Wendeler-Goeggelmann teaches analogous art to the instant application. See MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) which states, “("The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.’") (quoting Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001, 120 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2016))”.
Applicant further argues that a statement in US 2022/0267981 “clearly teaches away from the invention of claim 1” (Remarks, page 16). In response, Examiner notes that the cited passage does not come from any reference that was relied upon in the rejection, therefore it is not commensurate with the scope of the rejection.
Applicant further argues that “the POSITA would have considered replacing only the straight wires (5) with high-tensile steel wires while leaving the remainder of the mesh unchanged” (Remarks, page 16). Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that this is merely attorney argument that is not supported by sufficient factual evidence in the record. See MPEP 2145(I)which states, “Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.").” Applicant has provided no evidence as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified the reference as described in the rejection.
Applicant further argues that the EN 10223-3 standard does not teach the required tensile strength. In response, Examiner notes that EN 10223-3 was not relied upon to teach tensile strength; rather, it was used as an evidentiary reference to support that Vanderfaeillie teaches the claimed mesh size ratio. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues that “5x7, 6x8, 8x10 and 10x12 are only ‘mesh designations’ no average mesh-width to mesh-opening ratios” (Remarks, page 17), which appears to be arguing that EN10223-3 does not teach the 0.8 ratio as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The standard clearly lays out that the mesh designations are the “definition of the hexagonal mesh type related to typical dimension of mesh” (section 3.3 on page 5), therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the designation “8x10” is referring to a ratio of the dimensions, so an 80mm mesh size is associated with a mesh designation of 8x10 as shown in the table therefore is understood to have a ratio of 8x10 or 0.8 as claimed.
Applicant further argues that there has been a long-felt need for “high-strength hexagonal wire meshes” and that “the long-felt need still could not be solved in a way that can provide a standard mesh-width to mesh-height ratio of 0.75 and more”, and the instant invention solves that long-felt need, which is an “indication of the existence of non-obviousness” (Remarks, page 18). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the requirements for establishing long-felt need, MPEP 716.04 states, “Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution. […] First, the need must have been a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539, 152 USPQ 602, 605 (CCPA 1967)”. In the instant case, Applicant has not cited any particular sources that indicate that those of ordinary skill in the art recognized that there was a specific need for a high-tensile steel wire netting with an average mesh width/height ratio being at least 0.75, as alleged by Applicant. The US 2022/0267981 reference cited by Applicant does not include any remarks about a particular desirability or need for a high-tensile steel wire netting specifically with an average mesh width/height ratio of at least 0.75; rather, it simply teaches that the invention described in the reference has a ratio of less than 0.75. It does not state that other ratios above 0.75 were desired but could not be achieved. Therefore the reference does not constitute evidence that those of ordinary skill in the art recognized that there is a persistent need for a high-strength steel mesh with that particular ratio as claimed by Applicant. MPEP 716.04(II) further states, “Long-felt need is analyzed as of the date the problem is identified and articulated, and there is evidence of efforts to solve that problem, not as of the date of the most pertinent prior art references. Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1179, 26 USPQ2d 1018, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” In this case, Applicant has not clearly articulated the date the problem (which was described by Applicant as a need for a high-strength hexagonal wire netting with an average mesh width/height ratio being at least 0.75) was identified. Although Applicant has referenced the year 2018 in the Remarks, it is not clear whether 2018 is allegedly supposed to be the date the problem was identified because Applicant has not presented sufficient evidence of further efforts without success to solve the specific problem identified since that date. MPEP 716.01(c) also states, “Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include […] solution of a long-felt need” and Examiner notes that no such affidavit or declaration has been filed to provide objective and factual evidence in support of the statements presented in the Remarks. Therefore, Applicant’s allegation that the claimed invention solves a long-felt need has not been found persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from independent claim 1; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, claim 1 is not allowable over the prior art. The dependent claims remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein at least one average aperture angle of the hexagonal mesh…”. It is unclear what “at least one average aperture angle” is referring to. Is there more than one average aperture angle? What would be the difference between more than one average aperture angle? How would they be calculated? For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as referring to an average aperture angle, not more than one.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderfaeillie (US 3682419) in view of Wendeler-Goeggelmann (US 2018/0214929) and as evidenced by “Steel wire and wire products for fencing and netting: Part 3: Hexagonal steel wire mesh products for civil engineering purposes” (English version provided with Office action mailed 7/30/2025), hereinafter “EN 10223-3”, and Von Allmen (US 2018/0195284).
Regarding claim 1, Vanderfaeillie discloses: A hexagonal netting made of wires with honeycomb-shaped hexagonal meshes (“a wire mesh consisting of hexagonal meshes” abstract , line 1; see figures 1 and 2), wherein the wires are alternatingly twisted with neighboring wires (“a wire mesh consisting of conventional hexagonal meshes wherein each wire 1 is twisted at 2 with the adjacent wires 1a from the left and 1b from the right, alternatively” column 2, lines 42-46), each hexagonal mesh of the honeycomb-shaped hexagonal meshes having a mesh height and a mesh width, wherein the mesh width is a distance between two twisted regions which delimit a hexagonal mesh, which extend at least substantially parallel to each other and which are situated on opposite sides of the hexagonal mesh, wherein the mesh height is a distance between two corners of the hexagonal mesh which are situated opposite each other in a direction parallel to a main extension direction of a twisted region of the two twisted regions (see figures 1 and 2; each hexagonal mesh necessarily has a mesh height and mesh width that can be defined as claimed), wherein each twisted region of the two twisted regions delimiting the hexagonal mesh of the honeycomb-shaped hexagonal meshes comprises three or more consecutive twistings with each twisting comprising a 180° winding of one of the steel wires around a further one of the steel wires (see figures 2 and 4 of Vanderfaeillie, showing that there are 5 consecutive twistings).
Vanderfaeillie discloses that the mesh size is 80 mm (“meshes of 80 mm” column 3, line 32), but does not explicitly teach: wherein an average ratio calculated from an average mesh width of the honeycomb-shaped hexagonal meshes and an average mesh height of the honeycomb-shaped hexagonal meshes, measured perpendicularly to the mesh width, is at least 0.8.
However, according to table 2 of EN 10223-3, a mesh size of 80 corresponds to a mesh designation of 8x10; therefore, it is understood as evidenced by EN 1022303 that the dimensions of the mesh are designated by a ratio of 8x10, or 80mm (width) by 100mm (height), therefore the claimed ratio of width to height is 0.8, and the claim limitation is satisfied.
Vanderfaeillie does not explicitly disclose: wherein the wires are formed from a high- tensile steel or at least have a wire core made of a high-tensile steel and wherein the high-tensile steel of the steel wires has a tensile strength of at least 1,560 N/mm2.
However, Wendeler-Goeggelmann teaches a wire netting made of high-tensile steel (“the wire is at least partially, in particular entirely except for a coating, made of high-tensile steel” paragraph 16) with a tensile strength of at least 1560 N/mm2 ( “the wire may have a tensile strength of […] “at least 2000N/mm2” paragraph 16).
Wendeler-Goeggelmann teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of high tensile steel wire netting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the wires of Vanderfaeillie specifically out of the high-tensile steel as taught by Wendeler-Goeggelmann in order to gain “a high load-bearing capacity, in particular a high tensile strength and/or a high rigidity […] transversely to the mesh” (Wendeler-Goeggelmann, paragraph 16) which will improve the strength and security of the netting. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07. Examiner notes that, as evidenced by Von Allmen which states “the longitudinal elements and/or the transverse elements are made at least partly of high-tensile steel, preferably with a strength of 700 N mm-2 to 2800 N mm-2” (paragraph 13) and shows those longitudinal and transverse elements in a twisted/wound configuration in figure 8 (see also paragraph 48), high-tensile steel wires like the ones in the presently modified Vanderfaeillie are clearly capable of being twisted/wound around one another as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Vanderfaeillie as modified discloses: The hexagonal netting according to claim 1, wherein the tensile strength of the high-tensile steel of the steel wires is at least 1,700 N/mm2 (Wendeler-Goeggelmann, “the wire may have a tensile strength of […] “at least 2000N/mm2” paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 3, Vanderfaeillie as modified discloses: The hexagonal netting according to claim 1, wherein an average length of a twisted region delimiting the hexagonal mesh is at least 30 % of the average mesh height (see figures 1 and 2 of Vanderfaeillie, figure 2 annotated below, showing that the length of a twisted region is at least 30% of the mesh height).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Vanderfaeillie as modified discloses: The hexagonal netting according to claim 1, wherein an average length of a twisted region delimiting a hexagonal mesh is at least 50 % of the average mesh width (see figures 1 and 2 of Vanderfaeillie, figure 2 annotated below, showing that the length of a twisted region is at least 50% of the mesh width).
PNG
media_image2.png
266
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Vanderfaeillie, with one hexagonal mesh rotated 90 degrees and overlaid on top of another, and the length of the twisted region highlighted to show the comparison between the length of the twisted region and the mesh width
Regarding claim 7, as best understood by Examiner, Vanderfaeillie as modified discloses: The hexagonal netting according to claim 1, wherein at least one average aperture angle of the hexagonal mesh, spanning the hexagonal mesh in a longitudinal direction, is at least 70°, wherein the longitudinal direction of the hexagonal mesh runs parallel to the main extension direction (see figures 1 and 2 of Vanderfaeillie, figure 2 annotated below, showing that the claimed aperture angle of the hexagonal mesh is clearly above 70 degrees as the angle is obtuse).
PNG
media_image3.png
249
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 of Vanderfaeillie, highlighting the claimed aperture angle and showing a square (which has 90 degree corners) for comparison of the angles to demonstrate that the aperture angle is greater than 90 degrees
Regarding claim 8, The hexagonal netting according to claim 1, wherein the average mesh width of the honeycomb-shaped hexagonal meshes is approximately 60 mm, approximately 80 mm or approximately 100 mm (Vanderfaeillie, “meshes of 80 mm” column 3, line 32).
Regarding claim 9, Vanderfaeillie as modified discloses: The hexagonal netting according to claim 1, wherein the high- tensile steel of the steel wires is implemented of a stainless type of steel or at least has a sheath of the stainless type of steel (Wendeler-Goeggelmann, “the wire is […] in particular a stainless-steel wire” paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 10, Vanderfaeillie as modified discloses: The hexagonal netting according to claim 1, wherein the steel wires have a corrosion protection coating or a corrosion protection overlay (Wendeler-Goeggelmann, “the wire has preferably a coating, in particular corrosion-resistant” paragraph 7).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderfaeillie/Wendeler-Goeggelmann/“EN 10223-3”/Von Allmen in view of Scarles (US 0502470 A).
Regarding claim 5, Vanderfaeillie does not explicitly disclose: The hexagonal netting according to claim 1, wherein an average length of a twisting within the twisted region delimiting the hexagonal mesh is less than 1.1 cm.
However, Scarles teaches that the length of a twisting is a result-effective variable that depends on the particular size and shape of meshes desired (“Twists of any desired length may be employed and may be unequal, if desired, and the form or proportions of the meshes may be varied in numerous manners by proper manipulation of the frames and segments” page 1, line 102-page 2, line 2). Scarles teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of hexagonal wire nettings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the length of a twisting of Vanderfaeillie specifically less than 1.1cm because, as taught by Scarles, the length of a twisting is a result-effective variable that depends on the desired size and proportion of the mesh. Further, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderfaeillie/Wendeler-Goeggelmann/“EN 10223-3”/Von Allmen in view of “Non-ferrous metallic coatings on steel wire: Part 2: Zinc or zinc alloy coatings”, an English translation of which was provided by Applicant with the IDS filed 10/6/2023, hereinafter “EN 10244-2”.
Regarding claim 11, while Vanderfaeillie as modified does disclose the use of zinc coatings as the corrosion-resistant coating (see Wendeler-Goeggelmann, paragraph 7, which states “the wire has preferably a coating, in particular corrosion-resistant, […] such as a zinc coating”), it does not explicitly disclose: wherein the corrosion protection coating is realized at least as class A corrosion protection coating according to standard DIN EN 10244-2:2001-07.
However, EN 10244-2 teaches standards for zinc and zinc alloy coatings on steel wire (see Table 2). EN 10244-2 teaches art pertinent to the problem faced by Applicant regarding how to construct a steel wire netting that complies with industry standards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the zinc coating of Vanderfaeillie as modified specifically compliant with the class A corrosion protection standard outlined in EN 10244-2 in order to ensure that the final product can be used in industry because it satisfies all industrial requirements, which will improve the safety and overall reliability of the product.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732