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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 5/26/2026, claims 1 and 7 are amended. Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 13-15 and 17 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 7-11 are presented for examination on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Scarles does not specifically disclose the twist length being less than 1.1 cm, so one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to change the twist length to less than 1.1 cm. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection, Scarles explicitly teaches that the length of a twisting in a hexagonal wire netting is a result-effective variable that depends on the desired shape and size of the mesh. Applicant has not provided an argument or evidence that the twist length is not a result-effective variable that depends on the desired shape and size of the mesh as described in the rejection. Applicant also argues that Scarles does not teach “selecting a length of the twisting delimiting hexagonal meshes”, to which Examiner respectfully disagrees. Scarles explicitly teaches hexagonal meshes, and one of ordinary skill in the art can readily recognize that the disclosure in Scarles of selecting the length of the twisting as desired clearly applies to hexagonal meshes, regardless of the material of the wires since the disclosure is not limited to any specific material.
Applicant further appears to argue that Scarles is from “diverse prior arts” (Remarks, page 11), which appears to be an argument that Scarles does not teach analogous art to the instant application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Scarles teaches a wire netting with hexagonal meshes, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, thus making it analogous art. Applicant’s argument that the prior art must describe “a purely hexagonal mesh structure made of high-tensile steel” is not persuasive as the field of endeavor should not be narrowed to the specific point of novelty or invention explored by the Applicant, but rather should include all areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that similar problems exist, according to MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) ("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.’") and MPEP 2141/01(a)(IV) ("In a simple mechanical invention a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist.”).
Applicant further argues that there would be no reasonable expectation of success due to “significant technical challenges posed by the use of high-tensile steel” (Remarks, page 11). To support this argument, Applicant relies on a “dissertation by Ma (‘Prediction of springback for ultra-high strength steel sheets,’ 2013”. Examiner notes that no document with that title and author has been submitted in the application file, so its contents/teachings cannot be verified or determined and any argument regarding that document is merely attorney argument that is not supported by sufficient evidence in the record (see MPEP 2145(I)).
Applicant further argues that the specific twist length as claimed is critical and produces new and unexpected results, citing page 6 of the instant specification in support. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The citation in full reads, “It is also proposed that a length, in particular an average length, of a twisting within a twisted region delimiting a hexagonal mesh is less than 1.1 cm, preferably less than 1 cm, preferably with a diameter of the steel wires between 2 mm and 4 mm. This advantageously allows keeping a mesh height in a desired range without requiring too large entry curvatures and/or exit curvatures in a transition into/from the twisted region from/into the non-twisted region delimiting the hexagonal mesh. Advantageously, in this way and in particular together with the aforementioned minimum length of the twisted region, an especially favorable balance is achievable of a material-friendly winding curvature and material-friendly entry and exit curvatures, thus in particular enabling a high level of overall stability and/or overall rupture-resistance of the steel wire netting” (instant specification, page 6, lines 9-19, emphasis added). The context of this portion of the description makes it clear that the length of the twisting is not the only factor that contributes to any alleged criticality or unexpected results. The phrase “in this way and in particular together with the aforementioned minimum length of the twisted region” suggests that the length of a twisting is not the only factor, or even the most important factor contributing to the described results. The specific diameter of the steel wire mesh as well as the length of the twisted region as a whole are also required in order to achieve those results. Therefore, since the diameter of the wires and the length of the twisted region are not specified in claim 1, the argument that the specific length of the twisting alone has criticality is unpersuasive in light of the disclosure.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from 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 § 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 Scarles (US 0502470 A), 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 exactly three consecutive twistings with each twisting comprising a 180° winding of one of the steel wires around a further one of the steel wires (“the invention consists in an novel structure of wire mesh with hexagonal meshes, triple twisted” column 1, lines 40-41; triple-twisted hexagonal mesh is a known type of hexagonal mesh in the art, see for example paragraph 2 of Ferraiolo (US 2012/0205496) stating “A number of typologies of containment and protection metal nettings are known, such as, for example, loose mesh nettings, electrowelded nettings, and single, double or triple twisted hexagonal mesh nettings”, and therefore the disclosure of “triple-twisted” hexagonal mesh is understood to disclose exactly three consecutive twistings as claimed)
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.
Vanderfaeillie does not explicitly disclose: 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).
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, Vanderfaeillie as modified discloses: The hexagonal netting according to claim 1, wherein an 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) 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
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
Prosecution Insights