DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-5, 12a and 13, drawn to an assembly.
Group II, claims 6-11 and 12b, drawn to an assembly.
Note that because claim 12 recites both groups as alternates, only the recitations of the elected group have been examined on the merits.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. Group I requires, for example, a ratchet or winch mechanism, which is not required by Group II. Group II requires expandable plugs, for example, which is not required by Group I. The Groups are patentably distinct and the searches for these different features are distinct and non-overlapping; therefore, searches and consideration for both groups would be a serious burden in examination.
During a telephone conversation with Edward Yoo (Reg. 41,435) on 5 January 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-5, 12(a), 13 and 14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6-11, as well as part b of claim 12, are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 30 October 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but one reference referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is a run-on type sentence and the discussion of the non-elected invention should be deleted, since this has been withdrawn without traverse. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim must depend from other claims in the alternative (“or”) only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 5 has not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claims 3-4 are 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.
Claim 3 recites “may comprise” in lines 2-3. This recitation denotes the remainder of the claim as optional only, in which case it is not only not clear if applicant intends for the recitations to be positively recited, but also the claim in its broadest form does not further limit the parent claim.
Claim 4 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 12a, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLeod (U.S. Patent 5,118,542) in view of Knight et al. (U.S. Patent 4,566,821).
McLeod discloses an assembly of panels (12), each of which has first and second edge forming a corner (not labeled). In embodiments with spacers (13) removed (Figures 6 and 7, for example), the corners abut each other (at 22). Each corner defines a channel (15) between first and second edges (Figure 4, for example).
There is a rope (14) passing through the corner channel of each abutting panel (12).and each end of the cable is secured (knotted end at left-most lead line 14, Figure 3, for example). Regarding the rope, there is no patentable distinction among various types of flexible elongate members (ropes, cables, chains, wires, etc.), as these are obvious variants to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any type of flexible elongate member in order secure the panels in a particular environment.
The cable is shorted to retain the panels (column 2, lines 56-57, for example).
McLeod is silent regarding a means for shortening the effective length (pulling) of the cable. Knight teaches a winch to be a suitable means for tensioning flexible elongate members (column 3, lines 24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a winch with McLeod in order to tension the cable, since Knight teaches this to be an effective means for tensioning.
Regarding claim 2, each panel has a quadrilateral shape.
Claim 3 is met only because, as discussed in the 112 rejection, above, the recitations therein are optional only and not positively recited.
Claims 1-3, 12a, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaaf (U.S. Patent 4,664,552) in view of Knight et al. (U.S. Patent 4,566,821).
Schaaf discloses an assembly of mats (12), each of which has first and second edge forming a corner (not labeled). The corners abut each other (Figure 3, for example). Each corner defines a channel between first and second edges (Figure 5, for example). There is a cable (14) passing through the corner channel of each abutting mat (12).and each end of the cable is secured (at 33, Figure 3, for example). Schaaf is silent regarding shortening the effective length; however, given the loose arrangement in Figure 3, it is clear this is necessary in order to obtain the final arrangement as shown in Figure 1. Schaaf does not teach a means for effecting the arrangement of Figure 1. Knight teaches a winch to be a suitable means for tensioning flexible elongate members (column 3, lines 24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a winch with Schaaf in order to pull the mat elements together, since Knight teaches this to be an effective means for pulling elements together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach mat/panel assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Thomas Will can be reached at 571272-6998. 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671