DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 6 February 2026
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are pending;
Claim 1 is currently amended;
Claims 2-4 and 6-11 were previously presented;
Claim 5 is cancelled;
Claims 12 and 13 are new
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6 February 2026 have been fully considered. Regarding applicant’s argument about Santorum not disclosing the folding in the middle, examiner understand applicant’s argument but examiner is interpreting “middle” broadly, as a middle portion or middle area, under the broadest reasonable interpretation as shown in annotated Figure A below. Examiner suggests using “formed as a lock foldable at the centerline of the coupling element” to fully make clear that it is along a line at the very center of the coupling element. This would prevent examiner from interpreting the prior art as shown in annotated Figure A. Furthermore, “for opening”, which is given as an alternative, is broad enough to read on Figure 2. The way the coupling element is positioned when element 2 is positioned on the right of Figure 2, also shown in annotated Figure A, can be interpreted as a closed position. The way the coupling element is positioned when element 2 is positioned on the left of Figure 2, also shown in annotated Figure A, can be interpreted as an open position. Therefore, “for opening” also reads on the prior art since the hinge 15 allows the coupling element to open. Additionally, “a hinge part of the anchor rod” is claimed in the alternative so the element does not need to be present. Regarding the “lock”, the coupling element 5 include locking means 18 as part of its structure. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the element can be interpreted as a lock. Regarding “all directions”, it is unclear how it is possible that the anchor rod can move in “all directions” when the element is attached to the coupling element. It is not possible to “move” in “all directions” since the element is constrained by being attached to the coupling element which prevents certain types of movements and certain angles. A 112 rejection is being placed and in terms of prior art the term is being interpreted as best understood.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Coupling element (Santorum)
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim starts with “Element” when it should be “An element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4 and 6-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims start with “Element” when it should be “The element”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-13 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.
As to Claim 1, the claim recites “by means of” and “hinge receiving means”. It is unclear if applicant intends to invoke 112(f). The specification does not provide the specific structure defining the means and uses examples to define them. Therefore, the claim must be amended to remove “means” language and instead claim the specific structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “wherein, for an assembly and opening and for closing of a hinge receiving means for a hinge joint or a hinge part of the anchor rod”. The way the limitation is written is confusing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “all directions”. It is unclear how it is possible that the anchor rod can move in “all directions” when the element is attached to the coupling element. It is not possible to “move” in “all directions” since the element is constrained by being attached to the coupling element which prevents certain types of movements and certain angles. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claims 9 and 10, the claims recite “receiving means”. It is unclear if applicant intends to invoke 112(f). The specification does not provide the specific structure defining the means and uses examples to define them. Therefore, the claim must be amended to remove “means” language and instead claim the specific structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the opening or receiving means” but there is no “opening or receiving means” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 11, the claim recites “with means for”. It is unclear if applicant intends to invoke 112(f). The specification does not provide the specific structure defining the means and uses examples to define them. Therefore, the claim must be amended to remove “means” language and instead claim the specific structure. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claims 12 and 13, the claims recite “hinge receiving means”. It is unclear if applicant intends to invoke 112(f). The specification does not provide the specific structure defining the means and uses examples to define them. Therefore, the claim must be amended to remove “means” language and instead claim the specific structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Santorum et al (W.I.P.O. International Publication No. 2011/117790).
As to Claim 1, Santorum discloses an element for slope protection (Figure 1), with an essentially cross-shaped strut part (3) in the form of a structure of a plurality of struts (2) joined with one another (at 5), the structure spanning a plane (Figure 1), with a planar retainer (8) fixed at the strut part, and with an anchor rod (4) or anchor element protruding backwards essentially perpendicular to the retainer (8) and to the strut part (3), which is fixed to the strut part (at 5), wherein between a free end of the anchor rod and the struts retaining cables (12) are provided respectively for tensioning of the anchor rod at a predetermined specific angle to the plane of the retainer (8), wherein at the strut part a central coupling element (5) is provided, at which the struts by means of one of their ends are fixed releasably and/or displaceably in relation to one another respectively, and that the anchor rod (4) at the coupling element (5) is mounted movably in particular in all directions for the adjustment of a mounting angle in relation to the plane of the retainer (8), and wherein, for an assembly and opening and for closing of a hinge receiving means for a hinge joint or a hinge part of the anchor rod, the coupling element (5) is: formed as a lock foldable at the middle (Figure 2 and Annotated Figure A) or formed for opening (The coupling element opens via hinge 15 in Figure 2; Annotated Figure A).
As to Claim 2, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Santorum also discloses wherein the planar retainer (8) is a wire mesh or a net.
As to Claim 3, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Santorum also discloses wherein the coupling element (5) comprises a folding hinge (Figure 2).
As to Claim 4, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Santorum also discloses wherein the coupling element has a central opening (Opening of 10 receiving 4), recess or bore for swivelably (The rod can be rotated while inserting it within the opening) receiving a hinge part (Portion of 4 within 10) of the anchor rod.
As to Claim 6, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Santorum also discloses wherein the struts (2) each have a plurality of fixing places (at 13) for retaining cables (12).
As to Claim 7, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Santorum also discloses wherein releasable fixings (15) for the struts (2) are provided at the coupling element (5).
As to Claim 8, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Santorum also discloses wherein variably adjustable fixings (16) for the struts (2) are provided at the coupling element (5) at the angle of the struts.
As to Claim 9, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Santorum also discloses wherein a receiving means (10) configured to the shape of a hinge part for a correspondingly-shaped hinge part (Portion of 4 within 10) of the anchor rod (4) is provided in the coupling element (5).
As to Claim 12, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Santorum also discloses wherein, for the assembly and opening and for closing of the hinge receiving means for the hinge joint or the hinge part of the anchor rod, the coupling element is formed as the lock foldable at the middle (Figure 2 and Annotated Figure A).
As to Claim 13, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Santorum also discloses wherein, for the assembly and opening and for closing of the hinge receiving means for the hinge joint or the hinge part of the anchor rod, the coupling element is formed for opening (The coupling element opens via hinge 15 in Figure 2).
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.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santorum et al (W.I.P.O. International Publication No. 2011/117790) in view of Santorum (Italy Patent Publication No. ITBZ20060030) “Santotum ITB”.
As to Claim 10, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 4 (Refer to Claim 4 discussion). However, Santorum is silent about wherein the opening or receiving means for the hinge part can be opened by a folding hinge fixable with screw connections, for inserting the anchor rod. Santorum ITB discloses wherein opening or receiving means (5m) for the hinge part can be opened by a folding hinge (5n) fixable (“fixable” only requires capability) with screw connections, for inserting the anchor rod (3). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the opening or receiving means for the hinge part opened by a folding hinge fixable with screw connections, for inserting the anchor rod. The motivation would have been to cover the hollow passage to avoid the entry of debris.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santorum et al (W.I.P.O. International Publication No. 2011/117790) in view of Lattisi et al (W.I.P.O. International Publication No. 1997/037085).
As to Claim 11, Santorum discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Santorum is silent about wherein the retaining cables are provided with means for variably adjusting the effective length or for tensioning. Lattisi discloses wherein retaining cables (7) are provided with means (7a) for variably adjusting the effective length or for tensioning. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the retaining cables with means for variably adjusting the effective length or for tensioning. The motivation would have been to accommodate different sizes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM EST.
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, AMBER ANDERSON can be reached at (571) 270-5281. 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678