DETAILED ACTION
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 23 is 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 23 recites the limitation "the a first horizontal line” and “the second horizontal line". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1-4, 7-15, 18-20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (GB 2418701) in view of Persson (U.S. 20210254354) or Ritter et al. (U.S. 6,705,055).
In re Claims 1, 2, and 13 Harris teaches A barrier that defines a horizontal direction H, a vertical direction V that is orthogonal to the horizontal direction H, and a transverse direction T that is orthogonal to the horizontal direction H and the vertical direction V, wherein the barrier comprises: a plurality of first wires that each extend in the horizontal direction H; and a plurality of second wires that each have a first portion that extends in the vertical direction V and a second portion that extends in a direction orthogonal to vertical direction V and at an angle between horizontal direction H and transverse direction T, wherein the second portions of each of the plurality of second wires collectively define a midline that extends in the horizontal direction H and substantially bisects the second portions of the plurality of second wires. At least one of the plurality of first wires is coupled to the plurality of second wires. (Description, Figures 1 and 2, Annotated Figures)
PNG
media_image1.png
638
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Harris does not teach that the second portions of each of the plurality of second wires collectively form a zig-zag pattern along the midline.
Ritter teaches abuilding panel with a mesh (1,2) and a zigzag pattern (7,7’) occurs in the transverse and horizontal directions along the top section of the barrier (Figures 1-21)
Persson teaches a mesh panel where a zigzag pattern occurs in the transverse and horizontal directions along the top section of the barrier (Figures 1-3)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to modify the second portions of the second wire to the angled to form a zigzag pattern. In the combination, this would extend along the midline. The zigzag pattern would serve to stiffen the upper edge of the mesh. Triangular zig zag patterns promote rigidity.
Harris modified by Persson has been previously discussed. Harris teaches second wire with bends near first wires. (Annotated Figure) Persson teaches second wires (23b) that also have bends at that occur near first wires (12a,21a’). For both references these second portions can be considered as being connected to the bend all along the extent of the barrier. Bends involve some degree of curvature so they could be considered curved portions. However, should the applicant dispute this, having a more gradual bend, and therefore a large curved portion, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. A more gradual curvature would reduce stress concentrations at the bend. Given the proximity of second wires to these bends/curved portions, each curved portion would be coupled to at least one first wire.
In re Claims 3 and 14, Harris modified by Persson or Ritter has been previously discussed. The combination teaches the midline defines a proximal portion for each of the second portions of the plurality of second wires and a distal portion for each of the second portions of the plurality of second wires, and wherein at least one of the plurality of first wires is coupled to the distal portions of each of the second portions of the plurality of second wires.
In re Claim 4 and 15, Harris modified by Persson or Ritter has been previously discussed but do not specifically teach that the second wire second portions extend within 45 degree of the transvers direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second wire second portions to extend within 45 degree of the transvers direction since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This angle would allow for a diagonal bracing that would stiffen the top edge of the barrier
In re Claims 7 and 18, Harris modified by Persson or Ritter has been previously discussed. Harris teaches at least one of the plurality of first wires is coupled to the first portions of the plurality of second wires at a location proximate to the second portions of the plurality of second wires. (Annotated Figures, Figure 1,2)
In re Claim 8 and 19, Harris modified by Persson has been previously discussed. The angled Harris second wire second portions taught by the combination will be a zig-zag pattern that is formed by the second portions of the plurality of second wires being alternately angled towards opposite horizontal directions. (Harris annotated Figure, Persson Figures 1-3)
In re Claim 9 and 20, Harris modified by Persson or Ritter has been previously discussed. Harris teaches that each of the plurality of second wires have a third portion that extends in a direction opposite to the transverse direction T from which the second portions of the plurality of second wires are angled based on, and wherein the first portions of each of the plurality of second wires are positioned between the second portions and the third portions. This third section/lower edge of the mesh is formed at an angle 30-90 degree from the vertical plane and is pointed in the opposite direction of the second wire second portion. (Annotated Figures, Description)
In re Claim 10 and 11, Harris modified by Persson or Ritter has been previously discussed. Harris teaches a sheet comprising a first section extending in the vertical direction V and the horizontal direction H is coupled to at least a sub-portion of each of the first portions of the plurality of second wires. (Annotated Figures)
Figure 4 of Persson teaches a sheet (50) comprising a first section arranged at the lower part of the main portion (20) that extends in the vertical direction V and the horizontal direction H is Therefore the first section is coupled to at least a sub-portion/bottom of each of the first portions of the plurality of second wires.
Harris teaches that the sheet further comprises a second section extending in the horizontal direction H and the transverse direction T, and wherein the second section of the sheet is coupled/connected to each of the third portions of the plurality of second wires. The examiner notes that in the Description, Harris teaches that the lower edge/third portion will form and angle 30-90 degrees to the vertical plane even though Figures 1 and 2 show a single angle configuration. Therefore, the second section of the sheet will can also extend along the transverse axis
Persson teaches that the sheet (50) is a folded toe plate further comprises a second section that is arranged at the bottom portion (30) to enclose bend 70 seen in Figure 1. This second section would therefore extend in the horizontal direction H and the transverse direction T. The second section of the sheet is coupled/connected to each of the third portions of the plurality of second wires. (Paragraph 0037, Figures 1-4)
In re Claim 12, Harris modified by Persson or Ritter has been previously discussed. Persson teaches a bar (23b’,23b”), wherein the bar comprises a vertical portion that extends in the vertical direction V and a transverse portion that extends in the transverse direction T. In the Harris/Persson combination, the vertical portion of the bar is parallel to the first portions of the plurality of second wires, the transverse portion of the bar is substantially bisected by the midline, and the bar is coupled to the plurality of first wires. (Annotated Figures)
PNG
media_image2.png
491
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 21, Harris modified by Persson or Ritter has been previously discussed. Ritter teaches that distal ends of the second wires (7,7’) collectively forming the zig-zag pattern are decoupled from each other. (Figures 3,4,5,10)
In the combination this will result in the distal ends of the second portions of each of the plurality of second wires collectively forming the zig-zag pattern are decoupled from each other.
In re Claims 22 and 23, Harris modified by Persson or Ritter has been previously discussed. The combination teaches the midline defines a proximal portion for each of the second portions of the plurality of second wires and a distal portion for each of the second portions of the plurality of second wires, and wherein a first horizontal wire of the plurality of first wires is coupled/connected to the distal portions of each of the second portions of the plurality of second wires and a second horizontal wire of the plurality of first wires is coupled/connected to the proximal portions of each of the second portions of the plurality of second wires. In the combination, the first horizontal wire and the second horizontal wire are disposed on a shared transverse plane. (Annotated Figures)
PNG
media_image1.png
638
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
496
591
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that there is no rationale to modify Harris with the teachings of Persson and that the combination fails to disclose the amended claim language. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to modify the second portions of the second wire to be angled to form a zigzag pattern. The zigzag pattern would serve to stiffen the upper edge of the mesh. Triangular zig zag patterns promote rigidity.
In addition, as was noted, Harris teaches second wire with bends near first wires. (Annotated Figure) Persson teaches second wires (23b) that also have bends at that occur near first wires (12a,21a’). For both references these second portions can be considered as being connected to the bend all along the extent of the barrier. Bends involve some degree of curvature so they could be considered curved portions. However, should the applicant dispute this, having a more gradual bend, and therefore a large curved portion, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. A more gradual curvature would reduce stress concentrations at the bend. Given the proximity of second wires to these bends/curved portions, each curved portion would be coupled/connected to at least one first wire.
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/17/26 with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view the amended claim language requiring a new ground(s) of rejection based on the Ritter reference.
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 ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights