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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 8/4/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus of claim 11 and method of claim 12 requires additional structural searches, and the method of claim 14 requires the creation of channels which is not a feature of claim 1. Therefore there is a search burden beyond claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is the movable fixation means.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification at page 13, lines 23-29 and page 15, lines 11-15 describe a moveable fixation means.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piantoni et al (U.S. PGPub 2017/0312139; already of record, herein Piantoni), in view of Toney et al (U.S. Patent 6,098,249; herein Toney). Regarding claim 1, Piantoni teaches:
A grid structure (Figure 6, 7, and 10-16, grid supporting structure 10) comprising a first set of grid members (elements 12) and a second set of grid members (elements 13), each set of grid members comprising a plurality of plates (as seen in Figure 6, 7, and 10-16 the elements 12/13 are plates), each plate comprising a plurality of slits (comb shaped cuts 14 and 15), wherein the plates of the first set of grid members are configured to be wedged into the plates of the second set of grid members via said slits thereby forming said grid structure comprising an upper surface, a lower surface and four lateral surfaces (As seen in Figure 7)
A supporting frame encasing said grid structure (Figures 6 and 17-19, stabilizing frame 19), said supporting frame comprising a first set of frame elements (elements 22) forming two opposite longitudinal walls (As seen in Figures 6 and 17) of the supporting frame and a second set of frame elements (elements 20) forming two opposite transversal walls of the supporting frame; wherein each longitudinal walls comprises a plurality of slots (slots 25) configured to receive the extremities of the plates of a first or second set of grid members (As seen in Figures 6 and 17) and/or each transversal walls comprises a plurality of slots (slots 24) configured to receive the extremities of the plates of a second or first set of grid members (As seen in Figures 6 and 17)
A mesh substrate arranged on said upper surface of the grid structure (paragraphs 0043-0044, the external forming substrate is seen as a mesh)
Piantoni is silent to:
An insert arranged on the upper surface of the mesh substrate, wherein the insert is coupled to the grid structure via movable fixation means
In the same field of endeavor Toney teaches a foraminous support layer 8 (i.e. a mesh substrate) in Figure 3. On top of this support layer there is a forming screen 7 which is supported by the layer 8 (Abstract and Figure 3), and on top of the screen 7 is a top plate 6. The forming screen 7 is seen as the insert arranged on the upper surface of a mesh substrate. The screen 7, and layer 8 are coupled to louvers 10 and rails 12/13 by screws and the top plate 6 (Figure 3 and column 4, lines 6-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the additional screen on top of a mesh, as taught by Toney, since doing so supports the screen thus keeping the desired profile (Toney: Abstract and column 4, lines 6-26).
Regarding claim 2, Toney further teaches:
Wherein the movable fixation means are arranged on at least one plate of the first and/or second set of grid members
Since the louvers 10 of Toney extend into the rail 13, and the screws holding down the screen 7 apply force to the portion of the louvers in the rail, then the fixation means is arranged as claimed. Additionally, the top plate 6 which as previously discussed is part of the fixation means is also arranged on the louvers 10, which are directly related to the grid of Piantoni.
Regarding 3:
Wherein the movable fixation means comprise a threaded fastening in which the insert comprises a threaded hole and the grid structure comprises a threaded screw or in which the insert comprises a threaded screw and the grid structure comprises a threaded nut or in which the insert and grid structure both comprise a threaded hole and a stud bolt threaded at each extremities said bolt engaging both insert and grid structure or in which the insert and grid structure both comprise a threaded screw with a stud bolt comprising threaded cavities at each extremities said bolt engaging both insert and grid structure
Neither Piantoni or Toney explicitly teach the four possible structures of claim 3. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have one such arrangement, since It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)
In this instance the four possible choices in claim 3 are essentially the basic four possible choices for attaching something with a screw, thus one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to decide which is the best manner in which to connect two things with a screw based on the available structure and screw connection from the combination of Piantoni and Toney.
Regarding claim 8:
Wherein the forming pocket comprises a masking component arranged on the upper surface of the mesh substrate, said masking component being attached to the supporting frame and/or grid structure via additional fixation means
The previously discussed top plates 6 of Toney can be the masking component as claimed.
Regarding claim 9:
Wherein the mesh substrate comprises a portion extending partially along at least one transversal wall of the supporting frame, said supporting frame comprising a recessed area to receive said portion and/or a closing mean to secure said portion to said transversal wall
The mesh of Piantoni would have such a portion, but Piantoni does not state how the mesh is attached.
In the same field of endeavor Toney teaches attaching a mesh to a transversal wall (end rails 12) via screws (As seen in Figures 3A and 3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the screws to secure the mesh, since doing so secure the mesh in a desired configuration.
Regarding claim 10:
The manner in which the elements 12 and 13 are attached to the elements 20 and 22 of the frame 19 is the same as claimed, as seen in Figure 6, 7, and 10-19.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piantoni and Toney as applied above, and further in view of Lim (KR 20160041371; with machine translation). Regarding claim 7:
Wherein each frame element of the first set of frame elements comprises four walls defining a tube with two longitudinal walls and the second set of frame elements defines two transversal walls
Piantoni teaches a frame 19 but not as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor Lim teaches a frame where the two longitudinal walls are made from tubes, as claimed, as seem in in Figure 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed have the tube sides of Lim in the same style frame of Piantoni, since it has been held that the configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed configuration was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). In this instance the prior art shows a single wall frame and double wall frame for the same purpose, thus a skilled artisan would have been able to decide the needed number of frame pieces in order to arrive at a workable frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach flanges for attaching the fixing means, that opening for the flanges in the grid components, or that the fixing means comprises flanges per claims 4, 5, and 6.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “32” has been used to designate both “first set of frame elements” and “two longitudinal walls”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-6pm. Direct Fax 571-270-8068.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743