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 . 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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
form rings, as set forth in claim 3, line 3,
one or more rings, as set forth in claim 11, line 2,
elongate reinforcement elements superimposed on or interlaced with the net, as set forth in claim 12, lines 3-4,
double torsion nodes, with one or more resilient reinforcement elements, as set forth in claim 13, lines 3-4,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(i) for failing to separate claim elements by line indentation. See at least claims 1 and 10. 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.
Claim 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the superelastic portion" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; a superelastic portion is not previous recited in the claim(s).
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, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-84626 (Hashiguchi; the citation of which is taken from the attached translation) in view of CN 210086126 (Liu; the citation of which is taken from the attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hashiguchi discloses a protection structure (1) for civil works (see Figures 1-6) comprising at least one metal protection net (6), comprising a plurality of elongate resistant elements (4, 5, wire mesh of 6, 20, 50, 51) in the form of wire, rope or cable (see paragraphs [0033]-[0034]), but does not expressly disclose at least some of the plurality of elongate resistant elements are made from a material having superelastic behaviour.
Liu teaches forming elongate resistant elements (at 1) from a material having superelastic behaviour in order to form a protection structure that has good shape memory effect, superelasticity and high damping characteristics, such that the protection structure can withstand higher forces (see paragraph [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protection structure of Hashiguchi such that at least some of the plurality of elongate resistant elements are made from a material having superelastic behaviour, as taught in Liu, in order to form a protection structure that has good shape memory effect, superelasticity and high damping characteristics, such that the protection structure can withstand higher forces.
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the elongate resistant elements (1) having superelastic behaviour are wires of the metal protection net (see Figure and paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu teaches the elongate resistant elements (4, 5, wire mesh of 6, 20 of Hashiguchi; at 1 of Liu) having superelastic behaviour (taught by Liu) are ropes arranged in an interlaced or woven manner with respect to the metal protection net (6 of Hashiguchi; 1 of Liu).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu teaches the elongate resistant elements (4, 5, 20 of Hashiguchi; at 1 of Liu) having superelastic behaviour (taught by Liu) are portions of cables or ropes for anchoring the protection structure to the ground (see Figure 1 of Hashiguchi).
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches (see paragraph [0027]) the material having superelastic behaviour is selected from the group comprising metal alloys of copper/zinc/aluminium (Cu-Zn-Al), copper/aluminium/nickel (Cu-Al-Ni), iron/manganese/silicon (Fe-Mn-Si) and titanium/nickel (Ti-Ni).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu teaches at least one of the plurality of elongate resistant elements (50, 51 Hashiguchi) in the form of wire, rope or cable comprises a resilient segment made from material having superelastic behaviour (taught by Liu), a resistant portion of wire, rope or cable being initially arranged to be loose and beside the portion or part in order to be expanded while the resilient segment extends until ending the extension thereof when a predetermined limit, which is less than the plastic deformation limit of the resilient segment, is reached (see Figures 4 and 5, and paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu teaches the protection structure according to claim 8, but does not expressly teach the wire, rope or cable portion (50, 51 of Hashiguchi) which limits the extension of the resilient segment which is made from the material having superelastic behaviour (taught by Liu) has a length approximately from 8% to 10% greater than a length of the superelastic portion.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protection structure of the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu such that the extension of the resilient segment which is made from the material having superelastic behaviour has a length approximately from 8% to 10% greater than a length of the superelastic portion, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification based on the desired amount of play in the resilient segment.
Regarding claim 10, Hashiguchi discloses a metal net (1; see Figures 1-6) comprising a plurality of elongate resistant elements (4, 5, wire mesh of 6, 20, 50, 51) in the form of wire, rope or cable (see paragraphs [0033]-[0034]) and interlaced with each other (see, e.g., Figure 1), but does not expressly disclose wherein at least some of the plurality of elongate resistant elements are made from a material having superelastic behaviour.
Liu teaches forming elongate resistant elements (at 1) from a material having superelastic behaviour in order to form a protection structure that has good shape memory effect, superelasticity and high damping characteristics, such that the protection structure can withstand higher forces (see paragraph [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protection structure of Hashiguchi such that at least some of the plurality of elongate resistant elements are made from a material having superelastic behaviour, as taught in Liu, in order to form a protection structure that has good shape memory effect, superelasticity and high damping characteristics, such that the protection structure can withstand higher forces.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu teaches the elongate reinforcement elements (4, 5, wire mesh of 6, 20, 50, 51 of Hashiguchi; at 1 of Liu) superimposed on or interlaced with the net (see Figure 1 of Hashiguchi; Figure of Liu), the elongate reinforcement elements being completely or partially made from a material having superelastic behaviour (taught by Liu).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu teaches the elongate reinforcement elements (4, 5, wire mesh of 6, 20, 50, 51 of Hashiguchi, at 1 of Liu) comprise bars, ropes or cables (see Figure 1 of Hashiguchi; Figure of Liu).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 5,961,099 (Thommen).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu teaches the protection structure according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach the elongate resistant elements (4, 5, wire mesh of 6, 20, 50, 51 of Hashiguchi, at 1 of Liu) having superelastic behaviour (taught by Liu) are form rings interlaced to form a net panel (6 of Hashiguchi; 1 of Liu) with rings or a portion of a net panel with rings.
Thommen teaches providing form rings (50) which are interlaced to form a net panel (23) with rings or a portion of a net panel with rings (see Figure 2). Thommen teaches said form rings provide the protection structure (22) with an additional means of load absorption (see column 4, lines 11-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protection structure of the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu to include form rings interlaced to form a net panel with rings or a portion of a net panel with rings, as taught in Thommen, in order to provide additional means of load absorption. It is to be noted Liu teaches forming resistant elements of a protection structure from a material having a superelastic behaviour, and, as such, said material could be applied to the form rings.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu teaches the metal net according to claim 10, made from the material having superelastic behaviour (taught by Liu), but does not expressly teach the metal net (6 of Hashiguchi; 1 of Liu) including one or more rings, the one or more rings being interlaced.
Thommen teaches a metal net (23) including one or more rings (50), the one or more rings being interlaced (see Figure 2). Thommen teaches said rings provide the protection structure (22) with an additional means of load absorption (see column 4, lines 11-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protection structure of the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu to include one or more rings being interlaced, as taught in Thommen, in order to provide additional means of load absorption. It is to be noted Liu teaches forming resistant elements of a protection structure from a material having a superelastic behaviour, and, as such, said material could be applied to the rings.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of the publication, The alloy with a memory, 55-Nitinol Its physical metallurgy, properties, and applications (NASA).
The combination of Hashiguchi and Liu teaches the material having superelastic behaviour (taught by Liu) is an alloy (see paragraph [0027]), but does not expressly teach the alloy being 55.9% Ni and 44.1% Ti.
NASA teaches a material having superelastic behaviour is an alloy with 55.9% Ni and 44.1% Ti (see page 1, column 1, lines 6-10). NASA teaches this material is capable of withstanding considerable force and mechanical work, while maintaining the ability to snap back to its original shape (see page 1, column 1, lines 11-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alloy of the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu to be 55.9% Ni and 44.1% Ti, as taught in NASA, in order to provide a material that is capable of withstanding considerable force and mechanical work, while maintaining the ability to snap back to its original shape.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hashiguchi and Liu as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of JP 2002-275835 (Yoshida; the citation of which is taken from the attached translation).
The combination of Hashiguchi and Liu teaches the one or more resilient reinforcement elements being made from a material having superelastic behaviour (taught by Liu), but does not expressly teach the net (6 of Hashiguchi; 1 of Liu) being of the double torsion type and comprising double torsion nodes, with one or more resilient reinforcement elements which is/are interlaced with the net, inserted in the mesh thereof and/or incorporated in one or more of the double torsion nodes thereof.
Yoshida teaches a net (3) being of the double torsion type (see Figures 1 and 2) and comprising double torsion nodes (31), with one or more resilient reinforcement elements (4, 9) which is/are interlaced with the net (see especially Figure 2), inserted in the mesh thereof and/or incorporated in one or more of the double torsion nodes thereof (see Figures 1 and 2). Yoshida teaches this structure provides a protection structure that is far superior in strength, even in the case of failure of a node (see paragraph [0011]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alloy of the protection structure of Hashiguchi and Liu, such that the net is of the double torsion type and comprising double torsion nodes, with one or more resilient reinforcement elements which is/are interlaced with the net, inserted in the mesh thereof and/or incorporated in one or more of the double torsion nodes thereof, as taught in Yoshida, in order to provide a protection structure that is far superior in strength, even in the case of failure of a node. It is to be noted Liu teaches forming reinforcement elements of a protection structure from a material having a superelastic behaviour, and, as such, said material could be applied to the double torsion nodes.
Conclusion
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM ET.
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 on (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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
October 21, 2025