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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 56, line 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “catch embers” should be - -catch the embers- -. Appropriate correction is required.
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 hexagonal mesh pattern (Claim 71), placing the fire mitigation device around an area, wherein the area contains a structure (Claim 72), the fire mitigation device is not in contact with or attached to the structure (Claim 73), the fire mitigation device is fastened to the structure (Claim 74) 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 72-74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 72 recites “wherein the placing step comprises placing the fire mitigation device around an area, wherein the area contains a structure” which is considered new matter because this claim limitation is not stated in the provisional application dated 5/15/2023.
Claim 73 recites “wherein, as a result of the placing step, the fire mitigation device is not in contact with or attached to the structure, to create defensible space within the area” which is considered new matter because this is considered a negative limitation which does not have basis in the provisional application dated 5/15/2023.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 56-66, 69-70, 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McNichols (Specialty Metal Infill Panels as referenced in OA dated 10/24/2025).
Regarding claim 56, McNichols discloses a fire mitigation method (The infill panel with wire mesh 381218 and U-edging 4080140210 provides a fire mitigation method because the fire mitigation is a passive function due to the structure of the infill panel, so that the infill panel with wire mesh 381218 and U-edging 4080140210 provides fire mitigation), comprising the step of:
placing a fire mitigation device (The infill panel with wire mesh 381218 and U-edging 4080140210. McNichols states the infall panels can be placed as railings, risers, fencing, cabinets, facades or partitions) to create a discrete passive barrier against direct vertical flame, embers, and radiant heat (The infill panel having the wire mesh creates a discrete passive barrier against direct vertical flame, embers, and radiant heat)
wherein the fire mitigation device comprises a single-layer mesh (The wire mesh 381218) of interlocking wires comprising 10 to 14 wires per inch (The wire mesh 381218 is 12x12 so that it has 12 wires per inch);
wherein the wires have a diameter of between 0.01 and 0.05 inches (The wire mesh 381218 has a diameter of 0.018 inches);
wherein the single-layer mesh includes a plurality of apertures (The plurality of apertures formed by wire mesh 381218) that have an aperture width of between 0.04 inches and 0.08 inches (The aperture width is 0.0653 inches);
wherein the single-layer mesh has a net free area defined by a percentage area of the single- layer mesh that does not contain wire (The net free area defined by the percentage of area of wire mesh 381218 that does not contain wire);
wherein the net free area is between 55% and 70% 70% (The net free area is 61%) to allow air to flow substantially through the passive barrier (The net free area allows air to flow substantially through the passive barrier); and
wherein the single-layer mesh is configured to catch the embers (Functional language, the infill panel having a wire mesh similar to the instant application is capable of catching embers).
Regarding claim 57, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the single-layer mesh is substantially flat (The wire mesh 381218 is substantially flat).
Regarding claim 58, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the single-layer mesh comprises between 10 and 12 wires per inch (The wire mesh has 12 wires per square inch).
Regarding claim 59, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the single-layer mesh comprises 12 wires per inch (The wire mesh has 12 wires per square inch).
Regarding claim 60, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the aperture width is between 0.0625 inches and 0.0675 inches (The aperture width is 0.0653 inches).
Regarding claim 61, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the net free area is between 60% and 65% (The net free area is 61%).
Regarding claim 62, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the single-layer mesh has a thickness of between 0.025 and 0.1 inches (The thickness is 0.036”).
Regarding claim 63, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the wires are non- magnetic (The wires are made of 304 stainless steel which is non-magnetic).
Regarding claim 64, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the wires are made from stainless steel (The wires are made of 304 stainless steel).
Regarding claim 65, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the wires are made from 316 or 304 stainless steel (The wires are made of 304 stainless steel).
Regarding claim 66, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the wires have a raw finish (The wire having a mill finish is a raw finish).
Regarding claim 69, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the fire mitigation device includes a frame (The frame that U-edging 4080140210 forms) that at least substantially surrounds the single-layer mesh to create a framed single-layer screen (The framed mesh screen formed by wire mesh 381218 and U-edging 4080140210, McNICHOLS Infill Panels paragraph states “We cut each Infill Panel to your exact specifications and frame pieces by welding Angle, Flat Bar or U-Edging along the perimeter).
Regarding claim 70, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the interlocking wires are arranged in a plain weave pattern (The interlocking wires are in a plain weave pattern).
Regarding claim 75, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols further discloses wherein the placing step comprises fastening to the fire mitigation device to a facade of a structure (McNichols Infill Panels states using the infill panels for a facade of a building, the building being the structure). Facade as defined by Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com is the front of a building).
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) 67-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNichols in view of GZ Industrial Supplies (How Much Heat Can Powder Coating Withstand as referenced in OA dated 10/24/2025).
Regarding claim 67, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols does not disclose wherein the wires have a powder coating.
However, GZ industrial Supplies teaches wherein metal has a powder coating (The stainless steel with powder coating in the Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of McNichols wherein metal (In the context of McNichols, the metal of GZ Industrial Supplies includes at least the wires of McNichols) has a powder coating as taught by and suggested by GZ Industrial Supplies in order to enable high operating temperatures and provide thermal protection (Why Do Surfaces Need Heat Protection, The modification has the wires having a powder coating)
Regarding claim 68, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols does not disclose wherein the wires are at least partially coated with a coating that increases the heat resistance or heat absorption of the wire mesh.
However, GZ industrial Supplies teaches wherein metal (The stainless steel with powder coating in the Conclusion) is at least partially coated with a coating (The powder coating of the stainless steel with powder coating in the Conclusion) that increases the heat resistance or heat absorption of the wire mesh (Why Do Surfaces Need Heat Protection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of McNichols wherein metal (In the context of McNichols, the metal of GZ Industrial Supplies includes at least the wires of McNichols) is at least partially coated with a coating that increases the heat resistance or heat absorption of the wire mesh as taught by and suggested by GZ Industrial Supplies in order to enable high operating temperatures and provide thermal protection (Why Do Surfaces Need Heat Protection, The modification has the wires having a powder coating).
Claim(s) 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNichols in view of Simontacchi et al (US 7413024 as referenced in OA dated 10/24/2025)
Regarding claim 71, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols does not disclose wherein the interlocking wires are arranged in a hexagonal mesh pattern.
However, Simontacchi teaches wherein interlocking wires (The interlocking wires of Figure 2; 28) are arranged in a hexagonal mesh pattern (Abstract, Column 3, lines 43-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of McNichols wherein the interlocking wires are arranged in a hexagonal mesh pattern as taught by and suggested Simontacchi because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Simontacchi’s use of hexagonal mesh pattern according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, McNichols’s fire mitigation device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case preventing the spread of fire (Abstract of Simontacchi), was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D).
Claim(s) 72-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNichols in view of Potemkin (GettyImages)
PNG
media_image1.png
854
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure of Potemkin
Regarding claim 72, McNichols discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols does not disclose wherein the placing step comprises placing the fire mitigation device around an area, wherein the area contains a structure.
However, Potemkin teaches wherein a placing step (The step of placing the Annotated Figure; labeled railing) comprises placing a railing (Annotated Figure; labeled railing) around an area (The area around which the railing extends), wherein the area contains a structure (Annotated Figure; labeled chair or the deck excluding the railing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of McNichols wherein the placing step comprises placing a railing (In the context of McNichols, the railing of Potemkin is the fire mitigation device) around an area, wherein the area contains a structure as taught by and suggested by Potemkin because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Potemkin’s use of a railing according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, McNichols’s fire mitigation device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case preventing someone from falling off a deck, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the fire mitigation of McNichols as a railing in a deck).
Regarding claim 73, McNichols and Potemkin discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols does not disclose wherein, as a result of the placing step, the fire mitigation device is not in contact with or attached to the structure, to create defensible space within the area.
However, Potemkin teaches wherein, as a result of the placing step, the railing is not in contact with or attached to the structure (The structure is Annotated Figure; labeled chair), to create defensible space within the area (The railing forms a defensible space within the area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of McNichols wherein, as a result of the placing step, the railing (In the context of McNichols, the railing of Potemkin is the fire mitigation device) is not in contact with or attached to the structure, to create defensible space within the area as taught by and suggested by Potemkin because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Potemkin’s use of a railing according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, McNichols’s fire mitigation device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case preventing someone from falling off a deck, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (This is the same modification as claim 72).
Regarding claim 74, McNichols and Potemkin discloses the invention as claimed
McNichols does not disclose wherein, as a result of the placing step, the fire mitigation device is fastened to the structure.
However, Potemkin teaches wherein, as a result of the placing step, the railing is fastened to the structure (The structure is the deck excluding the railing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of McNichols wherein, as a result of the placing step, the railing (In the context of McNichols, the railing of Potemkin is the fire mitigation device) is fastened to the structure as taught by and suggested by Potemkin because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Potemkin’s use of a railing according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, McNichols’s fire mitigation device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case preventing someone from falling off a deck, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (This is the same modification as claim 72).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that drawings are only required where necessary for understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 37 CFR 1.83(a) states “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims”, so that every feature of the invention specified in the claims must be shown.
Applicant asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not use McNichols as a fire mitigation device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. McNichols, having the same exact structure as claimed in at least independent claim 56, provides fire mitigation because, like the instant application, the structure of the wire mesh itself provides fire mitigation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eclipse Magnetics (Are All Stainless Steels Magnetic as referenced in OA dated 10/24/2025) states that 304 stainless steel is not magnetic
Darby Wire Mesh (Plain Steel Welded & Woven Wire Mesh as referenced in OA dated 10/24/2025) states that stainless steel can be powder coated
Banker Wire (Secondary Finished as referenced in OA dated 10/24/2025) states that stainless steel can be powder coated
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 EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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 KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741