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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-15 are currently pending in the application. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 09/08/2025.
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 claimed feature "meshes" in claim 1 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.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification includes terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: "fringes", "meshes", "a weft", "basic weave", "weft weave element", "weft reserve" and "g/rm".
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in lines 6-7, recites "comprises" and "has" after transition term "comprising". It is suggested insert a term "where" before "the net comprises" in line 6
In claim 10, line 4, "each of said knitted fringe" should read "each of said knitted fringes".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 5, the unit "g/rm" has been interpreted as "grams per running metre" according to Applicant's remarks filed 09/08/2025.
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 and 3-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 10 recite the limitation "meshes formed by warp threads", which renders the claim indefinite. It is understood that a net comprises a plurality of meshes between warp chains formed by warp threads and weft threads. It is unclear whether the "meshes" are the relatively large openings between adjacent warp chains, or the relatively small openings contained within individual warp chains. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the "meshes" are openings defined within individual warp chains.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, and 10 recite the limitation "fringes", which render the claims indefinite. The term "fringe" is not a common term in English knitting art, the specification does not provide a definition for the term, and one of ordinary skill of the art would not be able to ascertain the feature. It is unclear whether "fringes" refer to warp threads or warp chains or some other structures. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be warp chains formed by warp threads based on para. 0005 of US 2008/0053158 A1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the knitted fringes have more than 0.6 meshes/cm and less than 1.0 mesh/cm", which renders the claim indefinite. As discussed for claim above, if Applicant refers to warp threads or warp chains by "fringes", it is further unclear how warp threads can have meshes as claimed. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be that the net has more than 0.6 meshes/cm and less than 1.0 mesh/cm along each of the warp threads.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the knitted fringes are formed from triple-knitted threads", which renders the claim indefinite. The term "triple-knitted" is not a common term in English knitting art, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the structural feature. As no reasonable interpretation can be made, no prior art rejection has been attempted to this claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "weft reserve of more than 112% and less than 120%", which renders the claim indefinite. The term "weft reserve" is not a common term in English knitting art, the specification does not provide a definition for the term, and one of ordinary skill of the art would not be able to ascertain the feature. As no reasonable interpretation can be made for "weft reserve", no prior art rejection has been applied for claim 9 in this Office action.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "adjacent ones of the fringes are connected to the weft in a zigzag pattern", which renders the claim indefinite. If Applicant refers to warp threads by "fringes" and "weft thread" by "weft", the warp threads each should be positioned in a warp direction, and it is unclear how the ward threads can be in a zigzag pattern. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that adjacent ones of the fringes are connected to the weft thread, the weft thread is in a zigzag pattern.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "more than every 3rd one of the meshes and less than every 7th one of the meshes of each of said fringe is knitted with the weft threads", which renders the claim indefinite. It is understood that, in such a net, each mesh must have at least one edge formed by the weft yarn (see fig. 1 of the instant application). It is unclear how the meshes can be formed by more than every 3rd one of the meshes and less than every 7th one of the meshes of each of said fringe(s) being knitted with the weft threads. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that each of the warp threads forms chain stitches, and more than every 3rd one of the chain stitches and less than every 7th one of the chain stitches formed by each of said warp threads is knitted with the weft threads.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues Pereira (US 2017/0283998 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rodrigues Pereira discloses a net for balers (figs. 1-2; paras. 0057, 0062-0063), comprising:
at least one basic knit structure (figs. 1-2; para. 0062) comprising meshes (see figs. 1-2) formed by warp threads (warp threads 2; figs. 1-2; para. 0062), wherein the warp threads comprise knitted fringes (warp chains formed by warp threads 2; figs. 1-2),
transverse weft threads (weft threads 4, 4a, 4b; figs. 1-2; paras. 0062-0063) that interconnect the knitted fringes (figs. 1-2; paras. 0062-0063),
wherein the net comprises less than 49 fringes (25-75 depending on the total net width, including less than 49 fringes; para. 0040), and has a tear strength of more than 2300 N (minimum breaking strength of 270 kg; i.e., 270 x 9.8 = 2646 N; para. 0056).
Rodrigues Pereira does not explicitly disclose wherein the net has a width of 123 cm. However, Rodrigues Pereira has disclosed the general conditions of the claimed net. In addition, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that a standard width of a bale net has been 123 cm in the art; in addition, a net may have a width of 123 cm when varying the spacing between adjacent warp threads, the number of the warp threads, the size of the warp threads, and/or the knit tension. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Rodrigues Pereira, with wherein the net has a width of 123 cm, in order to provide a net of a standard width for balers in the art. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 3, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the net has less than 38 of the knitted fringes and more than 32 of the knitted fringes (25-75; para. 0040).
Regarding claim 4, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the net has an elongation at break of more than 16% and less than 24% (between 15%-20%; para. 0056).
Regarding claim 5, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the net has a specific weight of more than 7g/rm and less than 11g/rm (linear density between 10-10.5 g/m; para. 0056).
Regarding claim 6, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, except for wherein the net has a tensile strength of more than 40 cN/tex according to DIN EN ISO 527-3. However, Rodrigues Pereira has disclosed the general conditions of the claimed net for balers, and further discloses that the net is formed of polyolefin tapes which generally have high tensile strength (paras. 0051-0052, 0061). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the net as disclosed by Rodrigues Pereira, by varying the knit pattern, sizes of the polyolefin tapes, and/or knit density, and obtaining the net with a tensile strength of more than 40 cN/tex according to DIN EN ISO 527-3, in order to provide a net with high durability when being used to wrap bales in the fields. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, and further discloses the weft thread crosses the warp thread every 2 knitted stitches of a wale (paras. 0051-0052; claim 2), the net has triangle-shape meshes (referencing figs. 1-2; para. 0052), and the number of stitches per cm can range between 0.5 and 2.1 stitches per cm (stitches 3; referencing figs. 1-2; paras. 0051-0052, 0054). In this case, every 2 stitches of the wale form a triangular opening (referencing figs. 1-2). When the number of stitches per cm is 0.5 stitch per cm, the net would have 0.25 mesh/cm. When the number of stitches per cm is 2.1 stitches per cm, the net would have 1.05 mesh/cm. Therefore, the net may have 0.6-1.05 meshes/cm along each of the knitted fringes, which includes the claimed range of more than 0.6 meshes/cm and less than 1.0 mesh/cm.
Regarding claim 10, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein adjacent ones of the knitted fringes are connected by the weft threads in a zigzag pattern (fig. 1), and more than every 3rd one of the chain stitches and less than every 7th one of the chain stitches of each of said kitted fringes is knitted with the weft threads (the weft thread 3 crosses the warp threads 2 every 4 or 6 knitted stitches of the warp threads 2; fig. 1; paras. 0051-0052).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues Pereira (US 2017/0283998 A1) in view of Freye (US 4,569,439 A).
Regarding claim 11, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, except for wherein a thickness of the threads is more than 15 µm or less than 85 µm. However, Freye, in an analogous art, teaches a net for balers (a raschel web net 1; fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 29-40) comprising warp threads (formed on a Raschel loom; fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 29-40), wherein a thickness of the threads is at least one of more than 15 µm or less than 85 µm (25 µm; col. 2, ll. 29-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the size of the threads as disclosed by Rodrigues Pereira, with wherein a thickness of the threads is at least one of more than 15 µm or less than 85 µm as taught by Freye, in order to use the warp threads with a suitable thickness. In addition, Rodrigues Pereira has disclosed the general conditions of the claimed net. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable thickness of the threads as claimed, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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.
Regarding claim 12, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, except for wherein a thickness of the traverse weft threads is more than 5 µm and less than 50 µm. However, Freye, in an analogous art, teaches a net for balers (a raschel web net 1; fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 29-40) comprising warp threads (formed on a Raschel loom; col. 2, ll. 29-40), wherein a thickness of the threads is more than 5 µm and less than 50 µm (25 µm; col. 2, ll. 29-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the size of the threads as disclosed by Rodrigues Pereira, with wherein a thickness of the threads is more than 5 µm and less than 50 µm as taught by Freye, in order to use the warp threads with a suitable thickness. In addition, Rodrigues Pereira has disclosed the general conditions of the claimed net. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable thickness of the threads as claimed, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues Pereira (US 2017/0283998 A1) in view of Kim (KR 101084750 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, except for wherein the warp threads comprise a polyethylene component, a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 50% by weight and less than 85% by weight. However, Rodrigues Pereira does disclose wherein the warp threads comprise polyolefin (para. 0061). Further, Kim, in an analogous art, teaches a net for balers (see English translation; figs. 3a-b; pp. 8-9) comprising warp threads (pp. 8-9), the warp threads comprising comprise a polyethylene component, a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 50% by weight and less than 85% by weight (HDPE 80±10 wt% and LLDPE 5±3 wt%; p. 13, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the polyolefin material, with wherein the warp threads comprise a polyethylene component, a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 50% by weight and less than 85% by weight as taught by Kim, in order to use a suitable polyolefin material for the threads to provide a baling net with high strength while also being flexible enough for a worker to work easily as well as being capable of inducing generation of static electricity when cutting the binding net to facilitate subsequent processing (Willner; p. 13, para. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, except for wherein the warp threads comprise a polypropylene component, a proportion of the polypropylene component being more than 10% by weight and less than 40% by weight. However, Rodrigues Pereira does disclose wherein the threads comprise polyolefin (para. 0061). Further, Kim teaches wherein the warp threads comprise a polypropylene component, a proportion of the polypropylene component being more than 10% by weight and less than 40% by weight (polypropylene at 15±7 wt%; p. 13, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the polyolefin material, with wherein the threads comprises 10-40 wt% polypropylene as taught by Kim, in order to use a suitable polyolefin material for the threads to provide a baling net with high strength while also being flexible enough for a worker to work easily as well as being capable of inducing generation of static electricity when cutting the binding net to facilitate subsequent processing (Willner; p. 13, para. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Rodrigues Pereira discloses the net according to claim 1, except for wherein the weft threads comprise a polyethylene component, a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 80% by weight. However, Rodrigues Pereira does disclose wherein the threads comprise polyolefin (para. 0061). Further, Kim teaches wherein the weft threads comprise a polyethylene component, a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 80% by weight (HDPE 80±10 wt% and LLDPE 5±3 wt%; p. 13, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the polyolefin material, with wherein the weft threads comprise a polyethylene component, a proportion of the polyethylene component being more than 80% by weight as taught by Kim, in order to use a suitable polyolefin material for the threads to provide a baling net with high strength while also being flexible enough for a worker to work easily as well as being capable of inducing generation of static electricity when cutting the binding net to facilitate subsequent processing (Willner; p. 13, para. 2).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: with respect to the specification objection and 112(b) rejections about a plurality of unclear terms, Applicant asserts that the terms have been written in full, clear, concise and exact manner in paras. 0015-0016, 0020, 0024, the terms are commonly used terms in the art and one of ordinary skill of the art understand the meanings of the terms.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that the above paraphs do not provide a clear meaning for each of the terms "base weave", "mesh", "fringe", "a weft", "weft reserve", "g/rm" "triple-knitted threads". For example, Applicant, in para. 0015, states "The basic weave used to knit the net for balers is the mesh in the form of a fringe, in particular an open fringe, in combination with the weft weave element" which does not provide what is a "fringe", and in turn it is unclear which item is considered as "mesh" in the claimed invention. Similarly, the other terms at issue are not clearly defined in the cited paragraph. Second, the terms are not commonly used terms in the English prior art. Third, Applicant asserts that "industry documentation for Raschel machines (e.g. by Textilmaschinenfabrik Karl Mayer) is expressly referenced in the specification, which demonstrates this terminology is standard in this art field"; however, such industry documentation cannot be found in the specification. For the above reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's remarks: with respect to prior art rejections, Applicant asserts that Rodrigues does not disclose a net with fewer than 49 knitted fringes at a fixed net width of 123 cm, and does not disclose the tear strength threshold of more than 2300N from a net with a 123 cm width having fewer than 49 fringes as required by claim 1.
Examiner's response: It is noted that Rodrigues discloses the minimum breaking strength of the net being 270 kg, and the number of warp chains in the net is between 25 and 75. Therefore, Rodrigues does disclose the tear strength threshold of the net being more than 2300N for the net having fewer than 49 fringes. As to the width of the net, the rejection in the office actions is not a 102 rejection, but a 103 rejection. Even if Rodrigues does not explicitly disclose the net width for nets of fewer than 49 fringes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the nets of fewer than 49 fringes having a width of 123cm because it has been a common practice to make baling nets with a width of 123cm in the industry. Therefore, Applicant's argument is not persuasives.
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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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.
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.
/AIYING ZHAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732