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
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected bag, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 14th, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on November 14th, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the phrase “formed from be airplane grade aluminum,” which should be changed to “formed from airplane grade aluminum.” 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.
Claims 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrases “the center part,” “the outside edge,” “the outer periphery,” and “the outer surface of the ring,” which each lack antecedent basis. It is noted that, potentially, a mesh as claimed could have multiple center parts, multiple outside edges, multiple outer peripheries, and multiple outer surfaces (i.e., in which case, it is not clear which specific of the center parts, outside edges, peripheries, and outer surfaces is referenced by the present claim language). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying “a center part,” “an outside edge,” “an outer periphery,” and “an outer surface of the ring.”
Claims 2-13 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “not deformable under normal conditions and are formed from airplane grade aluminum,” but it is unclear what constitutes “normal conditions.” It is unclear if the “normal conditions” refers to, for example, room temperature and atmospheric pressure (i.e., 1 atm and 22⁰C), or if instead, the “normal conditions” are referring not to environmental conditions, but usage conditions (i.e., when containing or holding an object, or when empty, or a some additional, known alternative). In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase will be interpreted as directed to any set of conditions.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “the octagonal-shaped ring,” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 7, from which claim 8 depends, recites the presence of multiple rings having an octagonal shape. It is unclear which ring, specifically, of the multiple rings, is being referenced by the phrase “the octagonal-shaped ring.” In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as referencing “an octagonal-shaped ring.”
Claim 9 recites the phrase “the peripheral interlocking parts around the periphery of the mesh,” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, makes no mention of peripheral interlocking parts. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as “the mesh comprising peripheral interlocking parts.”
Claim 10 is rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maunder (US2014/0099159A1).
With regards to claim 1, Maunder discloses a modular connection system comprising a plurality of interconnected modular units which are opened and roughly square-shaped (i.e., a mesh comprising a substantially planar open frame structure formed of a plurality of interlinked planar units), the interconnected modular units at the periphery of the system including vertex loops (i.e., locations where additional modular units may be attached, thus rendering the open frame structure as infinitely increasable in size by the addition of more units) (Maunder: para. [0008]-[0011], [0078]-[0079], and [0090]; Figs. 24-25 and 34). The frame structure is depicted as having three types of units (all of the same shape, but in different locations) - two central square units each connected to four other units (i.e., body units forming the center part of the frame structure, the body units adapted to interlink with at least 4 other units of the frame structure), four corner units (i.e., corner units at each corner of the outer periphery and therefore linking with peripheral units, each corner unit adapted to interlink with at least two other units in the structure), and six units located between the corner units (i.e., peripheral units around the outside edge of the body units, each peripheral unit adapted to interlink with at least the other units in the frame structure) (Maunder: Fig. 24). Though not depicted in Figure 24 of Maunder, the broader disclosure of Maunder indicates that each planar unit may include an opening (i.e., each planar unit is a ring defining an inner opening) which is inner relative to the vertex loops (i.e., the outer surface of the ring supporting interlocking parts wherein a first interlocking part of the first ring arranged in the frame structure aligns and cooperates with a second complementary shaped interlocking part on a second adjacent ring arranged in the frame structure to thereby interlink the units to form the mesh (Maunder: para. [0090]; Figs. 25 and 34).
With regards to claim 2, the four units and six adjacent units define an opening in which the two central square units are reversibly mounted (i.e., includes a module that is reversibly locked into the opening and is substantially immovable once in position) (Maunder: Fig. 24).
With regards to claim 3, since the module contains at least one open area, the module is connectable with an item that can thereby be mated with the mesh and carried with the mesh (i.e., by, for example, inserting the item into the open area) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 4, the modular units (i.e., rings) are depicted as arranged in aligned rows and columns (Maunder: Fig. 24).
With regards to claim 5, Maunder depicts its mesh as not deforming when at rest (i.e., not autonomously deformable) (Maunder: Fig. 24). Maunder further discloses its modules as formed of sheet aluminum (Maunder: para. [0048]). It is noted that the present specification does not define the phrase “airplane grade aluminum,” and therefore, it is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the present specification. Since the sheet aluminum of Maunder has strength with resistance to fire and extreme conditions, it is considered airplane grade, in that it is suitable for protecting an airplane from fire or extreme conditions (Maunder: para. [0048]-[0049]).
With regards to claim 9, Maunder depicts the peripheral interlocking parts around the periphery of the mesh, including the corner units, as having identical outside ring surfaces (Maunder: Fig. 24).
With regards to claim 10, Maunder depicts the peripheral interlocking parts around the periphery of the mesh, including the corner units, as having identical outside ring surfaces, which are first interlocking ring parts (Maunder: Fig. 24).
With regards to claim 11, Maunder depicts each interlocking section as including a both a hook and a loop (i.e., implies a first interlocking part comprising a hook and a second interlocking part comprising a loop) (Maunder: Fig. 24).
With regards to claim 12, the hooks and loops can be subdivided that, for a subset of the plurality, there are two hooks and one loop (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 13, the modules of Maunder are multi-component and include a locking rod (i.e., locking plate) associated with vertex loops (i.e., a connection plate) which, in use, sandwiches around a ring (of the connection plate) to lock the modules in position (Maunder: Fig. 2).
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maunder et al as applied to claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 6, Maunder discloses a mesh as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Although Maunder does not appear to disclose a ring diameter as a widest opening of the ring of at most 3 cm, Maunder expressly instructs a person of ordinary skill to adjust the size and shape of the individual units (i.e., rings) (Maunder: para. [0010] and [0046]). Maunder further teaches that the size and scale of the units should be scaled as appropriate, and may be “very small to very large” (Maunder: para. [0046]). In view of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the size of the openings in the modular units of Maunder, as Maunder expressly instructs optimization and selection of an appropriate size (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 7, Maunder expressly instructs a person of ordinary skill to select a polygonal shape, and further, that the modular units may be manufactured in “many shapes and sizes” depending on the “functional and aesthetic demands of the finished product or application” (Maunder: para. [0046]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have adjusted the shape of the individual modular units of Maunder and arrived at, for example, an octagon shape (see above discussion). In addition, Maunder depicts in, for example, Figure 28, a shape which his approaching an octagonal shape (Maunder: Fig. 28).
With regards to claim 8, Maunder notes that the side lengths of its modular units may be unequal (Maunder: para. [0071]-[0073]; Fig. 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783