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
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 21 depends from withdrawn claim 16. For completeness, the product according to claim 16 (and therefore, also claim 21) lacks unity of invention per the requirement for unity of invention mailed September 16th, 2026. In addition to the reasons indicated in the requirement for unity of invention, it is noted that the Maunder reference discloses a mesh structure according to present claim 1 (i.e., the shared technical feature between the elected mesh structure and the non-elected bag), and therefore, no special technical feature is present.
However, it is possible that, instead, the status identifier for claim 21 is incorrect, and should indicate the claim as withdrawn (as claim 21 depends from withdrawn claim 16).
It is unclear if Applicant regards claim 21 as withdrawn. In the event Applicant does not regard claim 21 as withdrawn, the Examiner’s position is that since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 3-4, 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). However, Figure 24 of Maunder further discloses the presence of openings through which an elongated connector 100 is at least partially run through. The additional openings in Figure 24 of Maunder are formed as interstitial openings between neighboring rings, and since they include elongated connector 100, they are considered to define an opening that is reversibly lockable into the opening via clamping. Note that the claimed clamping may be accomplished by the elongated connector 100, as opposed to the claimed rings.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. Applicant has submitted an amendment in which the previously-indicated indefinite subject matter has been deleted. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. In addition, Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 5, and therefore, the objection to claim 5 has been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
On pages 10-12, Applicant summarizes the claimed invention and aspects of the rejection and argues that Maunder relates to a modular connection system, as opposed to a mesh where “at least some of the rings define an opening configured to receive a module that is reversibly lockable into the opening by claiming around the ring to lock the module into position and the module is substantially immovable once in position”. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive as Maunder acknowledges that an opening may be included in each of its modules, and as best understood, this opening (or the plurality of openings, with respect to the system as a whole) are capable of receiving a module that is reversibly lockable and substantially immovable once in position as claimed. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they do not appear to address this particular disclosed aspect of Maunder. That Maunder generally describes a modular connection system focusing on a secure yet separable interconnection does not negate Maunder’s express disclosure of ring openings capable of meeting the claimed function.
On pages 12-14, Applicant argues that Maunder does not disclose or suggest an opening configured to receive a module. Applicant argues that “configured to” denotes structural capability. Applicant argues that the opening cannot be merely an aperture of arbitrary shape or size and that at least some of the rings have structural requirements. These arguments are not found persuasive as Applicant does not indicate the alleged structural requirements, nor does Applicant articulate how a particular difference in structure between the assembly of Maunder and the claimed assembly leads to a distinction. Applicant argues that the phrase “configured to” denotes a structural capability and not intended use, to which, the Examiner agrees – however, Maunder, as best understood, discloses a structure which still meets the claimed capability. Applicant further argues that Maunder “simply describes the formation of an opening” and “nothing in Maunder teaches or suggests that the opening is configured to receive a module”. However, this argument is not found persuasive since any opening is capable of receiving a module. The claimed module is not specified. The ability to insert an object within is a property of all openings. Whether or not the claimed function is met depends on the module to be inserted, which the claims fail to specify. Technically, the scope of the claim includes all modules which are reversibly lockable within any opening known in the art. That Maunder does not explicitly disclose Applicant’s function does not mean it is incapable of achieving Applicant’s function. Furthermore, as best understood, the structure of Maunder is structurally identical to that of the claimed invention, and therefore, it is expected to function in the same manner.
On pages 14-15, Applicant argues that Maunder fails to disclose the interstitial openings as claimed. However, this argument is not found persuasive as Figure 24 of Maunder is found to further depict interstitial openings as claimed. The interstitial openings of Maunder are formed via four adjacent planar units (i.e., rings).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights