DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of Claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/700,354. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0018], line 1, change “to provide” to -- provides --
It is recommended that Applicant review the specification in its entirety to ensure that no other issues are present
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 13, replace the period at the end of the line with a comma
In Claim 1, line 15, change “the plane” to -- a plane -- and change “the space” to -- a space --
In Claim 1, line 16, change “the weft direction” to -- a weft direction --
In Claim 1, line 16, change “the space” to -- a space --
In Claim 1, the last line, change “the weft direction” to -- a weft direction --
In Claim 3, change “wherein at the floats of the first areas the metal wires forming said floats are locally enlarged with respect to a width of the metal wires at the second areas” to
-- wherein at the floats of the first areas, metal wires forming said floats are locally enlarged with respect to a width of metal wires at the second areas --
In Claim 7, change “at least three or more parallel first floats, one directly next to the other” to
-- at least three or more parallel first floats, wherein each first float is directly next to at least one other first float -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 7, change “at least two or more parallel second floats, one directly next to the other” to
-- at least three or more parallel first floats, wherein each second float is directly next to at least one other second float -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 7, the 2nd to last line, insert -- wherein -- at the beginning of the line
In Claim 11, line 8, change “intersections” to -- simple intersections --
In Claim 16, line 6, replace the period at the end of the line with a comma
In Claim 16, the last 2 lines, change “in the range from 30 micrometers to 50 micrometers or 40 micrometers” to -- in the range from 30 micrometers to 50 micrometers or in the range from 30 micrometers to 40 micrometers -- (or equivalent)
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Independent Claim 1 is objected to for informalities in the form of claim objections (as are presented above in this Office Action) but would be allowable if rewritten in a way that obviates all claim objections raised.
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 6-18 are also objected to for depending on objected to Claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and in a way that obviates all claim objections raised.
Dependent Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding independent Claim 1: The combination of limitations claimed in Claim 1 is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by any known prior art. Dewaegheneire (US 2003/0134247 A1) is considered to be one of the closest known prior art references to the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Dewaegheneire teaches of a combustion membrane (Fig. 2) for a gas burner (gas burner comprising element (43) as shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0036], [0039] and Figs. 2, 4) comprising:
an inner side (the lower inner side of the combustion membrane shown in Fig. 2 that faces down into the burner comprising element (43) as shown in Fig. 4) to which a combustible gas (“gas” that is fed to the “gas burner membrane”) is conveyed (see at least [0036], [0039] and Figs. 2, 4) and an outer side (the upper outer side of the combustion membrane shown in Fig. 2) on which combustion of the combustible gas occurs after it has crossed through the combustion membrane (see at least [0036], [0039] and Figs. 2, 4 and note the disclosure of the “firing rate”), a fabric (fabric comprising elements (21) and (22) as shown in Fig. 2) having two opposite fabric surfaces (the bottom/top fabric surfaces as shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0036]-[0037] and Fig. 2), which respectively form a combustion surface exposed on the outer side (the top combustion surface of Fig. 2 that would define the top, outer combustion surface of the burner shown in Fig. 4) and an inner surface (the inner, bottom surface of Fig. 2 that is opposite to the combustion surface) facing towards the inner side (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0036], [0039] and Figs. 2, 4), wherein the fabric forms an interlacing (interlacing comprising the structure shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0034] and Fig. 1) of metal fibers (“metal fibers”) (see at least [0034] and Figs. 1-3) comprising warp threads (“warp”) and weft threads (“weft”) transverse relative to the warp threads (see at least [0011]-[0013], [0036], [0040] and Figs. 1-2, 5), wherein the fabric has localized first areas (23) with reduced gas permeability (“air permeability of 1500 I/dm2*min is measured at zones 23”) (see [0036]-[0037] and Fig. 2), alternated with localized second areas (24) (as shown in Fig. 2) with higher gas permeability than the first areas (“Air permeability of 2100 to 2300 I/dm2*min is measured at zone 24” which is higher than that of first areas (23)) (see at least [0036]-[0037] and Fig. 2),
wherein both the first areas (23) and the second areas (24) have an extension in at least one direction on the plane of the fabric (as is shown in Fig. 2, areas (23) have an extension in the form of an extended area in at least the horizontal direction of the fabric plane along the body of element (22) that is within each area (23) while areas (24) have an extension in the form of an extended area along the body of element (21) adjacent to elements (22)) (see at least [0036]-[0037] and Fig. 2).
However, Dewaegheneire fails to teach that the extension of both of the first and second areas is “greater than a space occupied by at least three consecutive warp threads in the weft direction and greater than the space occupied by at least three consecutive weft threads in the warp direction”. Therefore, Dewaegheneire (in addition to all other known prior art) fails to anticipate Claim 1. Furthermore, no motivation would have existed to have unnecessarily reconfigured the functional structure already taught by Dewaegheneire (or that of any other known prior art) into the specific configuration claimed wherein “both the first areas and the second areas have an extension, in at least one direction on the plane of the fabric, greater than the space occupied by at least three consecutive warp threads in the weft direction and greater than the space occupied by at least three consecutive weft threads in the warp direction” (bolding added for emphasis) since no know prior art demonstrates such a configuration. Moreover, note that the specification provides that the specific sizing and arrangement claimed is critical to the invention in regards to at least improving “thermal insulation capacity” and “gas distribution” (see at least [0060]-[0061]) and that no know prior art teaches of or provides motivation to arrive at such an arrangement in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Thus, Claim 1 is not rendered obvious by any known prior art. Therefore, the totality of the subject matter of Claim 1 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art.
However, Claim 1 is objected to for informalities (as is presented above) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Martin et al. (US 2021/0071364 A1)
KR 102136121 B1 (see attached original document and translation for reference)
Van Den Berg et al. (US 2016/0123580 A1)
Barrett et al. (US 2006/0249220 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 6/13/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights