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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are currently pending. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 have been amended, claim 8 has been cancelled and claim 14 is newly added.
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 1-4, 6-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costello et al. (US 2013/0141915) and further in view of Cheh (US 2013/0180184) and Kieselstein et al. (US 2011/0266400).
Regarding claim 1, Costello discloses an architectural mesh (10) comprising a plurality of parallel wires units (wefts; 16) stacked in a height direction and extending over a length dimension (Fig. 1-2). The wire having an alternating sequency of peaks and valleys with segments which extend in a direction having a component normal to the length dimension (Fig. 2, 4 and 5). A plurality of connecting rods (20) connecting the wire units together. The wires having a spiral shape wound around a notional core of revolution/having a polygonal cross-section.
Costello does not disclose the plurality of connecting rods having a shape such that the wires can pass through the links with each link surrounding a peak and a valley of different wires and wherein at least two successive connecting rods connected to the same wefts are attached to one another by an attachment portion, forming a single part.
Cheh, in the analogous field of building mesh (0012), discloses interlinking individual strands of a mesh with cross-links (40). The cross-link surrounding a peak and a valley of different wires which pass through the link (Fig. 4).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the connecting rods of Costello to be shaped as a cross-link as taught by Cheh, to interlink the strands of the method and provide the ability to narrow or widen the open space between the individual strands (0036).
Kieselstein, in the analogous field of wire mesh (0001), teaches a wire structure in which spiral wires are connected together by links which are connected to each other through an attachment portion (see Fig. 6 annotated below). Due to their connection, a single part is formed.
PNG
media_image1.png
289
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the cross-links of modified Costello to be connected to each other as taught by Kieselstein, to provide a self-supporting structure reducing cost of materials (0010).
Regarding claim 2, Costello teaches the wire are helicoids (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Costello teaches that the helicoids are flat (0044).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Cheh teaches the cross-link (40) are closed along the perimeter and have one through hole through which at least two successive wires pass (Fig 3 and 4, 0036).
Regarding claim 7, Cheh teaches the cross-links inscribed in planes parallel to one another (Fig. 3 and 4).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Costello teaches use of flat wire (0044).
Regarding claim 13, Cheh teaches the cross-links formed of steel (0030).
Cheh does not expressly teach that the steel cross-links are laser-cut or dye-cut, however these are product by process language. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 14, Costello discloses an architectural mesh (10) comprising a plurality of parallel wires units (wefts; 16) stacked in a height direction and extending over a length dimension (Fig. 1-2). The wire having an alternating sequency of peaks and valleys with segments which extend in a direction having a component normal to the length dimension (Fig. 2, 4 and 5). A plurality of connecting rods (20) connecting the wire units together. The wires having a spiral shape wound around a notional core of revolution/having a polygonal cross-section.
Costello does not disclose the plurality of connecting rods having a shape such that the wires can pass through the links with each link surrounding a peak and a valley of different wires and wherein at least two successive connecting rods connected to the same wefts are attached to one another by an intermediate attachment portion, which spaces apart the at least two successive links.
Cheh, in the analogous field of building mesh (0012), discloses interlinking individual strands of a mesh with cross-links (40). The cross-link surrounding a peak and a valley of different wires which pass through the link (Fig. 4).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the connecting rods of Costello to be shaped as a cross-link as taught by Cheh, to interlink the strands of the method and provide the ability to narrow or widen the open space between the individual strands (0036).
Kieselstein, in the analogous field of wire mesh (0001), teaches a wire structure in which spiral wires are connected together by a plurality of links (Fig. 6). Here, at least two successive links, e.g., link 12 and 10, are attached to one another by an intermediate attachment portion e.g., link 11 and spaced party by the intermediate attachment portion.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the cross-links of modified Costello to be connected to each other as taught by Kieselstein, to provide a self-supporting structure reducing cost of materials (0010).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costello in view of Cheh in view of Kieselstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakamoto (JP2013-204237).
Regarding claim 5, modified Costello discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Costello does not disclose links having two through holes through which each of two successive wires pass.
Sakamoto, in the analogous field of wire mesh (0001), discloses a weight (19) having two insertion portions (19a and 19b; i.e., through-holes) through which two successive wires pass (Fig. 2, 5, 0030).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the cross-link of modified Costello to comprise two through-holes, as taught by Sakamoto, to fix the position of the wire at the position of the link (0031).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costello in view of Cheh in view of Kieselstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirashiki (US 3,233,277).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Costello discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Costello does not disclose the cross-links provided with flanges.
Hirashiki, in the analogous field of architectural screens (column 1, lines 5-10), teaches a hinge structure comprising a plurality of blocks (10, 11, 12, and 13; Fig. 1, column 1, lines 65-70). The blocks rotatable around a hinge (Fig. 3).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the architectural mesh of modified Costello to include blocks, as taught by Hirashiki, to provide visual privacy (column 1, lines 15-20).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” to providing the blocks (instant flanges) attached to the cross-links of modified Costello, as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations e.g., attachment to either the cross-links or the wires. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 06/15/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicants arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kieselstein does not disclose links which are attached to one another by an attachment portion.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated rejection and in annotated Fig. 6, where the links are connected forms an attachment portion, connecting two successive links.
Applicant further argues that Kieselstein does not disclose at least two successive links that form a single part. Arguing for example the structure of Fig. 6.
Due to their links being connected, they form a single part.
Applicant argues that new claim 14 is allowable as the prior art does not disclose or suggest at least two successive links of the plurality of links connected to the same wefts are attached to one another by an intermediate attachment portion with the at least two successive links spaced apart by the intermediate attachment portion.
The examiner respectfully disagrees as Kieselstein teaches this structure a noted in the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hauer (US 3,112,533) teaching a wall constructure with linked panels.
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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights