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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the flanges" there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For sake of further examination claim 10 will be examined as depending from claim 9.
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 11-13 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).
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.
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).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costello in view of Cheh 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costello in view of Cheh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kieselstein et al. (US 2011/0266400).
Regarding claim 8, modified Costello discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Costello does not disclose at least two successive links connected to the same wires are furthermore attached to one another by means of an attachment portion.
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 (Fig. 6).
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).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costello in view of Cheh 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).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781