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 .
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 11-20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “45 and 60 µm”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 51 and 55 µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note the similar indefinite recitations: “1.7 and 2.6 mm, preferably between 2.0 and 2.3 mm”. Regarding claim 19, note the indefinite recitation “20 and 30, preferably equal to 25”.
Claim 20 recites a method for making but depends from product claim 1. Such recitation renders the claims indefinite as they attempt to bridge two separate statutory classes of invention. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Such claims are not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the metes and bounds of protection involved and are ambiguous. In addition, the claims do not recite clear steps of manufacturing the specifically claimed product.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 20 insofar as definite is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leiber et al. (US 5,104,714).
As seen at least in figure 6, Leiber teaches a Raschel knitted net (abstract) for round balers comprising a plurality of chains (warp chains inherent in raschel knit nets) arranged parallel to a longitudinal direction of development, each chain being equidistant from two adjacent chains, said chains each having a series of knots (inherent interconnections between warp knit chains and) , the knots of the chains being arranged in a grid along a first direction parallel to the longitudinal direction and along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; a plurality of transverse threads each arranged between two adjacent chains, each transverse thread comprising a plurality of segments each developing between a first knot of a chain and a second knot located on an adjacent chain, the second knot being located at a position preceding or following the first knot along the first direction; each chain comprising a single longitudinal thread. Regarding claim 20, Leiber also teaches the steps of producing a film of polymeric material; - separating the film of polymeric material into a plurality of chains each comprising a single longitudinal thread; - knitting the strips by means of a weaving machine for the production of the net; - winding the net onto a reel (spool) is typical as noted at least at column 1, lines 60-68.
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 12-19 insofar as definite are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiber et al. (US 5,104,714). Leiber teaches the invention substantially as claimed as previously set forth in the rejection to claim 11. Leiber does not explicitly set forth the specific height between 45 and 60 pm, preferably between 51 and 55 pm and width between 1.7 and 2.6 mm, preferably between 2.0 and 2.3 mm or more specifically 53 pm and 2.165 mm. However, Leiber does provide specific height and width ranges (column 3, lines 17-column 4, line 4, TABLE 1). Applicant’s claimed ranges overlap and/or lie inside ranges disclosed by Leiber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from different height and widths including between 45 and 60 pm, preferably between 51 and 55 pm and width between 1.7 and 2.6 mm, preferably between 2.0 and 2.3 mm or more specifically 53 pm and 2.165 mm since such ranges overlap and/or lie inside ranges disclosed by Leiber and for the purpose of optimizing strength elongation of the knitted net. Regarding claims 14-16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from different materials and amounts of HDPE and polypropylene for the purpose of providing the netting with the specific physical characteristics associated with the materials and to optimize the elasticity and breaking strength of the knitted net. Concerning claims 17-19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from distances between knitted knots including 5.07 and 5.09 cm or between 3.02 cm and 3.03 cm and number of threads between 20 and 30, preferably equal to 25 in order to control the density of the knitted net so as to optimize the strength and weight of the knitted net.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant is reminded that all business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. 37 C.F.R. 1.2
Further it is noted that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.111, including:
-The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.
-A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
-Moreover, The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06, MPEP 714.02. The "disclosure" includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY WORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4997. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANNY WORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
ldw
Prosecution Insights