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 Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13, “and to” should be changed to “and”.
In claim 5, line 2, “of” should be inserted before “at”.
In claim 18, line 2, “of” should be inserted before “no”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the wording of “A roll configured for soil consolidation or stabilization comprising a reticular structure” in lines 1-2 is unclear. The term “comprising” is positioned after “stabilization” but appears to be related to the “roll”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “A roll configured for soil consolidation or stabilization comprising a reticular structure” to mean “A roll configured for soil consolidation or stabilization, the roll comprising a reticular structure”. Further, it is unclear which first element is meant by “said first element” in line 8 because a plurality of first elements is previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “said first element” to mean “said first elements”. Further, the wording of “at least one marker arranged on either at the group of initial windings or the group of final windings of the reticular structure” in lines 16-17 is confusing. The limitation “on either at” appears to include an extra word. It is unclear whether “the group of final windings” is the same as or different than “the group of end windings” in line 14 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “at least one marker arranged on either at the group of initial windings or the group of final windings of the reticular structure” to mean “at least one marker arranged on either the group of initial windings or the group of end windings of the reticular structure”. Examiner notes that “the group of final windings” is also recited in the last two lines and should similarly be amended to “the group of end windings”. Claims 2-13 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 6, the wording of “a ratio of a total length of the reticular structure to the predetermined length of the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings is no greater than 0.1” in lines 3-5 is confusing. The total length must be greater than the partial length of the group of initial windings, therefore the claimed ratio must be greater than one. It appears that the lengths of the ratio are recited backwards. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a ratio of a total length of the reticular structure to the predetermined length of the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings is no greater than 0.1” to mean “a ratio of the predetermined length of the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings to a total length of the reticular structure is no greater than 0.1”.
Regarding claim 7, the wording of “the marker is applied and/or defines only at least part of the reticular structure of the group of initial windings” in lines 1-2 is confusing. How can the marker define part of the reticular structure when it is simply arranged on the reticular structure? What is meant by “only at least part of”? This seems contradictory. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the marker is applied and/or defines only at least part of the reticular structure of the group of initial windings” to mean “the marker is applied to only the reticular structure of the group of initial windings”.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear whether “the first inner winding” in lines 1-2 is the same as or different than the “initial inner winding” in claim 1 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the first inner winding” to mean “the initial inner winding”.
Regarding claim 10, the wording of “extending along the entire reticular structure defining only the group of initial windings” in lines 4-5 is confusing. The limitation recites the “entire” reticular structure and then limits the extension to only part of the reticular structure. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “extending along the entire reticular structure defining only the group of initial windings” to mean “extending only along the entire reticular structure defining the group of initial windings”.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear whether “the trajectory” in line 4 is the same as or different than “a second trajectory” in claim 1 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the trajectory” to mean “the second trajectory”.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear whether “meshes” in line 2 are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “meshes” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “meshes”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “meshes” to mean “the meshes”.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear whether “the first inner winding” in line 16 is the same as or different than the “initial inner winding” in line 11 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the first inner winding” to mean “the initial inner winding”. Claims 15-18 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear whether “the first inner winding” in line 3 is the same as or different than the “initial inner winding” in claim 14 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the first inner winding” to mean “the initial inner winding”.
Regarding claim 18, the wording of “a ratio between the total length of the reticular structure and the predetermined length of the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings is in a range of 0.05 to 0.001” in lines 4-6 is confusing. The total length must be greater than the partial length of the group of initial windings, therefore the claimed ratio must be greater than one. It appears that the lengths of the ratio are recited backwards. The range also appears to list the highest number first instead of the lowest number to the highest number. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a ratio between the total length of the reticular structure and the predetermined length of the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings is in a range of 0.05 to 0.001” to mean “a ratio of the predetermined length of the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings to the total length of the reticular structure is in a range of 0.001 to 0.05”.
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, 2, 4, 7-10 and 13-16 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al (US 2007/0021018), hereinafter referred to as Lin.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a roll configured for soil consolidation or stabilization comprising a reticular structure (e.g. 100, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0037 and 0055), the reticular structure includes: a plurality of first elements spaced from each other and having an elongated conformation according to a first trajectory (e.g. 130, Fig. 1), and a plurality of second elements spaced from each other and having an elongated conformation according to a second trajectory transverse to the first trajectory (e.g. 120, Fig. 1), wherein said first element and second elements intersect at nodes (e.g. 115, Fig. 1) to form meshes (e.g. 140 and 145, Fig. 1), wherein the reticular structure is wrapped around a winding axis to define a plurality of windings (e.g. paragraph 0052, wherein Fig. 1 shows the reticular structure 100 partially wrapped and Fig. 8 shows a similar reticular structure 860 fully wrapped), wherein said plurality of windings comprises: a group of initial windings defined between an initial inner winding of the reticular structure and to an intermediate winding (e.g. 100 meters of reticular structure closest to the core, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0051-0052), and a group of end windings defined between a final outer winding of the reticular structure and said intermediate winding (e.g. remaining windings of the reticular structure, Fig. 1), wherein the roll comprises at least one marker arranged on either at the group of initial windings or the group of final windings of the reticular structure (e.g. reflective or colored elements, paragraphs 0033 and 0051-0052), and wherein the marker is configured to visually differentiate the reticular structure of the group of initial windings from the reticular structure of the group of final windings (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 2, Lin further discloses that the marker is arranged only on the group of initial windings of the reticular structure (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051).
Regarding claim 4, Lin further discloses that all of the windings of the group of initial windings of the reticular structure comprise said marker (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051).
Regarding claim 7, Lin further discloses that the marker is applied and/or defines only at least part of the reticular structure of the group of initial windings (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051).
Regarding claim 8, Lin further discloses that the marker extends throughout a longitudinal extension of the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051).
Regarding claim 9, Lin further discloses that the marker extends from the first inner winding to the intermediate winding (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 10, Lin further discloses that the marker comprises a marker applied on the reticular structure and suitable for visually distinguishing the reticular structure of the group of initial windings from the group of end windings (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051-0052), wherein the marker comprises at least one strip extending along the entire reticular structure defining only the group of initial windings (e.g. paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 13, Lin further discloses that the reticular structure comprises meshes having a quadrilateral shape, wherein the size of each mesh is defined by the distance between two immediately consecutive first elements and the distance between two immediately consecutive second elements which intersect at said two immediately consecutive first elements (e.g. paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses a roll configured for soil consolidation or stabilization and comprising a reticular structure (e.g. 100, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0037 and 0055), wherein the reticular structure includes: a plurality of first elements spaced from each other and having an elongated conformation according to a first trajectory (e.g. 130, Fig. 1), a plurality of second elements spaced from each other and having an elongated conformation according to a second trajectory transverse to the first trajectory (e.g. 120, Fig. 1), wherein said first and second elements intersect at nodes (e.g. 115, Fig. 1) to form meshes (e.g. 140 and 145, Fig. 1), wherein the reticular structure is wrapped around a winding axis to define a plurality of windings (e.g. paragraph 0052, wherein Fig. 1 shows the reticular structure 100 partially wrapped and Fig. 8 shows a similar reticular structure 860 fully wrapped), wherein said plurality of windings comprises: a group of initial windings defined between an initial inner winding of the reticular structure and an intermediate winding (e.g. 100 meters of reticular structure closest to the core, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0051-0052), and a group of end windings defined between a final outer winding of the reticular structure and said intermediate winding (e.g. remaining windings of the reticular structure, Fig. 1), wherein the roll comprises at least one marker that extends at least partially between the first inner winding and the intermediate winding, or between the final outer winding and the intermediate winding (e.g. reflective or colored elements, paragraphs 0033 and 0051-0052), and wherein the marker is configured to visually differentiate the reticular structure of the group of initial windings from the reticular structure of the group of end windings (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 15, Lin further discloses that the marker is arranged only on the group of initial windings (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051).
Regarding claim 16, Lin further discloses that the marker extends only across the longitudinal extension of the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings, between the first inner winding and the intermediate winding (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051).
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 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 17 and 18 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US 2007/0021018) alone.
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the group of initial windings has a predetermined number of windings (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051) but Lin does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of the predetermined number of windings of the group of initial windings to the total number of windings of the reticular structure is no greater than 0.2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the ratio limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that this ratio provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Finally, a ratio of no greater than 0.2 would provide the expected benefit of ensuring that the colored portion of the reticular structure is only near the end of the reticular structure to appropriately alert an operator to the end of the roll as desired.
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the reticular structure has a total length measured along said windings (e.g. Fig. 1) and that generally the total length is 1800-3600 meters (e.g. paragraph 0004 wherein a standard roll will wrap 150-300 bales and each bale requires about 12 meters) but Lin does not explicitly disclose that the total length is at least 2000 meters. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the total length limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that this total length provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Finally, a total length of at least 2000 meters would provide the expected benefit of ensuring an adequate number of bales are capable of being wrapped by one roll.
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings has a predetermined length measured along said windings (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051) but Lin does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of a total length of the reticular structure to the predetermined length of the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings is no greater than 0.1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the ratio limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that this ratio provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Finally, a ratio of no greater than 0.1 would provide the expected benefit of ensuring that the colored portion of the reticular structure is only near the end of the reticular structure to appropriately alert an operator to the end of the roll as desired.
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the first elements extend along the plurality of windings of the reticular structure, wherein each first element extends in length along the total length extension of the reticular structure (e.g. Fig. 1). Lin further discloses quadrilateral netting (e.g. paragraph 0055) but does not explicitly disclose that the trajectory of each second element is substantially straight and parallel to the winding axis. The examiner takes official notice that rectangular netting is a known quadrilateral netting in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a netting with rectangular meshes (and therefore the trajectory of each second element being substantially straight and parallel to the winding axis) for the netting of Lin because inasmuch as Lin discloses these nettings as art recognized equivalents, the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose that a ratio between the distance between two adjacent first elements and the distance between two adjacent second elements is in a range of 0.5 to 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the ratio limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that this ratio provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Finally, a ratio of 0.5 to 2 would provide the expected benefit of ensuring strength in all directions.
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the group of initial windings has a predetermined number of windings (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051) but Lin does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of the predetermined number of windings of the group of initial windings to the total number of windings of the reticular structure is no greater than 0.2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the ratio limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that this ratio provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Finally, a ratio of no greater than 0.2 would provide the expected benefit of ensuring that the colored portion of the reticular structure is only near the end of the reticular structure to appropriately alert an operator to the end of the roll as desired.
Regarding claim 18, Lin discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the reticular structure has a total length measured along said windings (e.g. Fig. 1) and that generally the total length is 1800-3600 meters (e.g. paragraph 0004 wherein a standard roll will wrap 150-300 bales and each bale requires about 12 meters) but Lin does not explicitly disclose that the total length is no less than 2,000 meters. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the total length limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that this total length provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Finally, a total length of at least 2000 meters would provide the expected benefit of ensuring an adequate number of bales are capable of being wrapped by one roll. Lin further discloses that the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings has a predetermined length measured along said windings (e.g. paragraphs 0033 and 0051) but Lin does not explicitly disclose that a ratio between the total length of the reticular structure and the predetermined length of the reticular structure defining the group of initial windings is in a range of 0.05 to 0.001. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the ratio limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that this ratio provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Finally, a ratio of 0.05 to 0.001 would provide the expected benefit of ensuring that the colored portion of the reticular structure is only near the end of the reticular structure to appropriately alert an operator to the end of the roll as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678