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 .
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for "the same mechanical properties" or for "the mesh". There would be antecedent basis for "the foldable GFRP bar mesh system" but not for the mesh per se.
In claim 2 there is no antecedent basis for "the mesh". There is not antecedent basis for "the structure".
In claim 3, the use of the phrase "such as" renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is not clear if it is limited to the marine, underground or chemically exposed areas or if these are merely exemplary.
In claim 4, there is no antecedent basis for "the durability and environmental resistance".
In claim 5, there is no antecedent basis for "the system". Also it is not clear what is meant by "improving portability". It is not clear what is improved from or what degree of improvement is required.
In claim 6-9, there is no antecedent basis for "the mesh".
In claim 10, it is not clear what is meant by "improved handling" because it is not clear what type of improvement and how much improvement is required and it is not clear what is meant by "traditional rigid mesh systems", to which the claimed system is compared to. The scope of the claim is not clear. Also, there is no antecedent basis for "the mesh".
In claim 11, there is no antecedent basis for "the mesh".
In claim 12, there is no antecedent basis for "the application".
In claim 13, there is no antecedent basis for "the mesh system".
In claim 15, there is not antecedent basis for "the mesh system".
Also it is not clear in claim 15, what is meant by "designed for use". Does this mean that the mesh is structurally different or is this a statement of intended use.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanje, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0333382 in view of Barnes et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,007,894.
Hanje discloses a mesh structure. See paragraph 0020. The mesh is formed with fiber reinforced composite members. See paragraph 0003, 0006. The rebar can be glass fiber reinforced polymers. The glass fiber reinforced polymer bars are connected by connecters which allow the mesh structure to be folded and unfolded, wherein the connectors allow for flexibly and/or pivotally connecting intersecting rebar members, which is equated with allowing the mesh to pivot and fold and unfold along multiple axes for compact transportation and storage. The material of the mesh are glass fiber reinforced polymers which would have some resistance to corrosion and would be capable of being used in harsh environments. With regard to the material of the connectors, it would have been obvious to have selected a material which was suitably durable depending on the intended use of the structures. The grid can be folded and unfolded for transport and installation which is equated with improve portability and quick installation as well as reducing space requirements. The mesh is capable of being used to reinforce concrete structures and in mining. With regard to the particular size of the bars, it would have been obvious to have formed the bars to particular lengths depending on the intended use of the structure. The connectors allow the mesh to be lifted and moved in either a folded or unfolded state without tools. The connectors would have at least some resistance to thermal expansion and contraction. The mesh system would be capable of being used in infrastructure projects. See paragraph 0007. The mesh can be deployed in either a flat or rounded configuration. See paragraph 0015.
Hanje differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the glass fiber reinforced polymer bars are isotropic.
However, Barnes discloses forming composite grid structures from isotropic fiber reinforced materials in order to provide uniform properties to the grid structure. See col 5, lines 8-56. Since the bars are isotropic they would meet the limitations of claim 9
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed isotropic fibers materials to form the polymer bars of Hanje in order to provide bars having uniform properties in all directions as taught by Barnes.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanje in view of Barnes as applied to claims above, and further in view of Tolliver, U.S. Patent No. 4,280,310.
Hanje in view of Barnes differs from the claimed invention because it does not clearly teach forming the connectors so that they were locking.
However, Tolliver discloses employing lockable connectors for use for folding panels. See col. 2, lines 25-44.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed locking connectors in order to provide additional features to the connectors and therefore to the mesh system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights