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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9 of claim 1, “to” should be inserted before “receive fasteners”.
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 - 10 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 meaning of the phrase “the bottom edge the provide openings” as recited in line 8 is unclear.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “therethrough” as recited in line 9 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which structural element(s) or limitation(s) the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name. It is unclear whether “therethrough” refers to the belting lines, the base sheet, or both the belting lines and the base sheet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luke (US 7,364,385) in view Thomas et al. (US 10,267,010), Heselden (US 5,333,970), and Hughes et al. (US 11,255,100).
Regarding claim 11, Luke discloses a flood barrier system, comprising: a horizontal barrier structure (bottom member 24) configured to be anchored to a horizontal surface, and having a first end and a second end; a first vertical barrier structure (one of the vertical reinforcing members 28) that is configured to extend vertically from the first end of the horizontal barrier structure and to be anchored to a first wall; a second vertical barrier structure (the other vertical reinforcing member 28) that is configured to extend vertically from the second end of the horizontal barrier structure and to be anchored to a second wall that is opposite the first wall; and a panel (panel 12) having a first side and a second side, a first side edge disposed in the first vertical barrier structure, a second side edge opposite the first side edge that is disposed in the second vertical barrier structure, a top edge, and a bottom edge that is opposite the top edge and disposed in the horizontal barrier structure, the panel (12) comprising a single water-impermeable base sheet (impermeable sheeting 18); and openings in the top edge, the bottom edge, and the side edges through which fasteners (31) are positioned to fasten the panel to the frame (see Fig. 3) (Figs. 1 - 3, 6, and 8; col. 2, line 53 - col. 3, line 29; col. 4, lines 12 - 37). Luke fails to disclose the panel is foldable and is made of a fabric; a wire mesh covering and fixed to at least one side of the base sheet; belting lines disposed along the first side edge, the second side edge, the bottom edge, and the top edge, the fabric panel comprising a plurality of reinforced openings provided along the first side edge, the second side edge, and the bottom edge which provide openings through the belting lines and the base sheet, wherein fasteners pass through the reinforced openings to provide water-tight seals at the first vertical barrier structure, the second barrier vertical structure, and the horizontal barrier structure between the fabric panel and the first vertical barrier structure, the second barrier vertical structure, and the horizontal barrier structure. Thomas teaches a fabric panel (panels 8 and 32 composed of a liquid impermeable fabric); and a wire mesh covering and fixed to at least one side of the fabric panel (fabric layer 34 of panels 8 and 32; col. 9, line 53 - col. 10, line 11) (Figs. 2a, 2b, 6a, and 6b; col. 3, lines 32 - 37; col. 5, lines 26 - 32; col. 9, line 53 - col. 10, line 11; col. 10, line 56 - col. 11, line 24; col. 12, lines 8 - 25). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the base sheet comprising an impermeable sheeting as disclosed by Luke with the base sheet comprising an impermeable fabric panel and a wire mesh fixed to the fabric panel as taught by Thomas to improve the structural strength of the base sheet. Thomas fails to disclose the fabric panel is foldable; belting lines disposed along the first side edge, the second side edge, the bottom edge, and the top edge, the fabric panel comprising a plurality of reinforced openings provided along the first side edge, the second side edge, and the bottom edge which provide openings through the belting lines and the base sheet, wherein fasteners pass through the reinforced openings to provide water-tight seals at the first vertical barrier structure, the second barrier vertical structure, and the horizontal barrier structure between the fabric panel and the first vertical barrier structure, the second barrier vertical structure, and the horizontal barrier structure. Heselden teaches a fabric panel comprising a flexible fabric (sheets 136 to 138) and a wire mesh cage (12) are foldable (folded in a concertina fashion; Figs. 12 and 13 illustrate each of the side panels 128 of each cell are folded.) (Figs. 12 and 13; abstract; col. 1, lines 63 - 64; col. 5, lines 29 - 59; col. 6, lines 64 - 66; col. 10, lines 33 - 58) so that the wire cage structure has a compressed minimum volume form so that it is easy to transport to an installation site. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the wire mesh as disclosed above with the foldable wire mesh as taught by Heselden so that the fabric panel has a compressed minimum volume form to improve the ease with which the fabric panel is transported to an installation site. Heselden fails to teach belting lines disposed along the first side edge, the second side edge, the bottom edge, and the top edge, the fabric panel comprising a plurality of reinforced openings provided along the first side edge, the second side edge, and the bottom edge which provide openings through the belting lines and the base sheet, wherein fasteners pass through the reinforced openings to provide water-tight seals at the first vertical barrier structure, the second barrier vertical structure, and the horizontal barrier structure between the fabric panel and the first vertical barrier structure, the second barrier vertical structure, and the horizontal barrier structure. Hughes teaches belting lines along the top edge (reinforced area 47), bottom edge (reinforced area 47), first side edge (strip 43), and second side edge (strip 43), and a plurality of horizontal belting lines (reinforcing straps 48) that run from the first side edge to the second side edge between the top edge and the bottom edge, the fabric panel comprising a plurality of reinforced openings (grommets 49) provided along the first side edge, the second side edge, and the bottom edge which provide openings through the belting lines and the base sheet, wherein fasteners pass through the reinforced openings, and water impermeable gaskets to provide water-tight seals between the components of the fabric panels (Fig. 3; col. 9, line 54 - col. 10, line 66) to provide structural reinforcement for the panel. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the panel as disclosed above with the belting lines as taught by Hughes, to have modified the openings in the top edge, the bottom edge, and the side edges as disclosed above with the reinforcement grommets as taught by Hughes to provide the panel with additional structural strength, and to use water-tight seals as taught by Hughes along the top edge, the bottom edge, and the side edges to provide structural reinforcement for the panel and to improve the effectiveness of the flood barrier system.
Regarding claim 12, Luke further discloses a first vertical barrier structure (H-beam 40) comprising a pair of right-angle brackets (66), a second vertical barrier structure (H-beam on the left side of Fig. 4) comprising right-angle brackets (66), and wherein the panel (12) is disposed between the right- angle brackets of the first and second vertical barrier structures (Fig. 4; col. 4, line 25 - col. 5, line 53). Luke fails to disclose the horizontal barrier structure comprises a pair of right-angle brackets. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the horizontal barrier structure with the pair of right-angle brackets as taught by Luke to form a sealed connection between the horizontal barrier structure and the bottom of the panel.
Regarding claim 18, Luke fails to disclose a plurality of horizontal belting lines that run from the first side edge to the second side edge between the top edge and the bottom edge. Hughes teaches a plurality of horizontal belting lines (reinforcing straps 48) that run from the first side edge to the second side edge between the top edge and the bottom edge (Fig. 3; col. 9, line 54 - col. 10, line 66) to provide structural reinforcement for the panel. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the panel as disclosed above with the belting lines as taught by Hughes to provide the panel with structural reinforcement.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luke in view of Thomas et al., Heselden, and Hughes as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cohen. Luke in view of Thomas, Heselden, and Hughes discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the base sheet is made of a combination of polyvinyl chloride and poly-paraphenylene terephthalamide fibers. Cohen teaches a base sheet is made of a combination of polyvinyl chloride and poly-paraphenylene terephthalamide (Kevlar) fibers (paragraph 0035) to provide an impermeable fabric that has enough structural strength to withstand the hydraulic pressure applied thereto by a body of water. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the base sheet as disclosed above with the material comprising a combination of polyvinyl chloride and poly- paraphenylene terephthalamide fibers as taught by Cohen to provide an impermeable fabric that has enough structural strength to withstand the hydraulic pressure applied thereto by a body of water. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luke in view of Thomas et al., Heselden, and Hughes as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Heselden '512. Luke in view of Thomas, Heselden, and Hughes discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the wire mesh is made of titanium wire. Heselden '512 teaches a wire mesh is made of titanium wire (paragraph 0032) to provide the wire mesh with resilience when folded. Thomas in view of Heselden are silent regarding the type of metal used to make the wire mesh. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the wire mesh as disclosed above with the titanium material as taught by Heselden '512 to provide a strong, lightweight metallic mesh with resilience when folded. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luke in view of Thomas et al., Heselden, Hughes, and Heselden '512 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chamoux (US 2012/0137598).
Regarding claim 15, Luke in view of Thomas, Heselden, Hughes, and Heselden '512 fails to disclose the wire mesh is a rectangular mesh having: a plurality of vertical wire lines that run from the top edge to the bottom edge, and a plurality of horizontal wire lines that run from the first side edge to the second side edge; the plurality of vertical wire lines span a width of the base sheet from the first side edge to the second side edge at a regular horizontal spacing between each of the vertical wire lines; and the plurality of horizontal wire lines span a height of the base sheet from the top edge to the bottom edge at a regular vertical spacing between each of the horizontal wire lines. Chamoux teaches wire mesh (mesh comprising horizontal 2 and vertical 3 metal wires; paragraphs 0016 and 0049) is a rectangular mesh having: a plurality of vertical wire lines (3) that run from the top edge to the bottom edge, and a plurality of horizontal wire lines (2) that run from the first side edge to the second side edge; the plurality of vertical wire lines span a width of the base sheet (wall 9) from the first side edge to the second side edge at a regular horizontal spacing between each of the vertical wire lines; and the plurality of horizontal wire lines span a height of the base sheet from the top edge to the bottom edge at a regular vertical spacing between each of the horizontal wire lines (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0016, 0049, and 0054). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the wire mesh and base sheet as disclosed above with the rectangular mesh comprising the plurality of vertical wire lines span a width of the base sheet from the first side edge to the second side edge at a regular horizontal spacing between each of the vertical wire lines; and the plurality of horizontal wire lines span a height of the base sheet from the top edge to the bottom edge at a regular vertical spacing between each of the horizontal wire lines as taught by Chamoux to provide a wire mesh that provides a uniform amount of structural support for the base sheet.
Regarding claim 16, Luke in view of Thomas, Heselden, Hughes, Heselden '512, and Chamoux discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the regular horizontal spacing between the vertical wire lines is one half inch to four inches, and the regular vertical spacing between the horizontal wire lines is one half inch to four inches. Examiner takes the position that the specific spacing of the vertical wire lines and the specific spacing of the horizontal wire lines lack criticality in the claims and are design considerations within the skill of the art to provide the fabric panel with a desired amount and distribution of structural support. A change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luke in view of Thomas et al., Heselden, Hughes, Heselden '512, and Chamoux as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wendeler- Goeggelmann (US 2018/0214929). Luke in view of Thomas, Heselden, Hughes, Heselden '512, and Chamoux discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except each vertical wire line of the plurality of vertical wire lines comprises a plurality of wires, and each horizontal wire line of the plurality of horizontal wire lines comprises a plurality of wires. Wendeler-Goeggelmann teaches a wire mesh comprising wires composed of a wire bundle or a single wire (abstract; paragraph 0055). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the wire composed of wire bundles as taught by Wendeler-Goeggelmann for the plurality of vertical wire lines composed of single wires and the plurality of horizontal wire lines composed of single wires as disclosed above as a design consideration within the skill of the art to increase the structural strength of the wire lines and the wire mesh.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luke in view of Thomas et al., Heselden, and Hughes as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bougeois (US 2016/0244930).
Regarding claim 19, Luke fails to disclose a top cap provided along the top edge having a vertical portion that extends adjacent the top edge and a horizontal portion that runs along the top edge and is perpendicular to the vertical portion. Hughes teaches a top cap (reinforced area 47 folded over and stitched to the panel) provided along the top edge having a vertical portion that extends adjacent the top edge and a horizontal portion that runs along the top edge and is perpendicular to the vertical portion (Fig. 3; col. 10, lines 61 - 67). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the top cap as taught by Hughes to provide a reinforced area on each panel. Luke in view of Thomas, Heselden, and Hughes fails to teach a support cable disposed across a width of the base sheet adjacent the top edge, the support cable having a loop at each of opposing ends of the support cable. Bougeois teaches a support cable (217) disposed across a width of a panel (curtain member 210) adjacent the top edge, the support cable having a loop at each of opposing ends of the support cable (Fig. 3; paragraph 0025). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the support cable as taught by Bougeois to ensure that the fabric panel is extended to its maximum height by maintaining the top of the fabric panel at the top of the flood barrier.
Regarding claim 20, Luke in view of Thomas, Heselden, and Hughes discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a support cable attached to the fabric panel adjacent the top edge, the support cable having a first end at the first side edge and a second end at the second side edge, wherein the first end and the second end are each formed in a loop. Bougeois teaches a support cable (217) attached to a panel (curtain member 210) adjacent the top edge, the support cable having a first end at the first side edge and a second end at the second side edge, wherein the first end and the second end are each formed in a loop (Fig. 3; paragraph 0025). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the support cable as taught by Bougeois to ensure that the fabric panel is extended to its maximum height by maintaining the top of the fabric panel at the top of the flood barrier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 06 February 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1 - 10 are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the amendments to claim 1 have resulted in a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1 - 10.
Applicant's arguments filed 06 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that since all of the cited prior art teaches rigid panels, the prior art fails to teach a single panel that is foldable. Examiner replies that Thomas explicitly teaches “hinges located at a point in a wall panel where it may be desired for the panel to be able to fold” (col. 7, lines 14 - 21). Additionally, Examiner takes the position that Heselden also teaches a foldable fabric panel. Examiner notes that Heselden teaches a fabric panel comprising a flexible fabric (sheets 136 to 138) and a wire mesh cage (12) are foldable (folded in a concertina fashion; Figs. 12 and 13 illustrate each of the side panels 128 of each cell are folded.) Examiner has interpreted the section of wall 130 (or a section of wall 128) located between adjacent diaphragm panels 126 as a single fabric panel and Fig. 12 of Heselden clearly illustrates sections of walls 130 and 128 between adjacent diaphragm panels 126 undergoing various degrees of folding.
Applicant argues that Thomas does not teach a wire mesh made of metal wires. Examiner notes that claim 11 does not specify the material of which the wire mesh is composed. Examiner takes the position that since claim 11 only recites “a wire mesh”, claim 11 does not require a metal wire mesh and, therefore, the wire mesh as taught by Thomas reads on the claim limitation.
Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art references teach reinforced openings along the side edges and the bottom of the fabric panel. Examiner replies that Luke teaches openings for receiving fasteners wherein the openings are located adjacent the top edge, the bottom edge, and the side edges (Fig. 3). Although Luke fails to teach the openings are reinforced, Examiner notes that Hughes teaches reinforced openings comprising grommets. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the openings in the top edge, the bottom edge, and the side edges as disclosed by Luke with the reinforcement grommets as taught by Hughes to provide the panel with additional structural strength.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary would not have looked to Schwammberger to teach titanium wire because it is non-analogous art. Examiner replies that Heselden (US 2010/0193512), not Schwammberger, was relied upon to teach titanium wire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
4/20/2026
Prosecution Insights