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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 4-12, 15, and 19-20 are currently pending.
Claim 1-3, 13-14, and 16-18 have been canceled.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 07/07/2025 have been entered.
Claims 4 and 19 have been amended. Claim 1-3 has been canceled. Claim 20 has been added.
A Section 103 rejection has been implemented in view of a new search and consideration of the amended claims.
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 4-12, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halahmi et al. US 2010/0080659 A1) in view of Webster (US 4,797,026 A) and in further view of Bach (US 6,296,924 B1).
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-12, 15, and 19-20,
Halahmi teaches a geocell formed from a plurality of perforated polymeric strips (14), having a perforated area, in which adjacent polymeric strips are bonded together along the seams through sewing or welding to form a plurality of cells (20) having cell walls (18) when stretched in a direction perpendicular to the faces of the strips (Halahmi: abstract; Fig. 1; par. 0038-0039, 0070, and 0074). The polymeric strips may be formed from high density polyethylene (Halahmi: par. 0054) and may be blended with a high performance polymer such as polyamides (Halahmi: par. 0057). The polymeric strips are bonded together along seams through sewing or welding to form a plurality of cells (Halahmi: par. 0074).
Halahmi further teaches an embodiment in which the has a height of 10 cm (100 mm) which is within the claimed range from about 50 millimeters to about 200 millimeters (Halahmi: par. 0091). Applicant defines the geocell size as the length between seems in the unfolded or expanded state (Applicant’s PGpub: par. 0027). Halahmi further teaches the expanded cells may have a roughly elliptical shape with about 260 mm on the long axis (i.e. the axis between the seams in the expanded state) (Halahmi: par. 0092) which is within the claimed about 200 millimeters to about 600 millimeters. Halahmi further teaches an embodiment in which there is 33 cm (330 mm) between the seams, which is within the claimed range of 200 millimeters to about 600 millimeters (Halahmi: par. 0091).
Halahmi does not explicitly teach wherein the polymeric strips have a wall thickness of 1.0 mm to 1.7 mm.
Webster teaches a grid system for stabilizing an under layer comprising a plurality of high density polyethylene strips bonded in a grid format with a similar structure to the geocells of Halahmi (Webster: abstract; Figs. 1-2; col. 2, lin. 16-21; col. 4, lin. 1-14). When high density polyethylene is utilized the thickness of the polymeric strips (a wall thickness) is preferably .050 inches (converts to 1.27 mm) which is within the claimed range of 1.0 mm to 1.4 mm (Webster: col. 4, lin. 10-12). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 77 USPQ 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). Therefore it is known in the art of grid systems for use in infill applications to have wall thicknesses within the claimed range to provide a suitable structure to support vehicular traffic.
Halahmi and Webster are in the corresponding field of grid systems used in combination with infill for use in road applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a wall thickness for the geocell of Halahmi to be within the claimed range to provide a geocell with a suitable thickness for the intended application of supporting vehicular based traffic.
Halahmi and Webster are silent towards the geocell having an installation strain of at most 3.5% or a service strain of at most 3.0%. Applicant broadly describes an installation strain as the strain put on the geocell such as the deformation of the cell to infill during installation of the geocell (Applicant’s PGpub: par. 0008). Therefore, an installation strain will be interpreted in light of Applicant’s specification as any level of strain placed on the geocell during installation of infill. The geocell of Halahmi teaches the geocell may be infilled with the same types of material (Halahmi: par. 0077) as described in Applicant’s specification (Applicant’s PGpub: par. 0025). The geocell may also be designed to have improved strain properties during infill (Halahmi: par. 0052 and 0074-0076).
Additionally, Bach teaches a system of perforated cells composed of elongated plastic strips formed of polyethylene bonded side by side through welding to form a similar structure to the geocells of Halahmi (Bach: abstract; Fig 1; col. 3, lin. 61-67; col. 6, lin. 23-42). The optimum pattern for the perforations (apertures, 34) and the non-open areas (32) allow for optimum infill while maintaining sufficient wall stiffness which would thus avoid plastic yield to some extent (Bach: Figs. 1 and 2; col. 4, lin. 60-67 – col. 5, lin. 1-5). The geocell may comprise a perforated pattern (a repeated design which is outlined in adapted Fig. 2 below). The perforations exist in an area defined by a length (D8) of 13 inches (about 330 millimeters), which is within the disclosed range of about 200 millimeters to about 600 millimeters, and a height (D13) of 8 inches (about 203 mm), which overlaps with the disclosed range of about 50 millimeters to about 200 mm as about slightly extends the endpoint of the range.
PNG
media_image1.png
571
1061
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it is known in the art of perforated cells for use in infill applications to adjust or optimize the perforation structure and pattern to allow for optimum infill while maintaining sufficient wall stiffness with Halahmi teaching it is known to utilize perforations for improving strain properties.
Halahmi and Bach are in the corresponding field of perforated cell structures for use in infill applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust/optimize the perforation structure and pattern to allow for optimal infill while maintaining sufficient wall stiffness which would thus avoid some level of plastic yield and improve strain properties as taught by Halahmi and Bach. It would therefore be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that you can adjust the materials and perforation patterns and perforation dimensions to adjust and improve the installation and service strain properties, such as to the claimed range.
Another perspective is that Halahmi teaches the polymeric strips may be formed from high density polyethylene (Halahmi: par. 0054) and may be blended with a high performance polymer such as polyamides (Halahmi: par. 0057), which are the same materials utilized to form the polymeric strips in Applicant's specification (Applicant's PGpub: par. 0028). The polymeric strips are bonded together along seams through sewing or welding to form a plurality of cells (Halahmi: par. 0074) which is the same method of bonding utilized in Applicant's specification (Applicant's PGpub: par. 0026). Additionally, the cell walls may be perforated (Halahmi: par. 0070) and may be perforated into a pattern defined in the claimed area as taught by Bach to provide improved properties to avoid plastic yield (Bach: Figs. 1 and 2; col. 4, lin. 60-67 – col. 5, lin. 1-5). The geocells may also have the dimensions required by claims 11-12 and 15 which are detailed below and may have the claimed wall thickness as taught by Webster.
That is, the geocell of Halahmi, Webster, and Bach possesses the same structure formed by a substantially similar process as the geocell disclosed in Applicant’s specification. The limitation requiring the perforation pattern to be “configured” on each cell wall to arrive at the claimed installation strain will be met by the perforations formed in a single pattern that have any level of avoidance to local plastic yield which matches the description in Applicant’s specification as described above. Thus, the geocell of Halahmi would be expected to intrinsically possess the same characteristics such as a cell strip of the geocell being characterized by an installation strain of at most 3.5% or 3.0% or 2.5% and the single pattern being configured to have an unchanged shape in response to a 6.1 kN/meter load applied perpendicular to the seams of the cell wall at ambient temperature and for a period of 90 minutes.
As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 6-10,
Halahmi, Webster, and Bach teaches the geocell required by claim 4. However, Halahmi does not expressly disclose the cell strips of the geocell are characterized by a service strain of at most 3.0% as measured in the manner described by claims 6-10.
Halahmi does teach the polymeric strips may be formed from polyethylene, medium density polyethylene, or high density polyethylene (Halahmi: par. 0054) and may be blended with a high performance polymer such as polyamides or polyesters (Halahmi: par. 0057), which are the same materials utilized to form the polymeric strips in Applicant's specification (Applicant's PGpub: par. 0028). The polymeric strips are bonded together along seams through sewing or welding to form a plurality of cells (Halahmi: par. 0074) which is the same method of bonding utilized in Applicant's specification (Applicant's PGpub: par. 0026). Additionally, the cell walls may be perforated (Halahmi: par. 0070). The geocells may also have the dimensions required by claims 11-12 and 15 which are detailed below. Bach teaches utilizing a pattern of perforations in the claimed area as described in the rejection of claim 4 above.
That is, the geocell of Halahmi, Webster, and Bach possesses the same structure formed by a substantially similar process as the geocell disclosed in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the geocell of Halahmi would be expected to intrinsically possess the same characteristics such as a cell strip of the geocell being characterized by service strain of at most 3.0% and would be expected to exhibit the same results when tested in the manner described by the text of claims 6-10.
As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783