DETAILED ACTION
The response filed 09/032025 has been entered.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (6,305,876) in view of Huaxing Nets (“100% Virgin HDPE Fishing Net”).
With regard to claim 1, Yoshino discloses a transportable, flexible rope net gabion for scour protection (abstract) comprising: lifting ring (8); a plurality of polymer ropes (6; col. 5, lines 56-62) connected to the lifting ring (fig. 4); a polymer net (1; col. 4, lines 10-16) connected to the polymer ropes, the polymer net having a volume (figs. 1,6); and a plurality of stones or boulders (12) such that the rope net gabion could be evenly positioned around a structure to be supported (col. 8, lines 18-21).
Yoshino appears to suggest in fig. 4 however fails to explicitly state wherein up to 45% of the volume of the polymer net is packed with the plurality of stones or boulders. Yoshino discloses the net is constructed from various polymers to include polyethylene however fails to explicitly state the polymer net is made from 20% to 100% by weight of high density polyethylene (HDPE) and wherein the polymer net exhibits reduced release of microplastic particles upon immersion in water, as compared to release of microplastic particles from a comparative net made of polyester upon immersion in water.
Huaxing discloses nets for the marine industry wherein the nets are constructed from 100% high density polyethylene (pg. 1) and therefore the net exhibits reduced release of microplastic particles upon immersion in water, as compared to release of microplastic particles from a comparative net made of polyester upon immersion in water (inherent property of HDPE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshino and construct the netting with 100% HDPE with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
With regard to the up to 45% volume, Yoshino discloses the netting with significant unused volume and the desirability to have the finished product be moldable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one may fill the volume up to 45%. When the general features of the claim language are met by the prior art, it is not considered inventive to discover or determine optimum or workable details for specific applications simply through routine experimentation. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05 II.
With regard to claim 2, Huaxing further discloses the HDPE is virgin HDPE of ethylene (pg. 1).
With regard to claims 5-6 and 8, Yoshino, as modified, further discloses the polymer net is made from 100% by weight of virgin HDPE (Huaxing; pg. 1).
With regard to claim 9, Yoshino, as modified, further discloses the polymer net is a knotted net (col. 3, lines 15-17).
With regard to claim 10, Yoshino, as modified, further discloses the polymer net is a knotless net (col. 3, lines 15-17).
With regard to claim 11, Yoshino, as modified, further discloses the polymer net is monolithically connected to the plurality of polymer ropes (figs. 1, 4).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (6,305,876) in view of Huaxing Nets (“100% Virgin HDPE Fishing Net”) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Mohsenzadeh et al. (“Bioethylene Production from Ethanol: A Review and Techno-economical Evaluation”).
With regard to claims 3-4, Yoshino, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the HDPE is a polymer of bioethylene produced by dehydration of ethanol.
Mohsenzadeh discloses bioethylene produced by dehydration of ethanol for polyethylene (abstract; introduction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Yoshino and utilize bioethylene produced by dehydration of ethanol as taught in Mohsenzadeh with a reasonable expectation of success in order decrease the environmental consequences of the material as taught by Mohsenzadeh (abstract).
With regard to method claim 20, the claimed method of making a rope net gabion would inherently be performed by the modification of Yoshino to include the 100% HDPE netting and obtaining the HDPE from bioethylene produced by the dehydration of ethanol as taught by Huaxing and Mohsenzadeh as discussed above.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (6,305,876) in view of Dare Products (“6mm Poly Equi-Rope x 600 Feet”).
With regard to claim 7, Yoshino discloses a transportable, flexible rope net gabion for scour protection (abstract) comprising: lifting ring (8); a plurality of polymer ropes (6; col. 5, lines 56-62) connected to the lifting ring (fig. 4); a polymer net (1; col. 4, lines 10-16) connected to the polymer ropes, the polymer net having a volume (figs. 1,6); a plurality of stones or boulders (12), such that the rope net gabion could be evenly positioned around a structure to be supported (col. 8, lines 18-21).
Yoshino appears to suggest in fig. 4 however fails to explicitly state wherein up to 45% of the volume of the polymer net is packed with the plurality of stones or boulders. Yoshino discloses the ropes and nets are constructed from various polymers to include polyethylene and polyester however fails to disclose wherein the polymer ropes, the polymer net, or both the polymer ropes and the polymer net are made from 20% to 90% by weight of virgin high density polyethylene (HDPE) and 10% to 80% virgin polyester and the HDPE exhibits reduced release of microplastic particles upon immersion in water, as compared to release of microplastic particles from a comparative net made of polyester upon immersion in water.
Dare Products discloses 6mm ropes constructed from high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyester and the HDPE exhibits reduced release of microplastic particles upon immersion in water, as compared to release of microplastic particles from a comparative net made of polyester upon immersion in water (inherent property of HDPE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshino and construct the rope with high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyester, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Furthermore, with regard to the 20% to 90% weight HDPE and 10% to 80% Polyester, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the desired weight be any desired range to include the broad range of 20% to 90% weight HDPE and 10% to 80% Polyester based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant’s specification has not stated any criticality to these values and 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to the up to 45% volume, Yoshino discloses the netting with significant unused volume and the desirability to have the finished product be moldable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one may fill the volume up to 45%. When the general features of the claim language are met by the prior art, it is not considered inventive to discover or determine optimum or workable details for specific applications simply through routine experimentation. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05 II.
With regard to the virgin material, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to use virgin materials in rope making. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize virgin material in order to ensure the materials maintain their intrinsic properties as known within the art.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (6,305,876) in view of Huaxing Nets (“100% Virgin HDPE Fishing Net”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of StarPlasticRope (“Polyester Rope”).
With regard to claim 12, Yoshino, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as the polymer net is made from 50% to 100% of virgin HDPE (Huaxing; pg. 1) as well as the ropes are made from polyester (Yoshino; col. 5, lines 56-65).
Yoshino is silent regarding the polyester is virgin polyester.
StarPlasticRope discloses constructing a polyester rope from virgin polyester (“raw material”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Yoshino and construct the polyester rope with virgin polyester, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (6,305,876) in view of Huaxing Nets (“100% Virgin HDPE Fishing Net”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farid Group (“HDPE Twine & Rope”).
With regard to claims 14-17, Yoshino, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as the polymer net is made from 100% virgin HDPE (Huaxing; pg. 1) however fails to explicitly state the polymer ropes are made from 50% to 100% virgin HDPE.
Farid Group discloses constructing rope from 100% virgin HDPE (pg. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Yoshino and construct the polymer rope with 100% HDPE, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (6,305,876) in view of Farid Group (“HDPE Twine & Rope”) and Huaxing Nets (“100% Virgin HDPE Fishing Net”).
With regard to claim 18, Yoshino discloses a method of making a rope net gabion comprising a lifting ring (8), a plurality of polymer ropes (6; col. 5, lines 56-62), and a polymer net (1; col. 4, lines 10-16) having a volume, the method comprising:
making the plurality of polymer ropes (fig. 4-6); connecting the plurality of polymer ropes to the lifting ring (fig. 4); connecting the polymer net to the plurality of polymer ropes (fig. 4); and partially filling the volume of the polymer net with a plurality of stones or boulders (12; fig. 6).
Yoshino appears to suggest in fig. 4 however fails to explicitly state wherein up to 45% of the volume of the polymer net is filled with the plurality of stones or boulders. Yoshino discloses the polymer net and ropes are constructed from various polymers to include polyethylene however fails to disclose making the polymer net from 20% to 100% by weight of virgin HDPE and 0%to 80% by weight of virgin polyester and wherein the polymer ropes are constructed from 20% to 100% by weight virgin HDPE and 0% to 80% by weight of virgin polyester and the net exhibits reduced release of microplastic particles upon immersion in water, as compared to release of microplastic particles from a comparative net made of polyester upon immersion in water.
Farid Group discloses constructing rope from 100% virgin HDPE (pg. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshino and construct the polymer rope with 100% HDPE, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Huaxing discloses nets for the marine industry wherein the nets are constructed from 100% high density polyethylene (pg. 1) and therefore the net exhibits reduced release of microplastic particles upon immersion in water, as compared to release of microplastic particles from a comparative net made of polyester upon immersion in water (inherent property of HDPE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Yoshino and construct the netting with 100% HDPE with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
With regard to the up to 45% volume, Yoshino discloses the netting with significant unused volume and the desirability to have the finished product be moldable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one may fill the volume up to 45%. When the general features of the claim language are met by the prior art, it is not considered inventive to discover or determine optimum or workable details for specific applications simply through routine experimentation. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05 II.
Response to Arguments
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 09/03/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-12, 14-18, and 20, based upon 35 USC 103 as set forth in the last Office action because the declaration is on the basis that Yoshino discloses a polyester net and fails to address to combination of references. While Yoshino discloses polyester, Yoshino also discloses various other polymers such as polyethylene.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reduce turbidity from released microplastic particles by a factor of ~6 to ~8.25 at a temperature of 10° C to 26° C) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, it should be noted that while Yoshino discloses an embodiment with polyester netting, Yoshino further discloses various embodiments of netting to include polyethylene. The rejection is on the basis that Yoshino discloses polyethylene net, however fails to explicitly state the polyethylene may be high density polyethylene.
Applicant’s specification has not described altering the HDPE in any fashion (i.e. additives). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
10/14/2025