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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claims 21-23 add the limitation of the polymer rope being made from “22 complete yarns”. This is discussed in para 0069 of the originally filed specification. The “22 complete yarns” comes from loading the material into a machine (presumably in accordance with ASTM 5034/5035 or the like) for the machine direction test (it is noted that in the cross direction test there are 18 complete yarns). This does not equate to being constructed from “22 complete yarns”. Furthermore, this passage is referencing the HDPE net and not the polymer ropes. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, applicant lacks possession of a polymer ropes made from “22 complete yarns”.
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 21-23 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.
With regard to claims 21-23, it is unclear what applicant is intending to claim by 22 complete yarns. As discussed above, this is referencing a load pattern on a machine direction test. Is applicant intending to claim 22 strands? The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
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, 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 virgin high density polyethylene (HDPE) and wherein turbidity from a virgin polyester following immersion in water at 10 degrees Celsius to 26 degrees Celsius exceeds turbidity from the virgin HDPE following immersion in water at 10 degrees Celsius to 26 degrees Celsius by a factor of about 6 to about 8.25 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% virgin high density polyethylene (pg. 1) and therefore the turbidity from a virgin polyester following immersion in water at 10 degrees Celsius to 26 degrees Celsius exceeds turbidity from the virgin HDPE following immersion in water at 10 degrees Celsius to 26 degrees Celsius by a factor of about 6 to about 8.25 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 properties of HDPE). “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” See MPEP 2112.
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% virgin 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 wherein turbidity from a virgin polyester following immersion in water at 10 degrees Celsius to 26 degrees Celsius exceeds turbidity from the virgin HDPE following immersion in water at 10 degrees Celsius to 26 degrees Celsius by a factor of about 6 to about 8.25 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.
Dare Products discloses 6mm ropes constructed from high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyester and turbidity from a virgin polyester following immersion in water at 10 degrees Celsius to 26 degrees Celsius exceeds turbidity from the virgin HDPE following immersion in water at 10 degrees Celsius to 26 degrees Celsius by a factor of about 6 to about 8.25 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 (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 Dare Products (“6mm Poly Equi-Rope x 600 Feet”) 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 90% by weight of virgin high density polyethylene (HDPE) and 10% to 80% virgin polyester and wherein turbidity from a virgin polyester following immersion in water at 10 degrees Celsius to 26 degrees Celsius exceeds turbidity from the virgin HDPE following immersion in water at 10 degrees Celsius to 26 degrees Celsius by a factor of about 6 to about 8.25 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.
Dare Products discloses 6mm ropes constructed from high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyester (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 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.
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.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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.
Claim 22-23 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art, either alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the independent claim(s). Flexible rope net gabions are known such as those taught by Yoshino above. However, as best understood, the cited prior art lacks polymer ropes made from 22 complete yarns of 100% by weight of virgin HDPE as required by the independent claim(s) and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prior art to achieve applicant’s invention without the benefit of hindsight and applicant’s own disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the HDPE and degradation and “the issue is whether HDPE degrades slower than polyester to an unexpected extent”, the examiner disagrees. As stated in previous office actions, it is well known within the art for HDPE to degrade slower than polyester. Even assuming arguendo, if Applicant did “discover” some property of HDPE or virgin HDPE, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP 2112. As discussed in previous office actions, the is no evidence applicant has altered well known HDPE in any fashion.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “A person of ordinary skill in the art would have no expectation that replacing the recycled polyester polymer net used in Yoshino, the closest prior art of record, with virgin HDPE nets as described by Huaxing Nets would reduce turbidity from released microplastic particles by a factor of ~6 to ~8.25 at a temperature of 10° C to 26° C”, the examiner disagrees. Yoshino discloses the net may be constructed of polyethylene as well as polyester. Virgin HDPE netting for marine use is well known as is HDPE degrading slower.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “The Applicant respectfully submits that virgin HDPE and conventional regrind HDPE (rHDPE) are different materials and have different properties”, the examiner contends that Huaxing discloses virgin HDPE. Furthermore the decision to utilize virgin or regrind HDPE is well known based on the desired characteristics of the material.
Conclusion
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
05/02/2026
Prosecution Insights