DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 25 August 2025
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending;
Claims 1-10 are currently amended;
Claims 1-19 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 25 August 2025 have been fully considered and they are moot since the new limitations added to the independent claims necessitate the new grounds of rejection presented herein. Applicant seems to have intended to claim that portions of the reinforcements are embedded in the protrusions while other portions are outside and not embedded. However, the claim as presently written recites that only portions are embedded in the protrusions but that does not mean that other portions are outside and not embedded. The structure of Yamada reads on the claim because it shows portions of a reinforcement embedded in a protrusion as applicant has not claimed that other portions are outside and not embedded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,343,895).
As to Claim 1, Yamada discloses a flexible strip of polymeric material for producing a three- dimensional cellular structure, comprising:
A strip body (3a, 3b) having a surface (Annotated Figure A, “surface”);
Protrusions (Annotated Figure A, “protrusion”) located on said surface; and
Reinforcing elements (6; Annotated Figure A, “reinforcement”) being arranged in contact with said surface;
Wherein said reinforcing elements (6; Annotated Figure A, “reinforcement”) are concurrently on said surface (Annotated Figure A, “surface”) and have only portions embedded into respective protrusions at intersections between the respective protrusions and said reinforcing elements (Figure 3 shows that each reinforcement element is made of portions embedded into respective protrusions at intersections between protrusions and reinforcement elements. Annotated figure B shows a reinforcement element made of portions).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Cross section of flexible strip (Yamada)
PNG
media_image2.png
472
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Top view of flexible strip (Yamada)
As to Claim 5, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yamada also discloses further comprising oval through holes (5).
As to Claim 7, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yamada also discloses being comprised of high density polyethylene (HDPE), or linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), or a mixture of high density polyethylene (HDPE) and linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) as the polymeric material (Column 2, Lines 9-12: “Another object of the present invention is to provide a drawn product of polyethylene based resin with improved creep characteristic and increased strength, which is suitable for soil reinforcement”).
As to Claim 8, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yamada also discloses being comprised of polypropylene (PP) or propylene homopolymer (PP HO) or metallocene polypropylene (MPP) or random propylene copolymer (PPCP) as the polymeric material (Column 2, Lines 42-46: “The soil reinforcing resin net is generally made of a high corrosion resisting polypropylene or polyethylene sheet which is little compatible with adhesive, and therefore, it has been difficult to fix separate projecting portions to bar portions of the sheet by adhesive joint.”).
As to Claim 9, Yamada discloses a method for producing a flexible strip of a polymeric material for production of a three-dimensional cellular structure, wherein the strip (3a, 3b) comprises a strip body having a surface (Annotated Figure A, “surface”), reinforcing elements (6; Annotated Figure A, “reinforcement”) and protrusions (Annotated Figure A, “protrusions”) located on a surface of the strip body, the method comprising the steps of (The method steps are capable of being performed with the structure disclosed by Yamada):
Extruding (Column 4, Lines 28-32: “The drawn product of high density polyethylene is obtained by zone drawing, roll drawing, high pressure extrusion, high frequency hot drawing, gel drawing, or melting crystallization, and is expected as a material having a high strength and a high elastic modulus”) a polymeric material to produce a preform having a preform surface,
Laying the reinforcing elements (6; Annotated Figure A, “reinforcement”) on the preform surface,
Processing the preform in rolls for forming the protrusions on the preform surface (Column 4, Lines 28-32: “The drawn product of high density polyethylene is obtained by zone drawing, roll drawing, high pressure extrusion, high frequency hot drawing, gel drawing, or melting crystallization, and is expected as a material having a high strength and a high elastic modulus”), and
Cutting (It is inherent that the sheet has to be cut to produce individual sheets) the preform into strips (3a, 3b),
Wherein, when the preform is processed in the rolls (Column 4, Lines 28-32: “The drawn product of high density polyethylene is obtained by zone drawing, roll drawing, high pressure extrusion, high frequency hot drawing, gel drawing, or melting crystallization, and is expected as a material having a high strength and a high elastic modulus”) in the step of forming the protrusions, the reinforcing elements are additionally embedded into these protrusions at intersections of the protrusions and the reinforcing elements (Figure 3 shows that each reinforcement element is made of portions embedded into respective protrusions at intersections between protrusions and reinforcement elements. Annotated figure B shows a reinforcement element made of portions).
As to Claim 11, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 9 (Refer to Claim 9 discussion). Yamada also discloses wherein the preform is perforated to produce oval through holes (5).
As to Claim 13, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 9 (Refer to Claim 9 discussion). Yamada also discloses wherein before laying the reinforcing elements (6) on the preform surface (Surface of 3a, 3b), the reinforcing elements (6) are impregnated with an adhesive formulation and/or a formulation that increases their resistance to adverse natural conditions (It is inherent that 6 has to be adhered to 3a. 3b so it does not separate).
As to Claim 14, Yamada discloses a three-dimensional cellular structure comprising:
Flexible polymeric strips (3a, 3b), each strip of the flexible polymeric strings according to claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion),
The strips (3a, 3b) being arranged in rows connected therebetween in a staggered order along their length and stretched in a direction normal to their respective surfaces (Figure 3), wherein each of the reinforcing elements (6; Annotated Figure A, “reinforcement”) of a respective flexible polymeric strip (3a, 3b) are placed so as to contact a corresponding surface (Annotated Figure A, “surface”) of a corresponding strip body and are embedded in corresponding protrusions (Annotated Figure A, “protrusion”) located on the corresponding surface of the corresponding strip body at intersections of the corresponding protrusions and each of the reinforcing elements (Figure 3 shows that each reinforcement element is made of portions embedded into respective protrusions at intersections between protrusions and reinforcement elements. Annotated figure B shows a reinforcement element made of portions).
As to Claim 16, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Yamada also discloses further comprising oval through holes (5) for quick mounting with the use of a key-type fastener, the holes (5) being located in zones of connecting the strips (Figure 3), having an elongated shape extending in the direction of reinforcement and being provided in the interval between the reinforcing elements (6).
As to Claim 17, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Yamada also discloses wherein at least one flexible polymeric strip comprises oval through holes (5) for quick mounting with the use of a key-type fastener, the holes being located near end regions of the at least one flexible polymeric strip and extended transversely.
As to Claim 18, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Yamada also discloses wherein at least one flexible polymeric strip comprises oval through holes (5) for quick mounting with the use of a key-type fastener, the holes being located near end regions of the at least one flexible polymeric strip and extended longitudinally.
As to Claim 19, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Yamada also discloses being a spatial geogrid (Figure 3).
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 2-4, 6, 10, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,343,895) alone.
As to Claim 2, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yamada also discloses wherein the protrusions (Annotated Figure A, “protrusion”) located on the surface of the strip body (3a, 3b) form a regular relief in the form of embossment, wherein the reinforcing elements (6; Annotated Figure A, “reinforcement”) are arranged longitudinally and are comprised of reinforcing threads (Column 5, Lines 66-67: “Each bar-like body (projecting portion) 6 made from nylon”. Nylon is reinforcing threads). However, Yamada is silent about a height of an embossment protrusion, a thickness of the reinforcing thread, and a thickness of the flexible strip being preferably related therebetween by the following ratio 0.01 ≤ (a + c) / d ≤ 4; a - height of the embossment protrusions, a = 0.01-2 mm, c - thickness of the reinforcing thread, c = 0.01-2 mm, d - thickness of the flexible strip, d = 1-2 mm. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the height of an embossment protrusion, a thickness of the reinforcing thread, and a thickness of the flexible strip being preferably related therebetween by the following ratio 0.01 ≤ (a + c) / d ≤ 4; a - height of the embossment protrusions, a = 0.01-2 mm, c - thickness of the reinforcing thread, c = 0.01-2 mm, d - thickness of the flexible strip, d = 1-2 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 3, Yamada as modified teaches the invention of Claim 2 (Refer to Claim 2 discussion). Yamada as modified wherein said reinforcing threads (Column 5, Lines 66-67: “Each bar-like body (projecting portion) 6 made from nylon”. Nylon is a thread material) have a fleecy surface, and are selected from the group consisting of lavsan textured threads, cord threads, polyester threads, polyamide threads, polypropylene threads, polyethylene threads, viscose threads, polyester lavsan-staple threads, or said threads combined with composite materials.
As to Claim 4, Yamada as modified teaches the invention of Claim 2 (Refer to Claim 2 discussion). However, Yamada as modified is silent about having a strength by the following ratio 0.05 ≤ R x (h/b) ≤ 12, where: R - strength of the flexible strip under tension at maximum load, kN/m, b – reinforcement step, b ≥ 0.002 m, d - thickness of the flexible strip, d = 0.001-0.002 m, h - width of the flexible strip, h = 0.05-0.3 m. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a strength of the flexible strip and its reinforcement step are related therebetween by the following ratio 0.05 ≤ R x (h/b) ≤ 12, where: R - strength of the flexible strip under tension at maximum load, kN/m, b – reinforcement step, b ≥ 0.002 m, d - thickness of the flexible strip, d = 0.001-0.002 m, h - width of the flexible strip, h = 0.05-0.3 m since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 6, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Yamada also discloses further comprising round through drain holes (5). However, Yamada is silent about the drain holes having a diameter from 6 to 13 mm, and a total perforation area being from 3 to 25% for every 150 to 250 mm of a length of the strip. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the drain holes having of a diameter from 6 to 13 mm, and a total perforation area being from 3 to 25% for every 150 to 250 mm of a length of the strip such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 10, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 9 (Refer to Claim 9 discussion). Yamada also discloses wherein, when the preform is processed in the rolls, the protrusions (Annotated Figure A, “protrusion”) on the surface of the strip body are formed by providing a regular relief in the form of embossment; wherein the reinforcing elements (6; Annotated Figure A, “reinforcement”) are arranged longitudinally; and wherein reinforcing threads (Column 5, Lines 66-67: “Each bar-like body (projecting portion) 6 made from nylon”) comprised of high-strength fibers, the fibers being twisted synthetic threads with a fleecy surface, are used as the reinforcing elements. However, Yamada is silent about a height of an embossment protrusion, a thickness of the reinforcing thread, and a thickness of the flexible strip being preferably related therebetween by the ratio 0.01 ≤ (a + c) / d ≤ 4; a - height of the embossment protrusions, a = 0.01-2 mm, c - thickness of the reinforcing thread, c = 0.01-2 mm, d - thickness of the flexible strip, d = 1-2 mm. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the height of an embossment protrusion, a thickness of the reinforcing thread, and a thickness of the flexible strip being preferably related therebetween by the following ratio 0.01 ≤ (a + c) / d ≤ 4; a - height of the embossment protrusions, a = 0.01-2 mm, c - thickness of the reinforcing thread, c = 0.01-2 mm, d - thickness of the flexible strip, d = 1-2 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 12, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 9 (Refer to Claim 9 discussion). Yamada also discloses wherein, before cutting into strips, the preform is perforated to produce round through drain holes (5). However, Yamada is silent about the drain holes having a diameter from 6 to 13 mm, and a total perforation area being from 3 to 25% for every 150 to 250 mm of a length of the strip. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the drain holes having of a diameter from 6 to 13 mm, and a total perforation area being from 3 to 25% for every 150 to 250 mm of a length of the strip such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 15, Yamada discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Yamada also discloses wherein the flexible polymeric strips are provided with round through drain holes (5) arranged longitudinally in rows between the reinforcing elements, with the exception of zones where the strips are connected. However, Yamada is silent about the drain holes having a diameter from 6 to 13 mm, and a total perforation area being from 3 to 25% for every 150 to 250 mm of a length of the strip. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the drain holes having of a diameter from 6 to 13 mm, and a total perforation area being from 3 to 25% for every 150 to 250 mm of a length of the strip such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678