DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 09/04/2025 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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/04/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 20-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooley et al. (2019/0161931).
With regard to claims 1 and 23, Cooley discloses a cover system/method (abstract) for preventing water ingress into a surface, comprising:
providing a geomembrane layer (24; fig. 2); and
overlying a wind-disturbing open-pore mesh layer (22; para 0025) adjacent an upper surface of the geomembrane layer and defining an asperity extent (fig. 2), said open-pore layer for forming in situ an air-flow turbulence zone between the upper surface of the geomembrane layer and a boundary layer proximate the open-pore mesh layer, which boundary layer defines a transition from a turbulent flow of wind in the turbulence zone to a laminar flow of the wind remote from the geomembrane layer (fig. 2; paras 0025-0027), said open-pore mesh layer for inducing disturbance of the wind flow into and through the open-pore layer, whereby a suction force on the geomembrane is disturbingly broken by a plurality of turbulent wind shear events therein and said plurality of turbulent wind shear events exerting downward pressure deflections (inherent due to randomness of pore layer), wherein the wind speed and pressure differential lessen and the geomembrane resists uplift (fig. 2; paras 0025-0027).
With regard to claim 8, Cooley further discloses the upper surface of the geomembrane defines a texturing for a mechanical connection between the geomembrane and the open-pore mesh layer (para 0007).
With regard to claim 20, Cooley further discloses a bottom portion of the open-pore mesh layer bonds at spaced-apart contacting points to the geomembrane (abstract; where random oriented fibers join membrane).
With regard to claim 21, Cooley further discloses the geomembrane defines surface texturing (para 0007).
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) 2-7 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooley et al. (2019/0161931) in view of Lancaster (5,849,645).
With regard to claim 2, Cooley discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the wind-distributing open-pore mesh layer defines an undulating asperity extent.
Lancaster discloses an erosion control system wherein a wind-distributing open-pore layer (40) that defines an undulating asperity extent (figs. 4, 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooley and add an undulating mesh as taught in Lancaster, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order further strengthen and stabilize the system as taught by Lancaster (col. 4, lines 47-55).
With regard to claim 3, Cooley, as modified, further discloses the undulating asperity extent is defined by mesh having a wavelike upper surface of open-pore alternating ridges and valleys (Lancaster; figs. 4, 6).
With regard to claim 4, Cooley, as modified, further discloses the open-pore mesh layer comprises a plurality of random laid fibers forming a vertically-thick, elongated assembly (Cooley, fig. 2, para 0021; Lancaster, 20).
With regard to claims 5 and 7, Cooley, as modified, further discloses the fibers occupy a minor portion of the thickness of the assembly and define in a majority portion of the thickness a plurality of air-flow pathways through the open-pore mesh layer (Cooley, fig. 2).
With regard to claim 6, Cooley, as modified, further discloses the fibers interconnect at contacting connections of strands of fibers (Cooloey; paras 0010, 0021, 0025).
With regard to claim 12, Cooley discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as a volumetric open-pore profile of fibers that define the asperity extent remote from the geomembrane (fig. 2) however is silent regarding the open-pore mesh layer comprises a base mesh layer and an attached superstructure layer, said base mesh layer connecting to the upper surface of the geomembrane and said superstructure layer comprising a volumetric open-pore profile of fibers.
Lancaster discloses an erosion control system comprising a base mesh layer (30) and an attached superstructure layer (40) with said superstructure layer comprising a volumetric open-pore profile of fibers (20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooley and add a mesh and superstructure as taught in Lancaster, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order further strengthen and stabilize the system as taught by Lancaster (col. 4, lines 47-55).
With regard to claim 13, Cooley, as modified, further discloses the base layer is substantially planar (Lancaster, fig. 4).
With regard to claim 14, Cooley, as modified, further discloses the volumetric open-pore profile has a variable thickness along a longitudinal axis of the superstructure layer, whereby the layer defines an undulating profile (Lancaster; fig. 4).
With regard to claim 15, Cooley, as modified, further discloses the undulating profile comprises alternating ridges and valleys (Lancaster, fig. 4).
With regard to claim 16, Cooley, as modified, further discloses a geotextile (Lancaster; 20) disposed between the base layer and the superstructure layer (Lancaster, fig. 4).
With regard to claim 17, Cooley discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a plurality of fiber sticks distributed between the between a base layer and a superstructure layer.
Lancaster discloses an erosion control system comprising a base mesh layer (30) and an attached superstructure layer (40) with said superstructure layer with a plurality of fiber sticks (20) distributed between the between a base layer and a superstructure layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooley and add a mesh and superstructure as taught in Lancaster, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order further strengthen and stabilize the system as taught by Lancaster (col. 4, lines 47-55).
With regard to claims 18-19, Cooley, as modified, further discloses plurality of fiber sticks are carried on a netting, and the netting, the base layer, and the superstructure layer engaged together and a sewed thread interwoven for engaging the netting, the base layer, and the superstructure layer together (Lancaster, col. 5, lines 33-39).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooley et al. (2019/0161931) in view of Ayers et al. (2014/0170339).
With regard to claims 9-10, Cooley discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the geomembrane further comprises a plurality of spaced-apart projections extending from the upper surface, said projections for mechanically connecting the geomembrane and the open-pore mesh layer together and the geomembrane further comprises a plurality of spaced-apart stubs extending from an opposing bottom surface, for mechanical engagement of the geomembrane to a penetrable surface.
Ayers discloses an erosion control system where a geomembrane (350) comprises a plurality of spaced-apart projections (351) extending from the upper surface, said projections for mechanically connecting the geomembrane and the open-pore layer together and the geomembrane (fig. 3b) further comprises a plurality of spaced-apart stubs (357) extending from an opposing bottom surface, for mechanical engagement of the geomembrane to a penetrable surface (fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooley and utilize projections and stubs as taught in Ayers, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to help anchor the geomembrane as taught by Ayers (para 0046).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooley et al. (2019/0161931) in view of Youngblood, Jr. et al (2014/0227044).
With regard to claim 11, Cooley discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state at least two elongated geomembranes disposed in adjacent relation and bonded together at adjacent opposing edges; and at least two elongated layers overlaid on the geomembranes and disposed in adjacent relation, each of said two elongated layers having respective side edge portions, and the side edge portion of a first one of the two elongated layers overlapping the side edge portion of a second one of the two elongated layers.
Youngblood discloses a geomembrane wherein at least two elongated geomembranes (16/18) disposed in adjacent relation and bonded together at adjacent opposing edges (para 0042); and at least two elongated layers overlaid on the geomembranes and disposed in adjacent relation (at 14), each of said two elongated layers having respective side edge portions, and the side edge portion of a first one of the two elongated layers overlapping the side edge portion of a second one of the two elongated layers (fig. 11; para 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooley and bond adjacent seems of the geomembrane together as taught in Youngblood, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow custom sized geomembrane to be created.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooley et al. (2019/0161931) in view of Fleishman et al. (2019/0217351).
With regard to claim 22, Cooley discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the bonded open-pore mesh layer defines a side edge portion that is unbonded to the geomembrane, which side edge is displaceable for passage of a seaming device for joinder of opposing edges of adjacent geomembranes.
Fleishman discloses a cover system with a geomembrane (1204; fig. 8) wherein the bonded layer comprises a side edge portion that is unbonded to the geomembrane (fig. 8), which side edge is displaceable for passage of a seaming device for joinder of opposing edges of adjacent geomembranes (fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooley and the side edge as taught in Fleishman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create an impermeable reinforced overlapping seam as taught by Fleishman (paras 0075-0077).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument Cooley and an open-pore mesh layer is not a non-woven layer and differs structurally, the examiner disagrees. Applicant’s specification (eg. paras 0035, 0040) states the mesh comprises random laid fibers forming a vertically thick elongated assembly overlaid on the geomembrane. Cooley discloses random laid fibers forming a vertically thick elongated assembly overlaid on the geomembrane (abstract). Applicant has provided no evidence as to why non-woven fibers cannot be defined as mesh. It is known within the art for non-woven fibers to form a mesh. For example, see paragraphs 0004, 0018 of cited reference Spittle (2004/0091326).
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
11/04/2025