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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 7, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohlfahrt in view of https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5093/table3.html, https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html , Hall (US 6,484,473) and McKnight (US 3,705,467).
Regarding claim 1, Wohlfahrt discloses an erosion control system for preventing erosion of embankments comprising a three-dimensional textile material (three-dimensional mat of extruded, irregularly looped filaments), the three-dimensional textile material comprising void volumes (pores), and a mixture comprising a particulate material (substrate comprising sand) having a particle size in a range of 0.5 to 15 mm (in the range of 0 - 8 mm) (pages 2 - 7). Wohlfahrt fails to explicitly disclose sand having a particle size in a range of 0.5 to 15 mm, a binder material comprised in the void volumes, wherein the erosion control system has a weight in a range of 15 kg/m2 to 50 kg/m2, wherein the binder material comprises a lignin-based binder material, and wherein the particulate material by itself or the particulate material with the binder material has a density that is higher than the density of water. Wohlfahrt teaches a particulate material comprising sand and sand is defined as having a size in a range of 0.0625mm - 2mm (https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5093/table3.html). Since the range of particle size as taught by Wohlfahrt overlaps with the claimed particle size range, the particulate material comprising sand as disclosed by Wohlfahrt would obviously include have a particle size in a range of 0.5 to 15 mm. Additionally, since the density of sand is defined as being in a range of 1555 kg/m3 (dry sand) to 1905 (wet sand) kg/m3 (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html) and, as admitted by Applicant, the density of water is approximately 1000 kg/m3, Wohlfahrt obviously teaches a particulate material has a density that is higher than a density of water. Wohlfahrt also teaches the thickness of the three-dimensional textile material is in a range of about 2 mm and about 100 mm and it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above by placing a mass of filler into the void volumes of the three-dimensional textile material such that the weight of the system is in a range of 5 kg/m2 to 50 kg/m2 as a design consideration within the skill of the art based on the properties of the soil strata on which the system is to be used and the angle of the slope on which the system is to be used. Hall teaches a filler material treated with a binder material comprising a lignin-based binder material (col. 2, lines 56 - 59) to cause the filler material to bind or set. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the mixture comprising a particulate material as disclosed by Wohlfahrt with the lignin-based binder material as taught by Hall to cause the particulate material to bind together, thereby increasing the structural integrity of the erosion control system and extending the operational life of the erosional control system, binding of the filler material also promoting vegetation growth in the mixture. Examiner takes the position that modifying a soil or other filler material with a binder that allows roots to grow therethrough is beneficial because it prevents the loss of the filler material which is necessary for plant growth. Examiner notes that prior art to McKnight teaches using a lignin binder to provide resistance to rainfall and water runoff which accelerates the rate of seed germination and decreases the loss of fertilizer material and seed (abstract; col. 1, line 66 - col. 2, line 17). Therefore, modifying the vegetation mat with a lignin binder promotes plant growth.
Regarding claim 2, Wohlfahrt further discloses the three- dimensional textile material comprises a two-dimensional material and loops extending perpendicular from a surface of the two-dimensional material wherein the three-dimensional textile material comprises void volumes between the loops extending perpendicular from the surface of the two-dimensional material (page 3, lines 21 - 29).
Regarding claim 4, Wohlfahrt further discloses the three-dimensional textile material comprises a three-dimensional structure of filaments, the filaments being thermally bonded at crossing points between the filaments (page 3, lines 21 - 23; page 5, lines 3 - 21). Examiner notes that claim 4 is directed to an apparatus and the process by which an apparatus is made, in this case thermal bonding, lacks patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
2113 Product-by-Process Claims
PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE
MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE
IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
“TE]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 5, Wohlfahrt further discloses the three-dimensional structure of filaments comprised in the three-dimensional textile material is connected to a two-dimensional material layer (page 5, lines 3 - 21).
Regarding claim 6, Wohlfahrt further discloses the two-dimensional material layer is a non-woven fabric, a knitted fabric or a woven fabric (page 4, lines 26 - 27; page 5, lines 8 - 10).
Regarding claim 7, Wohlfahrt further discloses the two-dimensional material layer is a two- dimensional layer of filaments (page 5, lines 8 - 9 and lines 17 - 26). Examiner takes the position that the limitation “wherein the two- dimensional layer of filaments is formed simultaneously with the three-dimensional structure of filaments in an integrated process” represents the process by which the two-dimensional layer is made. Examiner takes the position that claim 7 is a product-by-process claim and, as explained above, the process by which an apparatus is made lacks patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 9, Wohlfahrt further discloses the erosion control system has a porosity in a range of 15% to 70% (the mat has an open space of at least 50%; page 2, lines 24 - 25; page 3, line 26 - page 4, line 1). Since Wohlfahrt teaches a porosity of at least 50%, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the porosity range as disclosed by Wohlfahrt to fall within a range of 15% to 70% as a design consideration within the skill of the art. Where the range of article sizes disclosed in the prior art envelopes the recited range, and there is no showing of criticality of the recited range, such recited range would have been one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reven, 390 F.2d 997, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding claim 13, Wohlfahrt further discloses the three-dimensional material is composed of polylactic acid (page 8, lines 9 - 18).
Regarding claim 14, Wohlfahrt further discloses the two-dimensional material layer is embedded in the three-dimensional material (page 5, lines 3 - 21).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohlfahrt in view of https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5093/table3.html, https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html, Hall and McKnight as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lipscomb (US 10,011,965). Wohlfahrt in view of Hall and McKnight discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the three-dimensional textile material comprises a three- dimensional woven fabric or a three-dimensional knitted fabric. Lipscomb teaches an erosion control mat comprising a three-dimensional woven fabric (col. 4, lines 2 - 5; col. 6, lines 25 - 28). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the woven fabric as taught by Lipscomb for the entangled filaments as disclosed by Wohlfahrt as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007). International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohlfahrt in view of https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5093/table3.html, https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html, Hall and McKnight as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (KR 1073969). Wohlfahrt in view of Hall and McKnight discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the binder material comprises reinforcing fibers. Choi teaches a binder material (cement) comprising reinforcing fibers (reinforcing fiber) (abstract) to increase the structural strength of the binder material. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the binder material as disclosed above with the reinforcing fibers as taught by Choi to increase the structural strength of the binder material.
Claims 10 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohlfahrt in view of https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5093/table3.html, https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html, Hall, Boettcher et al. (WO 2005116345), and McKnight.
Regarding claim 10, Wohlfahrt discloses a process of manufacturing a mat comprising a three- dimensional textile material, the process comprising the steps of supplying a three-dimensional textile material, the three-dimensional textile material (three-dimensional mat pf extruded, irregularly looped filaments) comprising void volumes, supplying a mixture comprising a particulate material (substrate such as sand) having a particle size in a range of 0.5 to 15 mm (in a range of 0 - 8 mm), and introducing the mixture into the void volumes of the three- dimensional textile material (pages 2 - 7). Wohlfahrt fails to disclose the process is for manufacturing an erosion control system for preventing erosion of embankments, the particle size range of sand, a lignin-based binder material, the erosion control system having a weight in a range of 15 kg/m2 to 50 kg/m2, and the particulate matter by itself or the particulate matter with the binder material has a density that is higher than the density of water. Wohlfahrt teaches a particulate material comprising sand and sand is defined as having a size in a range of 0.0625mm - 2mm (https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5093/table3.html). Since the range of particle size as taught by Wohlfahrt overlaps with the claimed particle size range, the particulate material comprising sand as disclosed by Wohlfahrt would obviously include have a particle size in a range of 0.5 to 15 mm. Additionally, since the density of sand is defined as being in a range of 1555 kg/m3 (dry sand) to 1905 (wet sand) kg/m3 (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html) and, as admitted by Applicant, the density of water is approximately 1000 kg/m3, Wohlfahrt obviously teaches a particulate material has a density that is higher than a density of water. Hall teaches a filler material treated with a binder material comprising a lignin-based binder material (col. 2, lines 56 - 59) to cause the filler material to bind or set. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the mixture comprising a particulate material as disclosed by Wohlfahrt with the lignin-based binder material as taught by Hall to cause the particulate material to bind together, thereby increasing the structural integrity of the erosion control system and extending the operational life of the erosional control system, binding of the filler material also promoting vegetation growth in the mixture. Hall fails to teach the process is for manufacturing an erosion control system for preventing erosion of embankments, and the erosion control system has a weight in a range of 15 kg/m2 to 50 kg/m2. Wohlfahrt teaches the thickness of the three-dimensional textile material is in a range of 2 mm to 100 mm (Therefore, the average thickness is 051 mm.) (page 4). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above by placing a mass of filler into the void volumes of the three-dimensional textile material such that the weight of the system is in a range of 5 kg/m2 to 50 kg/m2 as a design consideration within the skill of the art based on the properties of the soil strata on which the system is to be used and the angle of the slope on which the system is to be used. Boettcher teaches a process for manufacturing an erosion control system for preventing erosion of embankments comprising a mat comprising a three- dimensional textile material (abstract). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the process as disclosed by Wohlfahrt for use in a process for manufacturing an erosion control system for preventing erosion of embankments as taught by Boettcher to increase the range of uses for which the method as disclosed above is applicable. Examiner notes that prior art to McKnight teaches using a lignin binder to provide resistance to rainfall and water runoff which accelerates the rate of seed germination and decreases the loss of fertilizer material and seed (abstract; col. 1, line 66 - col. 2, line 17). Therefore, modifying the vegetation mat with a lignin binder promotes plant growth.
Regarding claim 11, Wohlfahrt further discloses the three-dimensional textile material comprises a three-dimensional structure of entangled filaments, the entangled filaments being thermally bonded at crossing points between the filaments (page 3, lines 21 - 23; page 5, lines 3 - 21).
Regarding claim 12, Wohlfahrt further discloses the step of connecting the three-dimensional structure of entangled filaments comprised in the three-dimensional textile material to a two- dimensional material layer (page 5, lines 3 - 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 14 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
1/27/2026