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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-15 and 17-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “any” should be deleted from the first line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-11, 15, 17, 23-25 and 27 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the at least one of the elongated steel elements” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that this limitation is repeated in claims 5, 8. Claims 4-10, 15, 17, 23, 24 and 27 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the… steel wires” in line 5 (and repeated in line 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the… steel wires” in line 5 (and repeated in line 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3, 8-11, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24-26 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchio (US 5,839,264).
Regarding claim 1, Uchio discloses a soil reinforcement strip (e.g. claim 1, wherein a tire is considered a continuous strip in a circular shape), said strip comprising a polymer matrix (e.g. rubber matrix, col. 4, lines 46-49), said strip further comprising elongated steel elements inside said polymer matrix as reinforcing elements (e.g. 2, Fig. 1, claim 1), wherein each of said elongated steel elements has a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that exceeds 4% (e.g. 7%, Table 1, sample 1) and a tensile strength of at least 1800 MPa (e.g. 2885 MPa, Table 1, sample 1), and wherein said elongated steel elements are steel cords consisting of steel filaments (e.g. steel cords 2 are made of steel filaments 1, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 3, Uchio further discloses that the steel filaments of each elongated steel element have a twisted configuration such that helical interstices are formed between at least some of the steel filaments at a periphery of the at least one of the elongated steel elements (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 1-A, col. 3, lines 6-8), wherein polymer material of the matrix penetrates into the helical interstices (e.g. Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 46-49, wherein the polymer material must penetrate the helical interstices for adhesion to the elongated steel elements as intended).
Regarding claim 8, Uchio further discloses that the at least one of the elongated steel elements or each elongated steel element is made of a group of at least two steel filaments twisted together as a group (e.g. each group includes three steel filaments twisted together, Fig.’s 1 and 1-A, col. 3, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 9, Uchio further discloses that the group has at most 5 steel filaments (e.g. three steel filaments, Fig.’s 1 and 1-A, col. 3, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 10, Uchio further discloses that the cord(s) is/are selected from the group of: nx1 cord(s), where n is the number of steel filaments and ranges between 2 and 5; 2x1 cord(s); 1+n cord(s) where n ranges from 3 to 9, or wherein the elongated steel elements comprise at least one cord selected from the group of: nx1 cord(s), where n is the number of steel filaments and ranges between 2 and 5; 1+n cord(s) where n is a number of steel filaments arranged around a central steel filament and ranges from 3 to 9 (e.g. 3x1 cord, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Uchio further discloses that said elongated steel elements are coated with a material providing cathodic protection and/or wherein the strip comprises at least 2 steel cords and/or wherein the steel cords are arranged inside the polymer matrix parallel to each other and/or wherein the steel cords or steel wires are arranged inside the polymer matrix in one plane or in multiple planes and/or wherein the thickness of the polymer matrix between any point at the outside of the strip and any steel cord or steel wire inside the strip is at least 100 µm and/or wherein the dimension of the outline of cross-section of the matrix in one direction is bigger than the dimension of cross-section of the matrix in another perpendicular direction and/or wherein the strip is arranged to be connected to or the strip is connected to at least one facing element and/or arranged to be part of an embankment and/or wherein said elongated steel elements have a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that is more than 4.5% and/or wherein the strip has a width between 5 mm and 80 mm (e.g. at least 2 steel cords, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Uchio further discloses that all of said steel filaments are in contact with polymer of said polymer matrix (e.g. Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 46-49, wherein the polymer must be in contact with all of said steel filaments for adhesion to the steel elements as intended).
Regarding claim 18, Uchio further discloses that said elongated steel elements are provided with an adhesion promotor and/or said elongated steel elements are individually or together coated with a layer of a polymer that is a functionalized polyolefin or individually or together provided with a primer or adhesion promotor before all the steel cords are together extruded with a common, non-functionalized polymer (e.g. col. 4, lines 46-49).
Regarding claim 19, Uchio further discloses that said strip has a strip breaking load ranging from 1 kN to 200 kN (e.g. 2.19kN, Table 1, sample 1).
Regarding claim 21, Uchio discloses a soil reinforcement layer, said layer comprising one or more soil reinforcement strips or one or more grids for soil reinforcement (e.g. claim 1, wherein a tire is considered a continuous strip in a circular shape), wherein the one or more soil reinforcement strips have a polymer matrix (e.g. rubber matrix, col. 4, lines 46-49), further comprising elongated steel elements inside said polymer matrix as reinforcing elements (e.g. 2, Fig. 1, claim 1), wherein each of said elongated steel elements has a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that exceeds 4% (e.g. 7%, Table 1, sample 1) and a tensile strength of at least 1800 MPa (e.g. 2885 MPa, Table 1, sample 1), and wherein said elongated steel elements are steel cords consisting of steel filaments (e.g. steel cords 2 are made of steel filaments 1, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 4-8), and wherein the one or more grids for soil reinforcement comprise a set of first strips in a first direction and a set of second strips in a second direction, said set of first strips and said set of second strips crossing one another and being bonded to one another, said set of first strips or said set of second strips or both said set of first strips and said set of second strips having the one or more soil reinforcement strips (Examiner notes that these limitations are not required to be satisfied because the claim recites “one or more soil reinforcement strips or one or more grids”).
Regarding claim 22, Uchio discloses a mechanically stabilized earth structure, comprising one or more soil reinforcement strips (e.g. claim 1, wherein a tire is considered a continuous strip in a circular shape), or one or more grids for soil reinforcement (Examiner notes that this limitation is not required to be satisfied because the claim recites “one or more soil reinforcement strips or one or more grids”), wherein the one or more soil reinforcement strips have a polymer matrix (e.g. rubber matrix, col. 4, lines 46-49), further comprising elongated steel elements inside said polymer matrix as reinforcing elements (e.g. 2, Fig. 1, claim 1), wherein each of said elongated steel elements has a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that exceeds 4% (e.g. 7%, Table 1, sample 1) and a tensile strength of at least 1800 MPa (e.g. 2885 MPa, Table 1, sample 1), and wherein said elongated steel elements are steel cords consisting of steel filaments (e.g. steel cords 2 are made of steel filaments 1, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 4-8), and wherein the one or more grids for soil reinforcement comprise a set of first strips in a first direction and a set of second strips in a second direction, said set of first strips and said set of second strips crossing one another and being bonded to one another, said set of first strips or said set of second strips or both said set of first strips and said set of second strips having the one or more soil reinforcement strips (Examiner notes that these limitations are not required to be satisfied because the claim recites “one or more soil reinforcement strips or one or more grids”).
Regarding claim 24, Uchio further discloses that the cord(s) is/are selected from the group of: nx1 cord(s), where n is the number of steel filaments and ranges between 3 and 5; 2x1 cord(s); 1+n cord(s) where n ranges from 3 to 6, or wherein the elongated steel elements comprise at least one cord selected from the group of: nx1 cord(s), where n is the number of steel filaments and ranges between 2 and 5; 1+n cord(s) where n is a number of steel filaments arranged around a central steel filament and ranges from 3 to 6 (e.g. 3x1 cord, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Uchio further discloses that said elongated steel elements are coated with a material providing cathodic protection and/or wherein the strip comprises at least 3 steel cords and/or wherein the steel cords are arranged inside the polymer matrix parallel to each other in a way that they do not touch each other and/or wherein the steel cords or steel wires are arranged inside the polymer matrix in 2, 3 or 4 planes and/or wherein the thickness of the polymer matrix between any point at the outside of the strip and any steel cord or steel wire inside the strip is between 100 pm and 500 pm and/or wherein the dimension of the outline of cross-section of the matrix in one direction is bigger than the dimension of cross-section of the matrix in another perpendicular direction, wherein the outline of cross-section of the matrix is oval, rectangular or corresponds to a rectangle with rounded corners and/or wherein the strip is arranged to be connected to or the strip is connected to stabilizing earth and/or arranged to be part of a concrete block or a gabion and/or wherein said elongated steel elements have a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that is more than 5% and/or wherein the strip has a width between 10 mm and 80 mm (e.g. at least 3 steel cords, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, Uchio further discloses that said elongated steel elements have a cord tensile strength or tensile strength of at least 2000 MPa (e.g. 2885 MPa, Table 1, sample 1).
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 21-26 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Haene et al (EP 0,790,349).
Regarding claim 1, D’Haene discloses a soil reinforcement strip (e.g. 1+5 stress relieved cord embedded in rubber, Table 2, and page 2, line 5, wherein a tire is considered a continuous strip in a circular shape), said strip comprising a polymer matrix (e.g. rubber, Table 2), said strip further comprising elongated steel elements inside said polymer matrix as reinforcing elements (e.g. 10, Table 2, similar to Fig.’s 1 and 2, page 4, lines 16-23), wherein each of said elongated steel elements has a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that exceeds 4% (e.g. 6.67% total elongation – 0.07% structural elongation = 6.6% combined elastic and plastic elongation, Table 2) and a tensile strength of at least 1800 MPa (e.g. 2574 MPa, Table 2), and wherein said elongated steel elements are steel cords consisting of steel filaments (e.g. steel cords 10 are made of steel filaments 12/14, similar to Fig.’s 1 and 2, page 4, lines 16-23).
Regarding claim 3, D’Haene further discloses that the steel filaments of each elongated steel element have a twisted configuration such that helical interstices are formed between at least some of the steel filaments at a periphery of the at least one of the elongated steel elements (e.g. claim 7, similar to Fig.’s 1 and 2, page 4, lines 16-23), wherein polymer material of the matrix penetrates into the helical interstices (e.g. claim 6, similar to Fig.’s 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, D’Haene further discloses that the steel filaments of each elongated steel element comprise a central steel filament and peripheral steel filaments stranded around the central steel filament (e.g. 1+5 cord is a central steel filament and 5 peripheral steel filaments, claim 7, similar to Fig. 2, page 3, lines 50-51).
Regarding claim 5, D’Haene further discloses that the helical interstices at the periphery of the at least one of the elongated steel elements or each elongated steel element reach the central steel filaments (e.g. claim 6, similar to Fig.’s 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 6, D’Haene further discloses that the peripheral steel filaments are between 3 and 9 peripheral steel filaments (e.g. 1+5 cord includes five peripheral steel filaments).
Regarding claim 8, D’Haene further discloses that the at least one of the elongated steel elements or each elongated steel element is made of a group of at least two steel filaments twisted together as a group (e.g. 1+5 cord includes a group of six steel filaments twisted together).
Regarding claim 9, D’Haene further discloses that the group has at most 5 steel filaments (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein the 2+2 cord includes a group of four steel filaments twisted together).
Regarding claim 10, D’Haene further discloses that the cord(s) is/are selected from the group of: nx1 cord(s), where n is the number of steel filaments and ranges between 2 and 5; 2x1 cord(s); 1+n cord(s) where n ranges from 3 to 9, or wherein the elongated steel elements comprise at least one cord selected from the group of: nx1 cord(s), where n is the number of steel filaments and ranges between 2 and 5; 1+n cord(s) where n is a number of steel filaments arranged around a central steel filament and ranges from 3 to 9 (e.g. 1+5 cord, Table 2).
Regarding claim 11, D’Haene further discloses that said elongated steel elements are coated with a material providing cathodic protection and/or wherein the strip comprises at least 2 steel cords and/or wherein the steel cords are arranged inside the polymer matrix parallel to each other and/or wherein the steel cords or steel wires are arranged inside the polymer matrix in one plane or in multiple planes and/or wherein the thickness of the polymer matrix between any point at the outside of the strip and any steel cord or steel wire inside the strip is at least 100 µm and/or wherein the dimension of the outline of cross-section of the matrix in one direction is bigger than the dimension of cross-section of the matrix in another perpendicular direction and/or wherein the strip is arranged to be connected to or the strip is connected to at least one facing element and/or arranged to be part of an embankment and/or wherein said elongated steel elements have a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that is more than 4.5% and/or wherein the strip has a width between 5 mm and 80 mm (e.g. zinc coating, page 7, line 6).
Regarding claim 12, D’Haene further discloses that said elongated steel elements are in contact with a material providing cathodic protection (e.g. zinc coating, page 7, line 6).
Regarding claim 14, D’Haene further discloses that said elongated steel elements or at least one of said elongated steel elements are/is in a stress-relieved state (e.g. Table 2, page 6, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 15, D’Haene further discloses that all of said steel filaments are in contact with polymer of said polymer matrix (e.g. claim 6, similar to Fig.’s 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 18, D’Haene further discloses that said elongated steel elements are provided with an adhesion promotor and/or said elongated steel elements are individually or together coated with a layer of a polymer that is a functionalized polyolefin or individually or together provided with a primer or adhesion promotor before all the steel cords are together extruded with a common, non-functionalized polymer (e.g. page 7, lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 19, D’Haene further discloses that said strip has a strip breaking load ranging from 1 kN to 200 kN (e.g. 1.755 kN, Table 2).
Regarding claim 21, D’Haene discloses a soil reinforcement layer, said layer comprising one or more soil reinforcement strips or one or more grids for soil reinforcement (e.g. 1+5 stress relieved cord embedded in rubber, Table 2, and page 2, line 5, wherein a tire is considered a continuous strip in a circular shape), wherein the one or more soil reinforcement strips have a polymer matrix (e.g. rubber, Table 2), further comprising elongated steel elements inside said polymer matrix as reinforcing elements (e.g. 10, Table 2, similar to Fig.’s 1 and 2, page 4, lines 16-23), wherein each of said elongated steel elements has a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that exceeds 4% (e.g. 6.67% total elongation – 0.07% structural elongation = 6.6% combined elastic and plastic elongation, Table 2) and a tensile strength of at least 1800 MPa (e.g. 2574 MPa, Table 2), and wherein said elongated steel elements are steel cords consisting of steel filaments (e.g. steel cords 10 are made of steel filaments 12/14, similar to Fig.’s 1 and 2, page 4, lines 16-23), and wherein the one or more grids for soil reinforcement comprise a set of first strips in a first direction and a set of second strips in a second direction, said set of first strips and said set of second strips crossing one another and being bonded to one another, said set of first strips or said set of second strips or both said set of first strips and said set of second strips having the one or more soil reinforcement strips (Examiner notes that these limitations are not required to be satisfied because the claim recites “one or more soil reinforcement strips or one or more grids”).
Regarding claim 22, D’Haene discloses a mechanically stabilized earth structure, comprising one or more soil reinforcement strips (e.g. 1+5 stress relieved cord embedded in rubber, Table 2, and page 2, line 5, wherein a tire is considered a continuous strip in a circular shape), or one or more grids for soil reinforcement (Examiner notes that this limitation is not required to be satisfied because the claim recites “one or more soil reinforcement strips or one or more grids”), wherein the one or more soil reinforcement strips have a polymer matrix (e.g. rubber, Table 2), further comprising elongated steel elements inside said polymer matrix as reinforcing elements (e.g. 10, Table 2, similar to Fig.’s 1 and 2, page 4, lines 16-23), wherein each of said elongated steel elements has a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that exceeds 4% (e.g. 6.67% total elongation – 0.07% structural elongation = 6.6% combined elastic and plastic elongation, Table 2) and a tensile strength of at least 1800 MPa (e.g. 2574 MPa, Table 2), and wherein said elongated steel elements are steel cords consisting of steel filaments (e.g. steel cords 10 are made of steel filaments 12/14, similar to Fig.’s 1 and 2, page 4, lines 16-23), and wherein the one or more grids for soil reinforcement comprise a set of first strips in a first direction and a set of second strips in a second direction, said set of first strips and said set of second strips crossing one another and being bonded to one another, said set of first strips or said set of second strips or both said set of first strips and said set of second strips having the one or more soil reinforcement strips (Examiner notes that these limitations are not required to be satisfied because the claim recites “one or more soil reinforcement strips or one or more grids”).
Regarding claim 23, D’Haene further discloses that the peripheral steel filaments are between 3 and 6 peripheral steel filaments (e.g. 1+5 cord includes five peripheral steel filaments).
Regarding claim 24, D’Haene further discloses that the cord(s) is/are selected from the group of: nx1 cord(s), where n is the number of steel filaments and ranges between 3 and 5; 2x1 cord(s); 1+n cord(s) where n ranges from 3 to 6, or wherein the elongated steel elements comprise at least one cord selected from the group of: nx1 cord(s), where n is the number of steel filaments and ranges between 2 and 5; 1+n cord(s) where n is a number of steel filaments arranged around a central steel filament and ranges from 3 to 6 (e.g. 1+5 cord, Table 2).
Regarding claim 25, D’Haene further discloses that said elongated steel elements are coated with a material providing cathodic protection and/or wherein the strip comprises at least 3 steel cords and/or wherein the steel cords are arranged inside the polymer matrix parallel to each other in a way that they do not touch each other and/or wherein the steel cords or steel wires are arranged inside the polymer matrix in 2, 3 or 4 planes and/or wherein the thickness of the polymer matrix between any point at the outside of the strip and any steel cord or steel wire inside the strip is between 100 pm and 500 pm and/or wherein the dimension of the outline of cross-section of the matrix in one direction is bigger than the dimension of cross-section of the matrix in another perpendicular direction, wherein the outline of cross-section of the matrix is oval, rectangular or corresponds to a rectangle with rounded corners and/or wherein the strip is arranged to be connected to or the strip is connected to stabilizing earth and/or arranged to be part of a concrete block or a gabion and/or wherein said elongated steel elements have a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that is more than 5% and/or wherein the strip has a width between 10 mm and 80 mm (e.g. zinc coating, page 7, line 6).
Regarding claim 26, D’Haene further discloses that said elongated steel elements have a cord tensile strength or tensile strength of at least 2000 MPa (e.g. 2574 MPa, Table 2).
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 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Haene et al (EP 0,790,349) alone.
Regarding claim 7, D’Haene discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the filaments have a range of diameters (e.g. claim 11) chosen appropriately to form an unsaturated cord (e.g. page 3, lines 28-29) but D’Haene does not explicitly disclose that the central steel filament has a diameter larger than at least some of the peripheral steel filaments. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a larger diameter central steel filament for the expected benefit of providing a more open structure where the smaller diameter peripheral steel filaments have space therebetween to allow the polymer to penetrate between the filaments as intended (e.g. page 3, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 13, D’Haene discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that corrosion resistant elongated steel elements are desired (e.g. page 7, line 6) but D’Haene does not explicitly disclose that said elongated steel elements are of stainless steel. Since Applicant did not traverse the official notice taken in the previous office action, it is taken as admitted prior art that stainless steel is notoriously well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use stainless steel for the steel of D’Haene because 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, and stainless steel would provide the expected benefit of resistance to corrosion as desired (e.g. page 7, line 6).
Claims 1, 3, 17, 20, 27 and 28 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1194309) in view of Uchio (US 5,839,264).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a soil reinforcement strip (e.g. S1, Fig. 5a), said strip comprising a polymer matrix (e.g. 200, shown but not labeled in Fig. 5a, shown and labeled in Fig.’s 2 and 3, paragraph 0027), said strip further comprising elongated steel elements inside said polymer matrix as reinforcing elements (e.g. 110, Fig. 5a, paragraph 0029), wherein each of said elongated steel elements has a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break and a tensile strength (e.g. these are inherent properties of all materials), and wherein said elongated steel elements are steel cords consisting of steel filaments (e.g. Fig. 5a, paragraphs 0035 and 0037, wherein two steel wires/filaments 110 are twisted together to form a steel cord). Lee further discloses that the steel elements are ductile (e.g. paragraph 0029) and that high tensile strength is required (e.g. paragraph 0003) but Lee does not explicitly disclose that the combined elastic and plastic elongation at break of the elongated steel elements exceeds 4% or that the tensile strength is at least 1800 MPa. Uchio teaches a soil reinforcement strip (e.g. claim 1, wherein a tire is considered a continuous strip in a circular shape), said strip comprising a polymer matrix (e.g. rubber matrix, col. 4, lines 46-49), said strip further comprising elongated steel elements inside said polymer matrix as reinforcing elements (e.g. 2, Fig. 1, claim 1), wherein each of said elongated steel elements has a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that exceeds 4% (e.g. 7%, Table 1, sample 1) and a tensile strength of at least 1800 MPa (e.g. 2885 MPa, Table 1, sample 1), and wherein said elongated steel elements are steel cords consisting of steel filaments (e.g. steel cords 2 are made of steel filaments 1, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 4-8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use elongated steel elements with a combined elastic and plastic elongation at break that exceeds 4% and a tensile strength of at least 1800 MPa as taught by Uchio for the elongated steel elements of Lee for the expected benefit of increased durability (e.g. Uchio, col. 2, lines 29-32) while satisfying the need of Lee for ductility and high tensile strength.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Uchio further discloses that the steel filaments of each elongated steel element have a twisted configuration such that helical interstices are formed between at least some of the steel filaments at a periphery of the at least one of the elongated steel elements, wherein polymer material of the matrix penetrates into the helical interstices (e.g. Lee, similar to Fig.’s 2 and 5a, paragraphs 0035 and 0037, wherein the two steel wires/filaments 110 are twisted together and the polymeric auxiliary wire 120 melts resulting in the two steel wires/filaments having helical interstices penetrated by polymer material).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee and Uchio further discloses that said polymer material comprises a polyolefin (e.g. Lee, paragraph 0027) but does not explicitly disclose that the polyolefin is a functionalised polyolefin. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a functionalised polyolefin for the polyolefin of the combination of Lee and Uchio for the expected benefit of improved adhesion.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lee and Uchio discloses a grid for soil reinforcement (e.g. Lee, B, Fig. 4, paragraph 0001), said grid comprising a set of first strips in a first direction and a set of second strips in a second direction (e.g. Lee, S and S, Fig. 4, paragraph 0039), said set of first strips and said set of second strips crossing one another and being bonded to one another (e.g. Lee, Fig. 4, paragraph 0039), said set of first strips or said set of second strips or both said set of first strips and said set of second strips having strips according to claim 1 (e.g. as described above).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Lee and Uchio further discloses that said polymer material comprises a polyolefin (e.g. Lee, paragraph 0027) but does not explicitly disclose that the polyolefin is a functionalised polyolefin of low density polyethylene. Since Applicant did not traverse the official notice taken in the previous office action, it is taken as admitted prior art that low density polyethylene is notoriously well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a low density polyethylene for the polyolefin of the combination of Lee and Uchio for the expected benefit of flexibility and low melting point.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Lee and Uchio further discloses that said strip has a strip breaking load (e.g. this is an inherent property of all materials) but does not explicitly disclose that the strip breaking load ranges from 10 kN to 150 kN. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the strip breaking load limitation disclosed by Applicant, since 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. Further, a strip breaking load of 10 kN to 150 kN would provide the expected benefit of a wide range of breaking loads applicable to a wide range of site conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678