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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, and 7-35 are pending in the application. Claims 4-6 have been cancelled. Claims 9, 12-29, 31 and 32 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 30 and 33-35 are rejected.
The rejections over Shelton in view of Barger; and further in view of Yahara have been maintained.
All of the nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been modified in view of the present amendment and response.
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.
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, 7, 8, 10, 11, 30, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0298582 to Shelton et al. (hereinafter “Shelton”) in view of US 2009/0263645 to Barger et al. (hereinafter “Barger”).
As to claims 1, 11 and 34, Shelton discloses a multilayer integral geogrid comprising a plurality of oriented multilayer strands interconnected by partially oriented junctions and having an array of openings therebetween as shown in figure 7. The integral geogrid is produced from coextruded multilayer layers and each layer of which made of a polymer and so is the multilayer strand. The polymeric layer including a foaming agent is equated to a foam layer. The polymeric layer free of a foaming agent is equated to a film layer. Each strand and each junction comprise multiple layers of a polymeric material including an intermediate foam layer sandwiched between two outer film layers (paragraph 81).
Shelton discloses the multilayer sheet having a first film layer and a third film layer, each having a thickness of 0.5 to 4.5 mm while a second foam layer has a thickness of 1 to 9 mm (paragraph 59). In particular, the thicknesses of the first, second and third layers: 1.56 mm/1.47 mm/1.56 mm (paragraph 72), or 1.02mm/0.96 mm/1.02mm (paragraph 77). The foam layer in each case has a thickness which is about 32% of an overall thickness of the multilayer sheet.
The multilayer integral geogrid is comprised of a coextruded multilayer polymer sheet with holes or depressions therein (paragraph 25). The coextruded multilayer polymer sheet is further uniaxially or biaxially stretched to provide a plurality of highly oriented strands interconnected by partially oriented junctions and having an array of the openings therein (paragraphs 12, 14, 21, 25 and 31).
Shelton does not explicitly disclose the strand and the junction of the integral geogrid comprising an intermediate film layer disposed between two outer foam layers.
Barger, however, discloses a multilayer foam-film composite structure comprising a plurality of alternating film layers and foam layers wherein the external layer of the composite structure is a film layer or a foam layer (paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct an integral geogrid comprising a plurality of polymeric layers wherein an external layer is a foam layer because the foam and the film have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent external layers of the multilayer foam-film composite structure, the strand and the junction of the integral geogrid; and the selection of these known equivalents will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
The combined disclosures of Shelton and Barger result in a multilayer sheet comprising a film layer disposed between two foam layers wherein the foam layer has a thickness which is about 32% of the total thickness of the multilayer sheet.
As to claim 7, Shelton discloses that CaCO3 filler is incorporated in the layers of the integral geogrid including foam layers and film layer (paragraph 91).
As to claim 8, Shelton discloses that the multilayer integral geogrid or the multilayer strand is formed by co-extrusion (paragraph 80).
As to claim 10, Shelton discloses that the oriented strands are biaxially stretched (paragraphs 12, 14, 21 and 31).
As to claim 30, Shelton discloses that the integral geogrid is a triaxial integral geogrid (paragraph 31).
As to claim 33, Shelton also teaches that CaCO3 filler is incorporated in the layers of the integral geogrid including foam layers and film layer (paragraph 91). Therefore, it is not seen that the cellular openings that forms around the CaCO3 fillers would not be present in the subsequent uniaxial or biaxial stretching process, which is an exact process set out in the Applicant’s disclosure for creating these cellular openings.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Barger as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2015/0203648 to Yahara et al. (hereinafter “Yahara”).
Neither Shelton nor Barger discloses that the foam layer has a void volume of 20 to 70% and a compressibility factor of about 20 to 60%.
Yahara, however, discloses a foam obtained from a copolymer of ethylene, an α-olefin and a non-conjugated diene, a blowing agent, and a crosslinking agent (abstract). The foam has a porosity of 40% and a 50% compression strength of 75 KPa (table 2-continuous, example 8). The foam is useful as a cushioning material which damps vibration and impact in civil engineering construction (paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the foam layer of Shelton having a void volume of 40%, and a compressibility factor of 50% as disclosed in Yahara, motivated by the desire to provide an integral geogrid having high cushioning properties and improved impact resistance.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Barger as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2013/0216773 to Walsh (hereinafter “Walsh”).
Neither Shelton nor Barger discloses that the strands have an aspect ratio of 0.75 to 3.0.
Walsh, however, discloses a multi-axial geogrid having a series of interconnected strands that are arranged along at least two different axes within the plane of the structure (abstract). The strands have an aspect ratio, defined as the ratio of the thickness to width, of greater than 1.0, particularly from 1.4 to 2.2 (table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the strands of Shelton having an aspect ratio disclosed in Walsh, motivated by the desire to provide increased confinement of granular material and improved performance when the geogrid is used as a reinforcing component in a civil engineering structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that the claim is not rendered obvious in view of the combined disclosures of Shelton and Barger because none of the cited references disclose “the first and second cellular outer layers each having a thickness that is at least 10% of the total thickness of the multilayer integral geogrid”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As previously discussed, Shelton discloses the multilayer sheet having a first film layer and a third film layer, each having a thickness of 0.5 to 4.5 mm while a second foam layer has a thickness of 1 to 9 mm (paragraph 59). In particular, the thicknesses of the first, second and third layers: 1.56 mm/1.47 mm/1.56 mm (paragraph 72), or 1.02mm/0.96 mm/1.02mm (paragraph 77). The foam layer in each case has a thickness which is about 32% of an overall thickness of the multilayer sheet.
The combined disclosures of Shelton and Barger result in a multilayer sheet comprising a film layer disposed between two foam layers wherein the foam layer has a thickness which is about 32% of the total thickness of the multilayer sheet.
Accordingly, the rejections over Shelton in view of Barger; and further in view of Yahara have been maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 30, 33 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,753,788 in view of Shelton.
As to claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 30 and 34, the claims of the US Patent No. 11,753,788 disclose each and every limitation of the claims of the current application except for the first and second cellular outer layers each having a thickness that is at least 10% of the total thickness of the multilayer integral geogrid.
Shelton, however, discloses a multilayer integral geogrid comprising a plurality of oriented multilayer strands interconnected by partially oriented junctions and having an array of openings therebetween as shown in figure 7. The integral geogrid is produced from coextruded multilayer layers and each layer of which made of a polymer and so is the multilayer strand. The polymeric layer including a foaming agent is equated to a foam layer. The polymeric layer free of a foaming agent is equated to a film layer. Each strand and each junction comprise multiple layers of a polymeric material including an intermediate foam layer sandwiched between two outer film layers (paragraph 81).
Shelton discloses the multilayer sheet having a first film layer and a third film layer, each having a thickness of 0.5 to 4.5 mm while a second foam layer has a thickness of 1 to 9 mm (paragraph 59). In particular, the thicknesses of the first, second and third layers: 1.56 mm/1.47 mm/1.56 mm (paragraph 72), or 1.02mm/0.96 mm/1.02mm (paragraph 77). The foam layer in each case has a thickness which is about 32% of an overall thickness of the multilayer sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the outer and inner cellular layers of the multilayer integral geogrid of the claimed invention having a thickness that is about 32% of the total thickness of the multilayer sheet as disclosed in Shelton, motivated by the desire to enhance reinforcing performance of the integral geogrid.
As to claim 33, the first cellular outer layer and the second cellular outer layer have a construction that includes a particulate filler (claims 6 and 7 of the US Patent No. 11,753,788). Therefore, it is not seen that the first and second outer layers could not generate the cellular openings adjacent the particulate filler, upon the stretching/orientating of the multilayer integral geogrid. This an exact process set out in the Applicant’s disclosure for creating these cellular openings.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,753,788 in view of Shelton, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Walsh.
Neither the claims of the US Patent No. 11,753,788 nor Shelton discloses an aspect ratio of the strands.
Walsh, however, discloses a multi-axial geogrid having a series of interconnected strands that are arranged along at least two different axes within the plane of the structure (abstract). The strands have an aspect ratio, defined as the ratio of the thickness to width, of greater than 1.0, particularly from 1.4 to 2.2 (table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the strands disclosed in the claimed invention/Shelton having an aspect ratio disclosed in Walsh, motivated by the desire to provide increased confinement of granular material and improved performance when the geogrid is used as a reinforcing component in a civil engineering structure.
Response to Arguments
The claims of the U.S. Patent No. 11,753,788 do not disclose the first and second cellular outer layers each having a thickness that is at least 10% of the total thickness of the multilayer integral geogrid. However, new combination of the U.S. Patent No. 11,753,788 and Shelton suggests the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 30, 33 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,519,150 in view of Shelton.
As to claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 30, and 34, the claims of the US Patent No. 11,519,150 disclose each and every limitation of the claims of the current application except for the first and second cellular outer layers each having a thickness that is at least 10% of the total thickness of the multilayer integral geogrid.
Shelton, however, discloses a multilayer integral geogrid comprising a plurality of oriented multilayer strands interconnected by partially oriented junctions and having an array of openings therebetween as shown in figure 7. The integral geogrid is produced from coextruded multilayer layers and each layer of which made of a polymer and so is the multilayer strand. The polymeric layer including a foaming agent is equated to a foam layer. The polymeric layer free of a foaming agent is equated to a film layer. Each strand and each junction comprise multiple layers of a polymeric material including an intermediate foam layer sandwiched between two outer film layers (paragraph 81).
Shelton discloses the multilayer sheet having a first film layer and a third film layer, each having a thickness of 0.5 to 4.5 mm while a second foam layer has a thickness of 1 to 9 mm (paragraph 59). In particular, the thicknesses of the first, second and third layers: 1.56 mm/1.47 mm/1.56 mm (paragraph 72), or 1.02mm/0.96 mm/1.02mm (paragraph 77). The foam layer in each case has a thickness which is about 32% of an overall thickness of the multilayer sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the outer and inner cellular layers of the multilayer integral geogrid of the claimed invention having a thickness that is about 32% of the total thickness of the multilayer sheet as disclosed in Shelton, motivated by the desire to enhance reinforcing performance of the integral geogrid.
As to claim 33, the first cellular outer layer and the second cellular outer layer have a construction that includes a particulate filler (claims 9, 10, 24 and 25 of the US Patent No. 11,519,150). Therefore, it is not seen that the first and second outer layers could not generate the cellular openings adjacent the particulate filler, upon the stretching/orientating of the multilayer integral geogrid. This an exact process set out in the Applicant’s disclosure for creating these cellular openings.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,519,150 in view of Shelton as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yahara.
Neither the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 11,519,150 nor Shelton discloses that the foam layer has a void volume of 20 to 70% and a compressibility factor of about 20 to 60%.
Yahara, however, discloses a foam obtained from a copolymer of ethylene, an α-olefin and a non-conjugated diene, a blowing agent, and a crosslinking agent (abstract). The foam has a porosity of 40% and a 50% compression strength of 75 KPa (table 2-continuous, example 8). The foam is useful as a cushioning material which damps vibration and impact in civil engineering construction (paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the foam layer of the Patent No. 11,519,150/Shelton having a void volume of 40%, and a compressibility factor of 50% as disclosed in Yahara, motivated by the desire to provide an integral geogrid having high cushioning properties and improved impact resistance.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,519,150 in view of Shelton, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Walsh.
Neither the claims of the US Patent No. 11,519,150 nor Shelton discloses an aspect ratio of the strands.
Walsh, however, discloses a multi-axial geogrid having a series of interconnected strands that are arranged along at least two different axes within the plane of the structure (abstract). The strands have an aspect ratio, defined as the ratio of the thickness to width, of greater than 1.0, particularly from 1.4 to 2.2 (table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the strands of the claimed invention/Shelton having an aspect ratio disclosed in Walsh, motivated by the desire to provide increased confinement of granular material and improved performance when the geogrid is used as a reinforcing component in a civil engineering structure.
Response to Arguments
The claims of the U.S. Patent No. 11,519,150 do not disclose the first and second cellular outer layers each having a thickness that is at least 10% of the total thickness of the multilayer integral geogrid. However, new combination of the U.S. Patent No. 11,519,150 and Shelton suggests the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights