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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed March 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 10, 30, 38, and 47 are currently amended. Claims 49-51 are new. Claims 1-9, 12-20, 33-37, 40, 44-46, and 48 have been canceled. Claims 10, 11, 30-32, 38, 39, 41-43, 47, and 49-51 are pending and under examination.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10, 11, 30, 38, 39, 41-43, 47 and 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shah et al. (US 6,306,518).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 30, 38, 39, 43 and 49-51, Shah et al. teach a starting material for making an integral geogrid (The material of Shah et al. is capable of making a geogrid to the extent required by the claim. The recitation “for making an integral geogrid” is a recitation of intended use and the body of the claim is able to standalone. It is further noted that there are no additional limitations set forth to specify what properties the resulting geogrid must have. Absent further specificity, a multilayer sheet having the same claimed structure as the starting material is understood to meet the claim and be capable of being made into a geogrid to the required extent. It is further noted that the prior art does not need to disclose a geogrid or intend for its equivalent starting material to be used in the same recited manner. The claim is limited to “a starting material”. At most, the starting material of the prior art must merely be capable of being made into an integral geogrid), said starting material comprising: a coextruded multilayer polymer starting sheet having at least coextruded first, second, and third continuous layers of polymeric materials, with the polymeric material of the first layer and of the third layer having a first molecular weight and a material of construction of polypropylene, and the polymeric material of the second layer having a second molecular weight different from the first molecular weight and having a material construction of polypropylene – either virgin or recycled (note: all polypropylene material is either virgin or recycled and therefore the material must be polypropylene with properties as claimed), and with the second layer being positioned between the first layer and the third layer, and with the coextruded multilayer polymer sheet (col. 1, line 42-col. 3, line 50; col. 5, line 62-67; col. 6, lines 11-52; col. 10, lines 60-62; col. 10, line 63-col. 14, line 32; col. 15, lines 54-56; col. 18, lines 25-34) having an overall thickness that is understood to be within (section 102) or that overlaps (section 103) the claimed range (col. 18, lines 31-33; 100-300 mils equals 2.54 – 7.62 mm).
As to the limitation that the second layer has an expanded structure as claimed,
The claims themselves make clear that this is not limited to, for example, a foamed material. The second/middle layer of Shah et al. includes fillers (Abstract; col. 2, lines 5-6; col. 4, lines 35-36; col. 11, lines 5-7; col. 22, line 13 – 25% calcium carbonate), including calcium carbonate, which is one of the materials that makes the layer “expanded”, as set forth in claim 51. Further, in context, it appears reasonable to conclude that “expanded” can be directed to thickness. The second/middle layer of Shah et al. is understood to be thicker than the other layers or at least disclose a range of layer thicknesses that overlaps a configuration where the middle layer is thicker than the other 2 layers (col. 10, lines 60-62; col. 15, lines 55-57; col. 18, lines 25-30). Based on the presence of the claimed fillers/bulking agents in the second/middle layer that are not set forth in the outer layers in Shah et al. and based on the disclosure of a thicker second/middle layer relative to the outer layers in Shah et al., Shah et al. is understood to disclose a middle/second layer that has an “expanded structure” relative to the first and third layers either explicitly under section 102 based on the filler/bulking material or as an overlapping range of thicknesses under section 103.
As to claim 38, Shah et al. teach utilizing a significantly different polypropylene for the second layer than that which is used for the first and third layer. These differences are understood to include a different molecular weight (e.g. in view of the different structure and/or melt flow rate and/or physical properties). As to claim 38, the claim is not positively limited to a post-industrial polypropylene as it is considered to be only necessary when relying upon the recycled limitation.
As to claims 41, 42 and 47, Shah et al. teach nucleating agents in the first/outer layer and fillers in the second/middle layer (Abstract). These are understood to form depressions, to the extent required, in the claimed sheet and the location of these depressions correspond to a plurality of openings that could be formed from stretching as claimed.
As to claim 50, the rejection of claim 49 is based on the expanded structure being provided by bulking agents or fillers. The limitation of claim 50 does not positively require selection of the foam alternative in claim 49. As such, a chemical foaming agent is only required to meet claim 50 when relying upon the foam construction of claim 49 and the rejection of the claim is proper.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. (US 6,306,518), as applied to claims 10, 11, 30, 38, 39, 41-43, and 49-51 above.
As to claims 31 and 32, Shah et al. teach and suggest the overall thickness of the sheet typically ranges from 100-300 mils/2.54 mm – 7.62 mm (col. 18, lines 31-33), that the first/outer layer can duplicated on the back of the middle/second layer (col. 18, lines 25-30), that the first/outer layer(s) forms 5% to 60% of the total thickness (col. 10, lines 60-61), that the second/middle layer forms 40% to 95% of the total thickness (col. 15, lines 55-57), and exemplify a first/outer layer thickness of 0.06”/1.5mm and a second/middle layer thickness of (.25”-.06”)/4.8 mm thickness (col. 25, lines 10-12). These teachings are understood to teach and suggest a range of thicknesses for each of the layers that overlap the claimed range when properly understood within the context of the amendment to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered. The amendment to the claims has overcome the section 112d rejection. While not fully articulated, the examiner agrees that a layer/sheet having “depressions” is still appropriately understood to be a “continuous” layer/sheet. As such, the scope of the claimed and disclosed starting material can appropriately be understood to include “depressions”. However, anything that would make the layers discontinuous (e.g. holes) remains excluded from the scope of the claimed starting material. This is understood to bring appropriate clarity to the prosecution history.
As to the prior art rejections, applicant’s amendment has overcome each of the previously applied references with the exception of the Shah et al. reference. The disclosure of Shah et al. includes more than what is set forth in the Abstract, as argued. Shah et al. teach a first outer layer, a second layer, and a third layer on the backside of the second layer that is the same as the first outer layer (col. 18, lines 25-30). This forms a coextruded multilayer sheet having first, second, and third layers as claimed. Each of the layers includes polypropylene as claimed. The large differences between the polypropylene(s) of the first layer and the second/middle layer as disclosed in Shah et al. make clear that different molecular weights are intended/present. The claimed difference in molecular weight is understood by the examiner to be a clear inherent difference between the disclosed and exemplified materials in Shah et al. found in the layers (e.g. polypropylenes with different melt flow rates, different homopolymers/copolymers of polypropylene in view, different commercially polypropylenes utilized, etc.) At a minimum, a difference in molecular weight is strongly implied from the teaching of Shah et al. It is noted that the claims do not require the material of the second/middle layer to be recycled. It is further noted that claim 38 only requires a particular recycled material when relying upon the alternative recycled limitation of claim 10. As such, the teaching of Shah et al. remains applicable.
Further, as to the limitation in the claims that “an expanded structure” is required for the second/middle layer. The claims themselves make clear that this is not limited to a foamed material. The second/middle layer of Shah et al. includes fillers (Abstract; col. 2, lines 5-6; col. 4, lines 35-36; col. 11, lines 5-7; col. 22, line 13 – 25% calcium carbonate), including calcium carbonate, which is one of the materials that makes the layer “expanded”, as set forth in claim 51. Further, in context, it appears reasonable to conclude that “expanded” can be directed to thickness. The second/middle layer of Shah et al. is understood to be thicker than the other layers or at least disclose a range of layer thicknesses that overlaps a configuration where the middle layer is thicker than the other 2 layers (col. 10, lines 60-62; col. 15, lines 55-57; col. 18, lines 25-30). Based on the presence of the claimed fillers/bulking agents in the second/middle layer that are not set forth in the outer layers in Shah et al. and based on the disclosure of a thicker second/middle layer relative to the outer layers in Shah et al., Shah et al. is understood to disclose a middle/second layer that has an “expanded structure” relative to the first and third layers.
Further, Shah et al. disclose the co-extruded sheets typically have a thickness in the 100-300 mil range (col. 18, lines 31-33). This corresponds with a thickness ranging from 2.54 mm – 7.62 mm. As such, the teaching of Shah et al. still remains applicable to the claimed range of “from about 2 mm to about 12 mm”.
It is submitted that the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the teaching of Shah et al.
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 Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742