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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The subject matter which was not described in the specification is that the coconut fibers are unsheathed. The specification did not explicitly disclose a sheathing, however the specification also did not disclose the exclusion of a sheathing. Thus, it is not clear that the inventor had possession of the claimed “unsheathed” coconut fibers at the time the application was filed.
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 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paulson et al (WO 99/28541).
Regarding claim 1, Paulson discloses a geotextile which is biodegradable, resistant to ultraviolet degradation, and contains essentially no petroleum-based materials (e.g. Fig. 11, or in the alternative Fig. 13), the geotextile comprising: only two layers including a first sheet layer comprised of spunbond nonwoven natural fibers (e.g. 1050/1058, Fig. 11, page 54, lines 20-29, or in the alternative 1250, Fig. 13, similar to page 54, lines 20-29); a second sheet layer comprised of natural fibers, the second sheet layer brought into adjacent alignment with the first sheet layer (e.g. plurality of 1024, Fig. 11, page 17, lines 20-23 and 28-30, or in the alternative plurality of 1224 and 1226, Fig. 13, page 17, lines 20-23 and 28-30); and cotton natural fiber thread inserted through the aligned first and second sheet layers to maintain contact of the first sheet layer with the second sheet layer prior to biodegradation of the geotextile (e.g. 1028, Fig. 11, page 32, lines 19-21, or in the alternative 1228, Fig. 13, page 32, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 13, Paulson discloses a geotextile which is biodegradable, resistant to ultraviolet degradation, and contains essentially no petroleum-based materials (e.g. Fig. 11, or in the alternative Fig. 13), the geotextile comprising: only two layers including a first sheet layer comprised of spunbond nonwoven natural fibers (e.g. 1050/1058, Fig. 11, page 54, lines 20-29, or in the alternative 1250, Fig. 13, similar to page 54, lines 20-29); a second sheet layer comprised of natural fibers, the second sheet layer brought into contact with the first sheet layer and aligned together (e.g. plurality of 1024, Fig. 11, page 17, lines 20-23 and 28-30, or in the alternative plurality of 1224 and 1226, Fig. 13, page 17, lines 20-23 and 28-30); and cotton natural fiber threads inserted through the aligned first and second sheet layers to maintain contact of the first sheet layer with the second sheet layer prior to biodegradation of the geotextile (e.g. 1028, Fig. 11, page 32, lines 19-21, or in the alternative 1228, Fig. 13, page 32, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 14, Paulson further discloses that each of the natural fiber threads extends horizontally (e.g. Fig. 11, or in the alternative Fig. 13, wherein at least a portion of each natural fiber thread extends horizontally).
Regarding claim 15, Paulson further discloses that the natural fiber threads are parallel to each other (e.g. Fig.’s 10 and 11, or in the alternative Fig.’s 12 and 13).
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson et al (WO 99/28541) alone.
Regarding claim 8, Paulson discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose that the first sheet layer has an AOS in the range between about 20 and about 100 US Standard Sieve. 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 AOS 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, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this AOS provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 9, Paulson discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose that the first sheet layer has an AOS in the range between about 40 and about 70 US Standard Sieve. 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 AOS 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, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this AOS provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 10, Paulson discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose that the first sheet layer has an AOS of about 70 US Standard Sieve. 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 AOS 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, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this AOS provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 11, Paulson discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that an aperture size in the range of about 1/32" x 1/32" to about 1/8" x 1/8" is known in the art (e.g. page 30, line 22 – page 31, line 1) but Paulson does not explicitly disclose that the second sheet layer includes an aperture size in the range of about 1/32" x 1/32" to about 1/8" x 1/8". It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the aperture size 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, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this aperture size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, and this aperture size range is known in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Paulson discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that an aperture size of about 1/16" x 1/16" is known in the art (e.g. page 30, line 22 – page 31, line 1) but Paulson does not explicitly disclose that the second sheet layer includes an aperture size of about 1/16" x 1/16". 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 aperture size 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, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this aperture size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, and this aperture size range is known in the art.
Claims 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson et al (WO 99/28541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zock et al (US 2019/0145068).
Regarding claim 2, Paulson discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the geotextile is configured to be used for erosion control (e.g. page 2, lines 24-27) but Paulson does not explicitly disclose posts attached to the geotextile to form a silt fence. Zock teaches a silt fence (e.g. 10, Fig. 1) comprising a geotextile (e.g. 20, Fig.’s 1 and 2, paragraph 0021), the geotextile comprising: a first sheet layer comprised of nonwoven fibers (e.g. 22, Fig. 2, paragraph 0022); a second sheet layer comprised of natural fibers, the second sheet layer brought into adjacent alignment with the first sheet layer (e.g. 24 made of kenaf, Fig. 2, paragraph 0029); and a natural fiber thread inserted through the aligned first and second sheet layers to maintain contact of the first sheet layer with the second sheet layer prior to biodegradation of the geotextile (e.g. paragraph 0023 wherein needle punching the layers together results in the fiber threads penetrating each layer); and posts attached to the geotextile (e.g. 28, Fig. 1), wherein each of the posts comprises an extending portion for insertion into soil (e.g. Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add posts as taught by Zock to the geotextile of Paulson for the expected benefit of forming a silt fence and thereby protecting water quality (e.g. paragraph 0003) and providing erosion control (e.g. paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Paulson and Zock does not explicitly disclose a water flow rate of about 6 to about 14 gallons per minute per square foot. 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 water flow rate 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, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this water flow rate provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Paulson and Zock does not explicitly disclose a water flow rate of about 8 to about 11.5 gallons per minute per square foot. 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 water flow rate 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, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this water flow rate provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Paulson and Zock does not explicitly disclose that the geotextile prior to use weighs about 80 g/m2. 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 weight 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, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this weight provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Claims 3, 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson et al (WO 99/28541) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Ducol et al (WO 2016/132058).
Regarding claim 3, Paulson discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the spunbond nonwoven natural fibers are not limited (e.g. page 17, lines 28-30) but Paulson does not explicitly disclose that the spunbond nonwoven natural fibers are comprised of polylactic acid (PLA). Ducol teaches a geotextile which is biodegradable, resistant to ultraviolet degradation, and contains essentially no petroleum-based materials, the geotextile comprising: only two layers including a first sheet layer comprised of nonwoven natural fibers (e.g. 510, Fig. 6, paragraph 0041); a second sheet layer comprised of natural fibers, the second sheet layer brought into adjacent alignment with the first sheet layer (e.g. 501/502, Fig. 6, paragraph 0030); and cotton natural fiber thread inserted through the aligned first and second sheet layers to maintain contact of the first sheet layer with the second sheet layer prior to biodegradation of the geotextile (e.g. 503, Fig. 6, paragraph 0031), wherein the nonwoven natural fibers are comprised of polylactic acid (PLA) (e.g. paragraph 0041). 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 PLA as taught by Ducol for the spunbond nonwoven natural fibers of Paulson because such is a known material in the art and 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.
Regarding claim 4, Paulson discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the natural fibers of the second sheet layer are not limited (e.g. page 17, lines 28-30) but Paulson does not explicitly disclose that the natural fibers of the second sheet layer are comprised of unsheathed coconut fibers. Ducol teaches a geotextile which is biodegradable, resistant to ultraviolet degradation, and contains essentially no petroleum-based materials, the geotextile comprising: only two layers including a first sheet layer comprised of nonwoven natural fibers (e.g. 510, Fig. 6, paragraph 0041); a second sheet layer comprised of natural fibers, the second sheet layer brought into adjacent alignment with the first sheet layer (e.g. 501/502, Fig. 6, paragraph 0030); and cotton natural fiber thread inserted through the aligned first and second sheet layers to maintain contact of the first sheet layer with the second sheet layer prior to biodegradation of the geotextile (e.g. 503, Fig. 6, paragraph 0031), wherein the natural fibers of the second sheet layer are comprised of coconut fibers (e.g. paragraph 0041). 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 (unsheathed) coconut fibers as taught by Ducol for the spunbond nonwoven natural fibers of Paulson because such is a known material in the art and 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.
Regarding claim 16, Paulson discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the natural fibers of the second sheet layer are not limited (e.g. page 17, lines 28-30) but Paulson does not explicitly disclose that the natural fibers of the second sheet layer are comprised of unsheathed coconut fibers. Ducol teaches a geotextile which is biodegradable, resistant to ultraviolet degradation, and contains essentially no petroleum-based materials, the geotextile comprising: only two layers including a first sheet layer comprised of nonwoven natural fibers (e.g. 510, Fig. 6, paragraph 0041); a second sheet layer comprised of natural fibers, the second sheet layer brought into contact with the first sheet layer and aligned together (e.g. 501/502, Fig. 6, paragraph 0030); and cotton natural fiber threads inserted through the aligned first and second sheet layers to maintain contact of the first sheet layer with the second sheet layer prior to biodegradation of the geotextile (e.g. 503, Fig. 6, paragraph 0031), wherein the natural fibers of the second sheet layer are comprised of coconut fibers (e.g. paragraph 0041). 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 (unsheathed) coconut fibers as taught by Ducol for the spunbond nonwoven natural fibers of Paulson because such is a known material in the art and 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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson et al (WO 99/28541) in view of Ducol et al (WO 2016/132058).
Regarding claim 17, Paulson discloses a geotextile which is biodegradable, resistant to ultraviolet degradation, and contains essentially no petroleum-based materials (e.g. Fig. 11, or in the alternative Fig. 13), the geotextile comprising: only two layers including a first sheet layer comprised of spunbond nonwoven natural fibers (e.g. 1050/1058, Fig. 11, page 54, lines 20-29, or in the alternative 1250, Fig. 13, similar to page 54, lines 20-29); a second sheet layer comprised of natural fibers, the second sheet layer brought into contact with the first sheet layer and aligned together (e.g. plurality of 1024, Fig. 11, page 17, lines 20-23 and 28-30, or in the alternative plurality of 1224 and 1226, Fig. 13, page 17, lines 20-23 and 28-30); and cotton natural fiber threads inserted through the aligned first and second sheet layers to maintain contact of the first sheet layer with the second sheet layer prior to biodegradation of the geotextile (e.g. 1028, Fig. 11, page 32, lines 19-21, or in the alternative 1228, Fig. 13, page 32, lines 19-21). Paulson further discloses that the natural fibers of the second sheet layer are not limited (e.g. page 17, lines 28-30) but Paulson does not explicitly disclose that the natural fibers of the second sheet layer are comprised of coconut fibers. Ducol teaches a geotextile which is biodegradable, resistant to ultraviolet degradation, and contains essentially no petroleum-based materials, the geotextile comprising: only two layers including a first sheet layer comprised of nonwoven natural fibers (e.g. 510, Fig. 6, paragraph 0041); a second sheet layer comprised of coconut fibers, the second sheet layer brought into contact with the first sheet layer and aligned together (e.g. 501/502, Fig. 6, paragraph 0030); and cotton natural fiber threads inserted through the aligned first and second sheet layers to maintain contact of the first sheet layer with the second sheet layer prior to biodegradation of the geotextile (e.g. 503, Fig. 6, paragraph 0031). 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 coconut fibers as taught by Ducol for the spunbond nonwoven natural fibers of Paulson because such is a known material in the art and 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.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Paulson and Ducol further discloses that each of the natural fiber threads extends horizontally (e.g. Paulson, Fig. 11, or in the alternative Fig. 13, wherein at least a portion of each natural fiber thread extends horizontally).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Paulson and Ducol further discloses that the natural fiber threads are parallel to each other (e.g. Paulson, Fig.’s 10 and 11, or in the alternative Fig.’s 12 and 13).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Paulson and Ducol further discloses that the coconut fibers are unsheathed (e.g. Ducol, paragraph 0041 wherein no sheaths are disclosed and therefore no sheath would be added in the modification).
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 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
Prosecution Insights