Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9-29-25 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S. Patent No. 7,204,057 to Behrens in view of U.S. Patent No. 2012/0107896 to Wandke et al.
Referring to claim 1, Behrens discloses a textile drainage element of a form for voidance of waterlogging of plants, comprising at least one first textile layer – see for example at 18, configured for accepting at least one plant container or plant substrate – see figure 1 and column 3 line 64 to column 4 line 8, and at least one second textile layer – see for example at 10, which is arranged to be laminarly opposite the at least one first textile layer for improved drainage of a liquid – see figures 1 and column 2 lines 40-42, wherein at least one spacer element – at 20,22, is arranged between first textile layer and second textile layer and fixedly connects the two layers together – see figure 1. Behrens discloses a textile drainage element of a form for avoidance of waterlogging of plants, comprising at least one first textile layer – see for example at 16, for accepting at least one plant container or plant substrate – see figures 1 and column 3 line 64 to column 4 line 8, and at least one second textile layer – see for example at 10, which is arranged to be opposite the first textile layer for improved drainage of a liquid – see figures 1 and column 2 lines 40-42, wherein at least one spacer element – at 20,22, is arranged between first textile layer and second textile layer and fixedly connects the two layers together – see figures 1. Behrens further discloses the spacer element is formed of a monofilament or polyfilament textile material or glass fiber material – see the polyfilament – at 20 and monofilament – at 22 in figures 1, column 3 lines 27-37. Behrens further discloses the first textile and the second textile layer are formed of water-repelling synthetic materials for improved drainage of a liquid – see the fleece material of the first textile detailed in column 3 lines 25-45 and the metals, metal alloys and carbon materials of the second textile layer in claims 8-9 and these materials would provide for a degree of water repelling during use. Behrens does not disclose the at least one spacer thread, is formed to be looped with the first textile layer and the second textile layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Behrens and add the spacer thread is lopped with the first and second textile layers as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of securing the spacer to the textile layers as desired. Behrens does not disclose the spacer element is constructed as at least one spacer thread formed of a thermal plastic material selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyester, polyethersulfone and a combination thereof, but does disclose the spacer material – at 26, can be coated as seen in column 2 lines 61-67, column 4 lines 9-12 and claim 10. Wandke et al. doe disclose fiber materials – such as at 1 with a coating – at 5 that is made of plastic – see paragraphs [0068], [0075] and figures 4 and 10. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Behrens and add the fibers coated with a plastic material as disclosed by Wandke et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing protection, a layer of insulation and to make the device safer for use with living organisms during use. Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. does not disclose the plastic spacer material is polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyester, polyethersulfone or combinations therefore. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. and make the spacer out of any suitable plastic material including those materials claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of providing protection and a layer of insulation so as to make the device safer for use with living organisms as desired. It is recommended that applicant amend claim 1 to include the claim limitations of the spacer element is constructed as at least one spacer thread formed substantially entirely of a thermal plastic material or other similar language to overcome these rejections.
Referring to claims 2 and 9, Behrens in the embodiment of figure 1 as modified by Wandke et al. does not disclose the at least one spacer thread has an oblique or curved form in its path between the first textile layer and the second textile layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. and have the spacer thread in any desired orientation including the claimed oblique or curved form as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of providing strength and stability to the drainage element as desired.
Referring to claims 3 and 10, Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. further discloses the spacer thread sections – at 20,22, form together with the second textile layer – at 10, an angle of inclination of between 5o to 130o – see at least 90 degree orientation in figure 1 of Behrens.
Referring to claims 4 and 11, Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. further discloses the connecting points of spacer thread – at 22, with the first textile layer – at 18, and the spacer thread – at 22, with the second textile layer – at 10, are arranged to be congruent with one another – see figure 1 of Behrens.
Referring to claims 5 and 12, Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. further discloses the first textile layer – at 18, is formed to be impenetrable by root systems – see for example column 3 line 64 to column 4 line 8 of Behrens.
Referring to claims 6 and 13, Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. further discloses the second textile layer – at 10, has interruptions – see for example conductive portions as detailed in column 2 lines 35-67 of Behrens.
Referring to claims 7 and 14, Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. does not disclose the drainage element is constructed to have a pressure resistance of 1 to 100 kilograms per square decimeter. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. and have any suitable pressure resistance for the drainage element including the claimed 1 to 100 kilograms per square decimeter, so as to yield the predictable result of making the drainage element more durable for repeated use.
Referring to claim 8, Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. discloses a method for avoidance of waterlogging plants in nurseries, in plant pots, under turf and in roof greenery and for catching drips in domestic use for wet shoes and wet implements – see for example figure 1 and column 3 line 27 to column 4 line 12 of Behrens, which comprises deploying the textile drainage element as a floor or ground covering – see rejection of claim 1 detailed earlier in this paragraph of this office action and see figure 1 of Behrens where the drainage element is at least a floor covering.
Referring to claims 15 and 17, Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. further discloses a heating thread – at 22, arranged between the first textile layer – at 18, and the second textile layer – at 10 – see figure 1 of Behrens.
Referring to claims 16 and 18, Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. does not disclose the heating thread comprises a carbon core coated with a non-conductive plastics material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Behrens as modified by Wandke et al. and add the heating thread made out of any suitable materials including the claimed carbon core coated with a non-conductive plastic as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of making the thread more durable for repeated use.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 9-29-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claims 19-20 detailed in the last office action dated 4-9-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, the Wandke et al. reference US 2012/0107896 discloses a coating of the thread/fiber can be made of a plastic material as seen in paragraph [0075]. Further, applicant has not provided any criticality for using the specific plastic materials claimed as seen in paragraph [0050] of applicant’s specification. Therefore the combination of the Wandke et al. reference with the Behrens reference US 7204057 renders the claims obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action. It is recommended that applicant amend claim 1 to include the claim limitations of the spacer element is constructed as at least one spacer thread formed substantially entirely of a thermal plastic material or other similar language to overcome these rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-18, applicant relies upon the same remarks/arguments with respect to parent claim 1 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643