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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III, claims 13-17, in the reply filed on January 30, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that a serious search and/or examination burden has not been established. This argument is not persuasive. As set forth in the September 30, 2025 Restriction Requirement, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification. The differences would require searching additional and different subclasses. The additional searching that would be required presents a serious search burden. Further, the differences in scope between the different inventions would require a different field of search and present an examination burden if restriction were not required. For example, different search strategies and search queries would be required to search the different inventions. Further still, prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-12 and 18-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at page 7, line 12 “ability constrain” should be - - ability to constrain - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figure 30 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 13-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,722. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of the ‘722 patent claims method of making a multi-axial integral geogrid, said method comprising: providing a polymer sheet; providing a patterned plurality of holes or depressions in the polymer sheet; and biaxially orienting the polymer sheet having the patterned plurality of holes or depressions therein to provide a plurality of interconnected oriented strands and partially oriented junctions forming a repeating pattern of outer hexagons having an array of openings therein, supporting ribs extending inwardly from each of said outer hexagons to support inside each of said outer hexagons a smaller inner hexagon having an open center and oriented strands and tri-nodes, each of said tri-nodes interconnecting only one of said supporting ribs and two of said oriented strands of the inner hexagon, said outer hexagons, said supporting ribs, and said inner hexagons defining three different geometric configurations which are repeating throughout an entirety of the geogrid, and said oriented strands and said partially oriented junctions of said outer hexagons defining a plurality of linear strands that extend continuously throughout the entirety of the geogrid. Additionally, claim 14 of the ‘722 patent further claims the plurality of linear strands of the multi-axial integral geogrid extend continuously throughout the entirety of the geogrid without intersecting the inside of the outer hexagons. As such, claims 1 and 14 together claim each and every limitation of the claimed invention.
As to claim 14, claim 2 of the ‘722 patent claims the polymer sheet has an initial thickness of from about 3 mm to about 10 mm.
As to claim 15, claim 3 of the ‘722 patent claims the openings have repeating hexagonal, trapezoidal, and triangular shapes.
Regarding claim 16, claim 4 of the ‘722 patent claims a method of making a reinforced and stabilized composite soil structure, said method comprising: embedding a multi-axial integral geogrid in a mass of said particulate material so as to engage with said particulate material, said multi-axial integral geogrid including a plurality of interconnected oriented strands and partially oriented junctions forming a repeating pattern of outer hexagons having an array of openings therein, supporting ribs extending inwardly from each of said outer hexagons to support inside each of said outer hexagons a smaller inner hexagon having an open center and oriented strands and tri-nodes, each of said tri-nodes interconnecting only one of said supporting ribs and two of said oriented strands of the inner hexagon, said outer hexagons, said supporting ribs, and said inner hexagons defining three different geometric configurations which are repeating throughout an entirety of the geogrid, said oriented strands and said partially oriented junctions of said outer hexagons defining a plurality of linear strands that extend continuously throughout the entirety of the geogrid.
As to claim 17, claim 5 of the ‘722 patent claims the shapes of the openings are hexagonal, trapezoidal, and triangular.
Claims 13-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,548,206. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of the ‘206 patent claim a method of making a multi-axial integral geogrid, said method comprising: providing a polymer sheet; providing a patterned plurality of holes or depressions in the polymer sheet; biaxially orienting the polymer sheet having the patterned plurality of holes or depressions therein to provide a plurality of interconnected oriented strands and partially oriented junctions forming a repeating pattern of outer hexagons having an array of openings therein, supporting ribs extending inwardly from each of said outer hexagons to support inside each of said outer hexagons a smaller inner hexagon having an open center and oriented strands and tri-nodes, each of said tri-nodes interconnecting only one of said supporting ribs and two of said oriented strands of the inner hexagon, said outer hexagons, said supporting ribs, and said inner hexagons defining three different geometric configurations which are repeating throughout an entirety of the geogrid, and said oriented strands and said partially oriented junctions of said outer hexagons defining a plurality of linear strands that extend continuously throughout the entirety of the geogrid. Further, claim 12 claims the plurality of strands extend continuously throughout the entirety of the geogrid without intersecting said inside of the outer hexagons. As such, each and every limitation of the claimed invention is met by claims 1 and 12 of the ‘206 patent taken together.
Regarding claim 16, claim 14 of the ‘206 patent claims, a method of making a reinforced and stabilized composite soil structure, comprising embedding the multi-axial integral geogrid in a mass of said particulate material so as to engage with said particulate material, said multi-axial integral geogrid including a plurality of interconnected oriented strands and partially oriented junctions forming a repeating pattern of outer hexagons having an array of openings therein, supporting ribs extending inwardly from each of said outer hexagons to support inside each of said outer hexagons a smaller inner hexagon having an open center and oriented strands and tri-nodes, each of said tri-nodes interconnecting only one of said supporting ribs and two of said oriented strands of the inner hexagon, said outer hexagons, said supporting ribs, and said inner hexagons defining three different geometric configurations which are repeating throughout an entirety of the geogrid, said oriented strands and said partially oriented junctions of said outer hexagons defining a plurality of linear strands that extend continuously throughout the entirety of the geogrid.
As to dependent claims 14, 15 and 17, claims 2 and 3 of the ‘206 patent claim or render prima facie obvious the limitations set forth in the instant claims.
Claims 13-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,139,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of the ‘870 patent claims a method of making a multilayer integral geogrid for interlocking with, stabilizing, and strengthening a soil or aggregate, said method comprising: providing a multilayer polymer sheet having a plurality of layers each of a polymeric material, with at least a first outer layer and a second outer layer of the plurality of layers having an expansion structure capable of forming a cellular structure in the first and second outer layers of the multilayer integral geogrid; providing a patterned plurality of holes or depressions in the multilayer polymer sheet; and biaxially orienting the multilayer polymer sheet having the patterned plurality of holes or depressions therein to provide a plurality of interconnected oriented strands and partially oriented junctions forming a repeating pattern of outer hexagons having an array of openings therein, supporting ribs extending inwardly from each of the outer hexagons to support inside each of the outer hexagons a smaller inner hexagon having an open center and oriented strands and tri-nodes, each of the tri-nodes interconnecting only one of the supporting ribs and two of the oriented strands of the inner hexagon, the outer hexagons, the supporting ribs and the inner hexagons defining three different geometric configurations which are repeating throughout an entirety of the integral geogrid, and the oriented strands and the partially oriented junctions of the outer hexagons defining a plurality of linear strands that extend continuously throughout the entirety of the integral geogrid, said first and second outer layers having a cellular structure so as to provide the biaxially oriented integral geogrid with at least a first cellular outer layer and a second cellular outer layer configured to improve an initial interaction between, and compatibility of the soil or aggregate with, the integral geogrid, so as to maximize soil or aggregate density and properties after compaction. As to the limitation that the plurality of linear strands extend continuously throughout an entirety of the geogrid without intersecting the inside of the outer hexagons, claim 1 of the ‘870 patent claims that the linear strands extend continuously throughout the entirety of the geogrid and that the inner hexagons have an open center. As such, these limitations taken together in claim 1 of the ‘870 patent suggest the claimed limitation and render it prima facie obvious.
As to claim 14, claim 6 of the ‘870 patent claims the polymer sheet has an initial thickness of at least 2 mm.
As to claim 15, claim 1 of the ‘870 patent claims three different geometric configurations. From this teaching, the selection of the specific shapes as claimed is understood to be prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 16, claim 8 of the ‘870 patent claims a method of providing a multilayer integral geogrid construction, said method comprising: providing a multilayer polymer sheet having a plurality of layers each of a polymeric material, with at least a first outer layer and a second outer layer of the plurality of layers having an expansion structure capable of forming a cellular structure in the first and second outer layers of the multilayer integral geogrid; providing a patterned plurality of holes or depressions in the multilayer polymer sheet; and biaxially orienting the multilaver polymer sheet having the patterned plurality of holes or depressions therein to provide a plurality of interconnected oriented strands and partially oriented junctions forming a repeating pattern of outer hexagons having an array of openings therein ,supporting ribs extending inwardly from each of the outer hexagons to support inside each of the outer hexagons a smaller inner hexagon having an open center and oriented strands and tri-nodes, each of the tri-nodes interconnecting only one of the supporting ribs and two of the oriented strands of the inner hexagon, the outer hexagons, the supporting ribs and the inner hexagons defining three different geometric configurations which are repeating throughout an entirety of the integral geogrid, and the oriented strands and the partially oriented junctions of the outer hexagons defining a plurality of linear strands that extend continuously throughout the entirety of the integral geogrid, so as to provide the biaxially oriented integral geogrid with at least a first cellular outer layer and a second cellular outer layer; and embedding the integral geogrid in a mass of particulate material.
As to claim 17, claim 8 of the ‘870 patent claims three different geometric configurations. From this teaching, the selection of the specific shapes as claimed is understood to be prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references disclose analogous products with geometric configurations.
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