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 .
Applicant’s Response
The response filed 5/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2019/0366678 to Jones in view of USPN 4,417,828 to de Winter.
Claim 1, Jones discloses a geotextile fabric comprising: a first weft yarn woven in a weft direction; and a first warp yarn and a second warp yarn woven in a warp direction, the first warp yarn being a wicking yarn, and the second warp yarn being a wicking yarn or a non-wicking yarn (see entire document including [0002], [0009] and [0049]-[0064]).
Jones discloses that the warp yarn may be a float yarn over multiple weft yarns ([0049]-[0050]) but does not appear to specifically mention the warp yarn extending from the face of the fabric and forming a gap between the yarn and the face of the fabric but de Winter discloses that it is known in the art to construct a geotextile wherein an anchoring loop yarn protrudes from the face of a fabric to provide anchoring loops on one or both sides of the fabric to improve anchoring to the ground and/or to improve retaining surface material (see entire document including columns 1 and 2 and Figures 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the geotextile as claimed, to improve anchoring to the ground and/or to improve retaining surface material.
Claim 3, the first gap formed between the first loop and the face of the woven geosynthetic fabric is at least 0.25 millimeters, or about 10 to about 50 millimeters (paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2 of de Winter).
Claim 4, the first warp yarn forming the first loop is interlaced at a less frequent interval than the second warp yarn (Figure 3 of de Winter) and de Winter discloses the first warp yarn may also form a second loop that extends from a second face of the woven geosynthetic fabric and across at least two of the weft yarns to form a second gap between the second loop and the second face of the woven geotextile fabric (column 1, lines 27-46).
Claim 5, the first warp yarn may have a multichannel cross-sectional shape, a multi-lobal cross-sectional shape, a delta cross-sectional shape, a trilobal cross-sectional shape, a pillow cross-sectional shape, or a round cross-sectional shape; the second warp yarn is a flat monofilament, a round monofilament, an oval monofilament, a fibrillated tape, a non-fibrillated tape, a continuous filament, a spun yarn, or a multichannel yarn; or a combination thereof (Figure 1, [0010] and Table 7 of Jones).
Claim 6, each independently, the first warp yarn, the first weft yarn, and the second weft yarn, comprises: a synthetic material, a natural material, or a combination thereof; and optionally, the synthetic material is a polyolefin, a polyamide, a polyimide, or a combination thereof; the synthetic material is a polyester; the natural material is cotton, wool, flax, or a combination thereof; any combination thereof; or twisted or entangled in any combination thereof ([0083] of Jones).
Claim 7, the first weft yarn, the second weft yarn, or both the first weft yarn and the second weft yarn has a multichannel cross-sectional shape, a multilobal cross-sectional shape, a delta cross-sectional shape, a trilobal cross-sectional shape, a pillow cross-sectional shape, or a round cross-sectional shape (Jones [0064] and Table 7).
Claim 8, the first warp yarn is texturized; a bundle of fibers, each fiber with a denier of about 0.1 denier to about 100 denier; or a combination thereof ([0058] and [0059] of Jones).
Claim 9, the first weft yarn is a wicking yarn or a non-wicking yarn; the second weft yarn is a wicking yarn; or a combination thereof ([0009] of Jones).
Claim 10, the geotextile comprises a second weft yarn woven in the weft direction [0009]. Considering that the applied prior art teaches a substantially identical geotextile in terms of materials and structure, including a wicking yarn, the claimed properties appear to be inherent. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 11, Jones does not appear to explicitly mention sewing the geotextile fabric into a dewatering bag or geotube but the examiner takes official notice (improperly traversed but still evidenced) that it is well-known in the geotextile art to sew a geotextile into a dewatering bag or geotube based on the intended use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to sew the geotextile of Jones into a dewatering bag or geotube based on the intended use.
Claim 12, considering that the applied prior art teaches a substantially identical geotextile in terms of materials and structure, the geotextile is inherently capable of performing the claimed intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The de Winter reference discloses anchoring loop yarns that may be located on one side of the fabric to penetrate into the ground to anchor the fabric and/or the loop yarns may be located on the other side of the fabric to retain surface located stones or blocks (column 1, lines 27-47). The applicant asserts that de Winter requires the anchoring loop yarns only be in the weft direction while the current claims require loop yarns in the warp direction. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because de Winter does not require the anchoring loop yarns be located in any specific direction within the woven fabric. For example, de Winter explicitly discloses that the places of the loops are to be chosen in dependence on the desired places for the blocks (column 1, lines 48-50). Thus, de Winter teaches that the location of the loop yarns depends on how the geotextile is to be used. For example, one skilled in the art would locate the anchoring loop yarns in the warp direction when the fabric needs anchoring to the ground along the warp direction and/or when the fabric needs to retain stones or blocks along the warp direction. Plus, the terms “warp” and “weft” are interchangeable once a fabric is removed from the loom and made into a finished fabric product. For example, the warp and weft directions are indistinguishable in Figure 3 of de Winter just as the machine (warp) direction is unknown in Figure 1A of the current application without the applicant including an arrow and words indicating which direction is the warp direction. Further, see USPN 6,488,311 to Kato which discloses that warp and weft are interchangeable (column 1, lines 25-37).
The applicant also asserts that the applied prior art (Jones in view of de Winter) fails to teach a fabric wherein the loop yarn is a wicking yarn. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Jones discloses that all the warp yarns may be wicking yarns and the non-wicking yarns may be disposed in the weft direction [0055]. Jones discloses that the wicking yarn material may be polypropylene ([0083] and [0089]) and de Winter discloses that it is known in the art to construct a geotextile with a polypropylene (anchoring loop) yarn protruding from the face of a fabric to provide anchoring loops on one or both sides of the fabric to improve anchoring to the ground and/or to improve retaining surface material (see entire document including columns 1 and 2 and Figures 3 and 4). The de Winter reference illustrates one in every five yarns being an anchoring loop yarn (Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the geotextile of Jones with one wicking warp yarn out of every five warp yarns extending from the face of the fabric to form a first gap (i.e. an anchoring loop yarn), to improve anchoring of the fabric to the ground in the warp direction and/or to improve retaining surface material in the warp direction.
The applicant also asserts that the proposed modification of Jones in view of de Winter would render Jones unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Specifically, the applicant asserts that the wicking yarns of Jones are designed to make fabric surface contact with the soil to draw moisture. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the proposed modification of Jones in view of de Winter does not suggest modifying all the wicking yarns to be anchoring loop yarns. Rather, as taught by de Winter, only one in every five yarns is to be an anchoring loop yarn (see Figure 3 of de Winter). Plus, even the anchoring loop yarns include portions that remain in intimate contact with the fabric surface (see Figures 3 and 4 of de Winter). Therefore, the proposed modification of Jones in view of de Winter, such that one in every five wicking yarns is an anchoring loop wicking yarn, would NOT render Jones unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
The applicant also asserts that unexpected results overcome obviousness because the specification examples demonstrate an improvement in drainage with protruding loops. Specifically, the applicant equates the positive results demonstrated in the specification examples as a demonstration of unexpected results. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because although the applicant appears to have shown that the results are positive, the applicant has failed to show that the results are necessarily unexpected and unexpected to a degree sufficient to overcome obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. See MPEP 716.02. The burden is on the applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. The evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, commensurate in scope with the claims, and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b) and 716.02(d). An inventor (or anybody else) cannot prove unexpected results by simply saying the results are unexpected. Conclusory statements, mere arguments, or speculation are not sufficient to establish that results are unexpected (surprising). To be given weight, an assertion of unexpected results must be supported by factual evidence (concrete, factual proof).
Plus, the results are expected as evidenced by CN2644444Y to Chen. Chen discloses that that it is known in the woven wicking fabric art that a woven fabric constructed with protruding wicking fibers quickly absorbs (drains) surface liquid. Chen discloses that moisture adheres to the protruding wicking fiber (fiber with grooves) such that it instantly flows.
The applicant also states that the claim 11 rejection statement of official notice that it is well-known in the geotextile art to sew a geotextile into a dewatering bag or geotube based on the intended use is traversed. The traversal is improper because the applicant failed to specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action. Rather, the applicant merely requests that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact. To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal. Regardless, in the interest of customer service, the examiner cites the following documents as evidence of the statement of official notice: USPN 3,957,098 to Hepworth (see entire document including column 1, lines 6-40), USPN 5,902,070 to Bradley (see entire document including column 1, lines 5-57), and USPN 6,623,214 to Hauske (see entire document including column 1, lines 3-47).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights