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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the geogrid located in or below a particulate layer, the
geogrid comprising interconnecting mesh including elongate tensile elements, the geogrid comprising transverse bars interconnected by substantially straight oriented strands, at least some of the strands extending from one bar to the next at a substantial angle to the direction at right angles to the bars and alternate such angled strands across the width of the geogrid being angled to said direction by equal and opposite angles, and the geogrid having been stretched in at least one direction must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 47, 49, and 54 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain multiple periods. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claims 29, 37, 42, 44, 47-48, and 54 it is unclear if the limitations in parentheses are intended to be claimed limitations. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the particulate layer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claims 31-32, 41-42, 45-47, 49, 51, and 54 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 33, the phrase "usefully" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 34, the phrase "conveniently" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the molecular oriented polymers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claim 49, the claim is towards a geogrid suitable for use in claim 1, wherein claim 1 requires a geogrid. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
With regard to claim 50, the claim is towards a particulate layer suitable for use in claim 1, wherein claim 1 requires a particulate layer. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
With regard to claim 51, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. It is unclear what applicant is intending to claim and it unclear if the claim is an apparatus or method claim.
With regard to claim 53, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. Claim 28 states a construction of particulate material which depends upon claim 1 which has particulate material.
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.
Claim(s) 29-35, 41, 43-45, 47-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss et al. (WO 2004/079094 A2) in view of Yongxing (CN 101153475 A).
With regard to claims 29, 48, 50-52, and 55-57, Moss discloses a geogrid engineering construction for railways (abstract) the construction comprising:
a track bed (1/2/3) which defines a track located on a track plane (fig. 1); a mass of particulate material (4) forming a layer located beneath the track plane (fig. 1); and at least one geogrid (7) located in and/or below the particulate layer (fig. 1), where the at least one geogrid is located in a plane substantially parallel to the track plane (fig. 1) and increasing the critical track velocity along rails (pg. 4, lines 3-14).
Moss discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as depths of the components being variable (pg. 6, lines 4-13) however fails to explicitly state the average distance between the track plane and geogrid plane, measured perpendicular to both planes, and denoted herein as Dr, is greater than 0.65 meters.
Yongxing discloses a construction for railways wherein a distance between track plane and geogrid is greater than 0.65 meters (para 0024, 0029-0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moss and have the geogrid at least 0.65 meters deep as taught in Yongxing with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure the construction is stabilized as desired based on the design conditions at hand.
With regard to claim 30, Moss further discloses the particulate layer is located immediately beneath the track bed (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 31, Moss, as modified, further discloses the particulate layer has an average thickness less than Dr (Moss; fig. 1; pg. 6, lines 4-13).
With regard to claim 32, Moss, as modified, further discloses in which Dr is greater than or equal to 0.7 meters (Yongxing, para 0024, 0029-0030).
With regard to claim 33, Moss, as modified, further discloses Dr is less than or equal to 5 meters (Yongxing, para 0024, 0029-0030).
With regard to claim 34, Moss, as modified, further discloses Dr is from 0.65 to 5 meters (Yongxing, para 0024, 0029-0030).
With regard to claim 35, Moss, as modified, further discloses the particulate layer is additionally stabilized by at least one other mechanically stabilized layer and/or chemically stabilized layer (moss; pg. 7, polymer binder).
With regard to claim 41, Moss, as modified, further discloses the geogrid has a thickness of from 0.1 m to 5 mm (“SS40 polypropylene tensar geogrid”).
With regard to claim 43, Moss further discloses the geogrid has a tensile strength of at least 10kN/m (pg. 7, lines 10-12).
With regard to claim 44, Moss further disclose the geogrid has mesh defining elements that have a width of 2 to 100 mm, the mesh defining elements defining mesh apertures having a mean length and/or a mean width of from 5 to 400 mm (“SS40 polypropylene tensar geogrid”).
With regard to claim 45, Moss, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a Rayleigh wave velocity (Vr) therein of at least 55 ms-1. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the Rayleigh wave velocity be any desired size to include 55 ms- based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant’s specification discloses these values are a result of the materials utilized and Moss discloses similar materials.
With regard to claim 47, 49, and 53-54, Moss further disclose radial secant stiffness at 2% strain (“SS40 polypropylene tensar geogrid”).
Claim(s) 36-40 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss et al. (WO 2004/079094 A2) in view of Yongxing (CN 101153475 A), as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Walsh (2013/0216773).
With regard to claims 36-38 and 40, Moss, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the geogrid is in the form of an integral, molecularly oriented, mesh, which comprises polymers which are substantially molecularly oriented in at least one or two directions or interconnecting mesh defining elements including elongate tensile elements.
Walsh discloses a geogrid (abstract) comprising an integral, molecularly oriented, mesh, which comprises polymers which are substantially molecularly oriented in at least one or two direction (paras 0015, 0027, 0041) and interconnecting mesh defining elements including elongate tensile elements (figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Moss and utilize an integral geogrid as taught in Walsh with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the reinforcement structure.
With regard to claim 39, Moss, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the geogrid comprises transverse bars interconnected by substantially straight oriented strands, at least some of the strands extending from one bar to the next at a substantial angle to the direction at right angles to the bars and alternate such angled strands across the width of the geogrid being angled to said direction by equal and opposite angles.
Walsh discloses a geogrid (abstract) comprising the geogrid comprises transverse bars interconnected by substantially straight oriented strands, at least some of the strands extending from one bar to the next at a substantial angle to the direction at right angles to the bars and alternate such angled strands across the width of the geogrid being angled to said direction by equal and opposite angles (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Moss and utilize the geogrid as taught in Walsh with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the reinforcement structure.
With regard to claim 42, Moss, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the molecular oriented polymers that comprise the polymer geogrid are oriented by the polymer grid having been stretched in at least one direction at stretch ratio of at least 2:1 .
Walsh discloses a geogrid (abstract) wherein the molecular oriented polymers that comprise the polymer geogrid are oriented by the polymer grid (paras 0015, 0027, 0041) having been stretched in at least one direction at stretch ratio of at least 2:1 (figs. 1,3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Moss and utilize the geogrid as taught in Walsh with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the reinforcement structure.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss et al. (WO 2004/079094 A2) in view of Yongxing (CN 101153475 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mezher et al. (“Railway critical velocity – Analytical prediction and analysis”).
With regard to claim 46, Moss, as modified discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well a railway track having rails (1) however is silent regarding the rails have a critical track velocity at least 140 ms'.
Mezher discloses a railway track where the rails have a critical track velocity of at least 140 ms' (table 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Moss and utilize a critical track velocity of at least 140 ms' as taught in Mezher in with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide train speeds with current demands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
12/26/2025