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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is a spacing issue. 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 6, 8-14, 16, 18 and 19 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.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “each of the first and second walls extending at an angle rom the upper surface toward the other of the first and second walls” It is uncertain what “the other” in the “other of the first and second walls.” Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite, as it is uncertain what arrangement of the angle of the first and second walls should be relative to.
For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the first and second walls have different angles relative to each other in the same channel.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “A fiber erosion mat” and “a plurality of layers of a mat” and “the mat.” It is uncertain what mat must have the channels, the entire fiber erosion mat or the layers which may or may not be individual mats themselves. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite, as it uncertain what is what mat and what features are required for the respective mats.
Claims 9-14 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 8. In addition, the limitations regarding the channels and layers are also indefinite in Claims 9-14, as it uncertain what is “the mat.”
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “each surface has a different arrangement.” This limitation is indefinite, as if it is referring to the upper and lower surfaces recited in Claim 8, or all six surfaces of a three-dimensional mat. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite, as it is uncertain what surfaces have the channels.
For purposes of examination, is interpreted that the channels are only on the upper and lower surfaces.
Regarding Claim 16, 18 and 19, the claims recite “each of the plurality of channels” or “each of the plurality of channels.” These limitations are indefinite, as each does not specifically define the structure. The claim should recite “each channel of the plurality of channels” to identify the channel or “the plurality of channels” to identify the entire group of channels.
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.
Claim 1, 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spittle (US 2006/0070294 A1) in view of Prunty et al. (US 5,786,281) and Pilaar (US 3,597,928).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Spittle teaches an erosion fiber mat comprising natural wood fibers and synthetic fibers (Abstract; Claim 1-2 of Spittle; Paragraph 0017-0018) having upper and lower surfaces (Fig. 3), the upper surface having a first plurality of channels extending along the mat. (Fig. 3).
Spittle does not teach the mat is formed into an elongated strip or the each of the first plurality of channels having a channel depth being different in a central portion of the mat than in an edge portion of the mat.
Prunty teaches an erosion mat (Abstract) formed of fibers and shaped into an elongated strip with channels extending on the first surface of the mat. (Fig. 3-4 and 6; Column 3, Lines 52-65). Prunty teaches elongated shape allows the erosion mat to be placed next to each other and joined together for multiple mats to operate in a sloped region. (Fig. 3-4 and 6; Column 3, Lines 52-65). Therefore, as Prunty teaches elongated shaped erosion mats provide the advantage of being able to used together to handle sloped regions, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use make the erosion fiber mat of Spittle into an elongated strip.
Spittle and Prunty do not teach the channel depth being different in a central portion of the mat than the edge portion of the mat, where the channel depth is greater than in the center than the edge portion.
Pilaar teaches an erosion controlling sheet (Abstract), where some of the channels on the center portion versus the edge portion have different depths, such as making it deeper in the center to channel water. (Column 7, Lines 20-30). Pilaar teaches this is used to direct the flow of water across the erosion sheet. (Column 7, Lines 20-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to vary the channel depths along the center and edge portion of the mat of Spittle to direct water flow as desired and necessary for the landscaping situation where the mat is located, including making the central portion deeper than the edge portion.
Regarding Claim 4, Prunty teaches diamond shaped channels are suitable that do not run parallel to the edges of the mat (Fig. 3). Prunty teaches this channel pattern is cable of slowing water velocity and hold soil better. (Column 5, Lines 9-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the channels not parallel to edges of the mat of Spittle.
Regarding Claim 5, Spittle does not specifically teach the channel depth is less than 50% of the mat’s thickness. However, Spittle teaches the embossing is used to melt the synthetic fibers to bond the entire mat together. (Paragraph 0042). The depth of embossing, the channel depth, determines how much synthetic fiber bonds to hold the fiber mat together. Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would be able to adjust the channel depth through routine optimization depending on the necessary strength of the resulting fiber mat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to adjust the channel depth to the claimed range as taught by Spittle.
Regarding Claim 7, Spittle teaches the channels can form a diamond pattern. (Paragraph 0048; Fig. 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spittle, Prunty and Pilaar in further view of Jacobsen, Jr. et al. (US 5,484,501).
Regarding Claim 2, Spittle, Prunty and Pilaar do not specifically teach the lower surface further includes a plurality of channels.
Jacobsen teaches an erosion mat (Column 1, Lines 12-19) where both sides of the fiber mat are embossed. (Column 4, Lines 34-35). Like Spittle, Jacobsen teaches embossing bonds the mat together; therefore, embossing on both sides would increase the bonding strength. (Column 4, Lines 30-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to emboss both sides of Spittle, thereby forming channels on both the upper and lower surface, in order to increase the bonded strength of the fiber mat.
Claim 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 013 as being unpatentable over Spittle in view of Prunty.
Regarding Claim 15, Spittle teaches an erosion fiber mat comprising natural wood fibers and synthetic fibers (Abstract; Claim 1-2 of Spittle; Paragraph 0017-0018) having upper and lower surfaces (Fig. 3), the upper surface having a first plurality of channels extending along the mat. (Fig. 3). Spittle teaches the channels cross in the center (Fig. 3); therefore, channels in the center portion have a larger width than on an edge portion of the mat.
Spittle does not teach the mat is formed into an elongated strip.
Prunty teaches an erosion mat (Abstract) formed of fibers and shaped into an elongated strip with channels extending on the first surface of the mat. (Fig. 3-4 and 6; Column 3, Lines 52-65). Prunty teaches elongated shape allows the erosion mat to be placed next to each other and joined together for multiple mats to operate in a sloped region. (Fig. 3-4 and 6; Column 3, Lines 52-65). Therefore, as Prunty teaches elongated shaped erosion mats provide the advantage of being able to used together to handle sloped regions, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use make the erosion fiber mat of Spittle into an elongated strip.
Regarding Claim 16, Spittle teaches the first plurality of channels have a first thickness and the remainder of the mat has a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness. (Paragraph 0047-0049).
Regarding Claim 17, Prunty teaches diamond shaped channels are suitable that do not run parallel to the edges of the mat (Fig. 3). Prunty teaches this channel pattern is cable of slowing water velocity and hold soil better. (Column 5, Lines 9-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the channels not parallel to edges of the mat of Spittle.
Regarding Claim 18, Spittle does not specifically teach the channel depth is less than 50% of the mat’s thickness. However, Spittle teaches the embossing is used to melt the synthetic fibers to bond the entire mat together. (Paragraph 0042). The depth of embossing, the channel depth, determines how much synthetic fiber bonds to hold the fiber mat together. Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would be able to adjust the channel depth through routine optimization depending on the necessary strength of the resulting fiber mat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to adjust the channel depth to the claimed range as taught by Spittle.
Regarding Claim 19, Spittle teaches the emboss roll pushes down on the mat to form the channels. (Paragraph 0041). Therefore, the plurality of channels will have a first density and a reminder of the mat will have a second density, where the first density is greater than the second density due to the compression of the mat to form the channels.
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 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,067 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of patent addresses various 112(b) issues in the current Application.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights