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 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (4,073,245) in view of Tyler (8,439,607).
With regard to claim 1, Anderson discloses a method for creating a sediment control device (levee L), comprising:
clearing native soil on a tract of land of vegetation (col. 6, lines 28-34); turning over the native soil (col. 6, lines 28-34) and forming the native soil into a berm (fig. 2).
Anderson fails to explicitly state filtering the native soil, wherein unwanted larger particles or materials are removed; importing one or more soil binders; applying the one or more soil binders to the native soil; blending the one or more soil binders into the native soil; incorporating a reinforcement into the blended native soil and covering the berm with a protective covering.
Tyler discloses creating a sediment control device comprising soil and further comprising filtering the native soil, wherein unwanted larger particles or materials are removed (col. 3, lines 26-37); importing one or more soil binders and applying the one or more soil binders to the native soil (col. 4, lines 46-53); blending the one or more soil binders into the native soil (col. 4, lines 46-53); incorporating a reinforcement into the blended native soil (col. 2, lines 34-63) and covering the berm with a protective covering (vegetation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson and utilize binder and reinforcement in the berm as taught in Tyler, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further strengthen the berm.
With regard to claim 2, Anderson further discloses the step of turning over the soil comprises disking (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 3, Anderson, as modified, further discloses the step of applying the one or more soil binders comprises broadcasting (Tyler, col. 4, lines 54-63).
With regard to claim 4, Anderson, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state the berm comprises a height between 4 inches and two feet. 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 berm be any desired size to include 4 inches to two feet based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 5, Anderson further discloses the protective covering encourages vegetation growth (e.g. claim 1).
With regard to claims 6-8, Anderson, as modified, further discloses the one or more soil binders comprise a polymer (Tyler, col. 4, lines 46-53), the reinforcement comprises natural fibers, the reinforcement comprises synthetic fibers (Tyler, col. 2, lines 34-63).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (4,073,245) in view of Tyler (8,439,607), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Engwer (2001/0053545).
With regard to claim 9, Anderson, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to disclose the protective covering comprises a hydromulch product.
Engwer discloses covering a sediment control device with hydromulch (para 0013).
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 Anderson and utilize hydromulch on the berm as taught in Engwer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to efficiently apply seed to the berm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art, either alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the independent claim(s). Creating sediment control devices are known such as those taught by Anderson (4,073,245), Tyler (8,439,607), and Engwer (2001/0053545). However, the cited prior art lacks destroying the berm; and leaving the destroyed berm materials in place as required by the independent claim(s) and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prior art to achieve applicant’s invention without the benefit of hindsight and applicant’s own disclosure.
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
10/08/2025