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 § 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “flooded”. This limitation renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to what exactly that application process entails, and how it is practiced within the context of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 11555284).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Smith discloses an apparatus and method [Figures 1 & 2] comprising disposing a layer of geotextile material [14, 16] over a layer of soil [12]; disposing a layer of aggregate material [30] over a top portion of the layer of geotextile material; applying a binder [32] to a top portion of the layer of aggregate material, wherein at least some of the aggregate material in the top portion is bound together with the binder, after the layer of aggregate material is disposed over the layer of geotextile material [smaller aggregate material enters the voids of the larger aggregate material “binding” them together frictionally; Column 8, Lines 6-65].
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Smith further discloses, the top portion of the aggregate material defines a layer of aggregate and binder extending to a selected depth in the layer of aggregate material, wherein the layer of aggregate and binder is substantially permeable to water flow [Column 8, Lines 6-65].
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Smith further discloses, the binder is adapted to stabilize the aggregate to reduce erosion, migration or movement of the aggregate material or soil when subject to the water flow [Column 8, Lines 6-65].
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Smith further discloses, a region of the aggregate material between the layer of aggregate and binder and the geotextile material, wherein the aggregate is not substantially mixed with the binder in said region [smaller aggregate remains mostly on top; Figure 1; Column 8, Lines 6-65].
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Smith further discloses, the binder is sprayed, poured or flooded onto or over the layer of aggregate material, wherein the binder penetrates or mixes with the aggregate material to a selected depth in the layer of aggregate material [aggregate can be “poured” or “dumped”].
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Smith further discloses, a layer of revetment blocks disposed over the layer of aggregate material, wherein the revetment blocks are configured to reduce erosion, migration or movement of the aggregate material or soil when subject to water flow [36].
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Smith further discloses, at least some of the revetment blocks have a common depth defined between a top surface and a bottom surface along each side thereof, or a domed structure configured to direct water flow, or both [Figures 1 & 2].
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(s) 6, 7, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 11555284) alone.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 19 and 20, although Smith is silent as to the specific aggregate material thickness and binder penetration depth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art re-creating the invention to utilize the disclosed values based on a number of variables including aggregate size/gradation, the subgrade soils, water content, the type of geotextile chosen for the project, the size/type/configuration of the blocks, and the design/intended loading. Subsequently, 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.d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 11555284) in view of Sheridan (US 2010/0278594).
Smith fails to disclose the binder is a polymeric binding agent.
Sheridan teaches an erosion control device utilizing granular material and a polymeric binding agent [Abstract].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Smith by substituting the granular binding agent for a polymeric one as described by Sheridan such that it permanently binds to the aggregate while still remaining porous, thereby increasing the load bearing capacity of the device, and subsequently the applicability, and profitability.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 11555284) in view of Hill (US 2018/0087230).
Smith fails to disclose the revetment blocks have a tapered top surface.
Hill teaches an erosion control device comprising revetment blocks with a tapered top surface [Figures 1 & 2].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Smith by adding the tapered top surface as described by Hill to reduce the sharp edges such that impacts would be less likely to result in chips/damage to the block, in addition to increasing safety should a human, dog etc. accidentally step/fall on it.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Palmer (US 3990247), Hart (US 2004/0067103) & (US 7168884), Nadeau (US 2017/0081819), and Riccobene, JR. et al. (US 2019/0323178) disclose erosion control devices similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights