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 .
The amendment dated 20 February 2026 has been entered.
The drawings submitted 6 May 2026 are approved.
Claims 3, 10, 27, and 28 are withdrawn from consideration.
The previous section 112 rejections have been overcome. A new section 112 rejection is made because the amendment introduced indefinite language.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New claim 32 recites “without movable, non-welded joints” but this feature is not found in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter..
Claims 32 and 34 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 32 recites “without movable, non-welded joints” but it is not clear what the scope of this limitation is: are welded joints allowed if they are movable? Are non-welded joints allowed if they are not movable?
Claim 34 recites “wild-life safe” but it is not clear how a material is determined to be wild-life safe: what type of wild-life? What degree of safety?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, and 30 as well as newly added claims 31, 33, 34, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US10711420 Park which described a sediment/erosion./perimeter control device comprising an exterior (col. 9 line 421) defining an interior including material configured such that the device is reconfigurable between first (“dry weight”—abstract) and second (i.e. after the absorption) in which it has at least a larger weight (“at least 50% greater”).
Parks also described the wattle (col. 3 line 66) as required by claim 2.
Regarding claim 4: see col. 2 lines 9 and 15 “wattles …can be compressed” and “compression of the wattle … reuse” also see Mahdi2, et al. which provides evidence that swelling/expanding (i.e. hygroexpandability) of palm fronds (i.e. the material used by Parks) is inherent when absorbing water.
Regarding claim 5: col. 9 line 43 “burlap” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have the movable non-welded joints.
Regarding claim 7: col. 2 lines 9 and 15 and Mahdi.
Regarding claim 8: col. 2 lines 9 and 15 and Mahdi.
Regarding claim 9: col. 2 lines 9 and 15 and Mahdi
Regarding claim 11: at least hygroexpandable infill is inherent in palm fronds, also plainly either “natural” or “non-natural” is anticipated by Parks.
Regarding claim 12: see Mahdi which describes the porous properties of palm fronds.
Regarding claim 13: col. 2 lines 23-24.
Regarding claim 14: col. 2 line 58-59 “water treatment agents”
Regarding claim 15: at least the “mesh” (col. 3 line 59) would inherently filter water, and at least the expanding volume is shown to be inherent by Mahdi.
Regarding claim 16: examiner finds that the chopped palm fronds amount to “natural” material—consistent with [0033]3.
Regarding claim 17: “erosion control” (title) anticipates a sediment retention device— including the material compressible and expandable (col. 2 lines 9 and 15 also supported by evidence in Mahdi) was described by Parks.
Regarding claim 18: the burlap mesh (col. 9 line 43) is permeable and encapsulates the material (processed palm fronds) which are compressible between first (“dry weight”—abstract) and second (i.e. after the absorption) in which it has at least a larger weight (“at least 50% greater”).
Regarding claim 20: col. 2 lines 23-24.
Regarding claim 21: col. 9 line 43 “burlap” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have movable non welded joints
Regarding claim 22: col. 2 lines 23-24.
Regarding claim 23: “erosion control” (title) anticipates a sediment retention device.
Regarding claim 24: see col. 3 line 1-3.
Regarding claim 29 col. 3 lines 1-5 described at least the shipping (“transporting”) and deploying (“placing”) before absorbing ( line 8) thus in the first configuration.
Regarding claim 30: see col. 3 line 1-3 which described incorporating (“filling”) during manufacturing.
Regarding new claim 31 : col. 9 line 43 “burlap” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have the movable non-welded joints.
Regarding new claim 33 : col. 9 line 43 “burlap” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a weave..
Regarding new claim 34 : col. 9 line 43 “burlap” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a loose-weave natural fiber comprising jute.
Regarding new claim 37 : col. 9 line 43 “burlap” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a woven geotextile.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 29, and 30; as well as new claims 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US5595652 Rainer which described a sediment/erosion/perimeter control device including material (cellulose sponge 11 –col. 4 line 23) such that the device is reconfigurable between first configuration and second configuration having at least substantially larger weight (col. 3 line 34-36).
Rainer also described the structure which is identical to a wattle as require by claim 2 in that it is elongated and tubular.
Rainer also described the water permeable exterior (col. 3 line 44) as called for in claim 4.
Rainer also described the cellulose sponge (col. 4 line 23) of claim 6.
Rainer described cellulose sponge, which is identical to material described by Applicant, and therefore would inherently meet the expandable conditions of claims 7 and 9 and the compressible limitation of claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Rainer described the cellulose sponge.
Regarding claim 12, Rainer described the cellulose sponge which inherently has pores that absorb water causing expansion.
Regarding claim 14: chemical additives col. 5 line 20-30.
Regarding claim 15: the sponge pieces of Rainer would inherently filter water as passes through.
Rainer described cellulose sponge, which is identical to material described by Applicant, and therefore would inherently meet the compressible and expandable conditions of claims 17
Rainer also d escribed the water permeable exterior (col. 3 line 44) and material encapsulated as called for in claim 18.
Rainer described cellulose sponge, which is identical to material described by Applicant, and therefore would inherently meet the compressible and expandable conditions of claims 19
Regarding claim 23: although Rainer does not described sediment retention, it is clear that the sponge-filled structure—nearly identical to applicant’s disclosed structure—could perform the function of sediment retention.
Regarding claim 24, see col. 5 line 60 though col. 6 line 5 which describes a manufacturing.
Regarding claim 29: col. 6, line 5-7 describes deploying in the first configuration.
Regarding claim 30, see col. 5 line 60 though col. 6 line 5 which describes incorporating during manufacturing.
Regarding new claim 32: Applicant admits (page 15 of remarks 2/20/26) that “Rainier cannot meet the movable/non-welded joint feature”.
Regarding new claim 33: Rainier plainly describes netting.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, and 30 as well as new claim 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US20070280789 Mason which described a sediment/erosion./perimeter control device including material configured such that the device is reconfigurable between first (“normally loose”—[0025]) and second (“swells, becomes heavier” [0028]) in which it has at least a larger weight .
Mason also described the wattle (“tube”) as required by claim 2.
Regarding claim 4: see [0025] “flatten “ and [0027] “swells”
Regarding claim 7: [0027] “swells”
Regarding claim 8: [0025] “flatten “ and [0027] “swells”
Regarding claim 9: [0027] “swells”
Regarding claim 11: “sponge” [0023]
Regarding claim 12: “sponge” [0023] inherently includes pores and see [0027] “swells”
Regarding claim 15: [0011]
Regarding claim 16: [0023] “natural…sponges”
Regarding claim 17: [0025] “flatten “ and [0027] “swells”
Regarding claim 18: the geotextile [0022] is permeable and encapsulates the material.
Regarding claim 23: [0010]
Regarding claim 24: [0023]
Regarding claim 25: Mason described the system including the device (e.g. 112, fig 2) of claim 1 integrated with a silt fence (118)
Regarding claim 26: figure 2 anticipates at least the deployed as a single unit without a trench.
Regarding claim 29 [0025] described at least deploying in the first configuration.
Regarding claim 30: [0023] described incorporating during manufacturing.
Regarding new claim 37: [0022]
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) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070280789 Mason in view of US9297134 Dancer.
As shown above, Mason described all the limitations of claim 1, form which claim 36 depends. Mason teaches woven geotextile, and thus lacks the claimed non-woven.
Dancer teaches a wattle with non-woven (abstract) geotextile exterior and suggests (col. 12 line 604) that non-woven has superior life to woven.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mason to have the non-woven as required by claim 36.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10711420 Parks in view of US9297134 Dancer.
As shown above, Parks described all the limitations of claim 1, from which claim 36 depends. Parks teaches burlap—i.e. woven jute, and thus lacks the claimed non-woven.
Dancer teaches a wattle with non-woven (abstract) geotextile exterior and suggests (col. 12 line 60) that non-woven has superior life to woven jute.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mason to have the non-woven as required by claim 36.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070280789 Mason in view of Rugano US11293153. As shown above, Mason described all the limitations of claim 1, from which claim 35 depends. Mason teaches woven geotextile, and thus lacks the claimed knit. Rugano described a wattle with knit exterior (col. 1 line 43) and teaches the knit is superior to woven because it allows the wattle to conform to uneven surfaces (col. 2 line 49). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mason to have the knit exterior as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding Rainier and the movable joints of claims5 and 21 are persuasive.
Without conceding that Mason’s geotextile lacks movable non-woven joints, Examiner notes that Mason is not used in rejections of claims 5 and 21.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Parks lacks the joint mobility required by claims 5 and 21. This is not persuasive because Parks teaches burlap, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be woven—i.e. not welded or fixed. See US1320996 Turner; or US1121696 Walsh; or US1172929 Bassford—each of which provide evidence that burlap is woven.
Applicant argues that Parks lacks the “cellulose-based sponge” but Examiner notes that Parks is not used to reject the sponge claims.
Applicant argues that Rainier lacks any erosion, sediment, or perimeter control function, Expansion or swelling of the device (beyond ordinary sponge absorption), Netting structures, wattles, or exterior shells resembling erosion-control tubes, Reconfigurable first versus second configurations, Extruded netting or movable twine joints. It is noted that many of those features are not reflected in the claim language. Nonetheless, Examiner has shown that Rainier describes a water permeable mesh exterior comprising cellulose sponges—as it is structurally the same as Applicant’s device, one would expect to perform the same functions.
Applicant argues that Mason lacks the barrier changing size, shape, volume or weight, but Mason explicitly describes “swells, becomes heavier” at [0028]
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Janine M KRECK whose telephone number is (571)272-7042. The examiner can normally be reached telework: M-F 0600-1530 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 5712725405. 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.
/Janine M Kreck/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1 sheath 816 may include a flexible material, such as, for example, a burlap sack, a mesh material, a nylon material, a metal wiring, and organic container, twine, and/or other container—at least the “burlap” anticipates “weave” as claimed
2 Effects of water absorption on the mechanical and morphological properties
of date palm leaf fiber-reinforced polymer composites
Mahdi, et al. Composite Structures
3 natural fibers (e.g., plant-based, organic, and/or eco-friendly fibers, etc.)
4 If the life of a barrier is not an important criterion, and in the generality of the invention, less preferred fabrics, including the white or yellow or knit fabrics mentioned above may be used in combination with the other features of the invention. A knitted/woven fabric of jute or cotton or other material fiber may be used.
Prosecution Insights