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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 25, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-26 and 29-37 are 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.
Claims 1, 7, 29-30 and 35-37 have been amended to now recite that the transition from the first to the second configuration is not “merely incidental to water absorption” but is a “designed functional reconfiguration”. There is nothing in the original disclosure that describes any other type of reconfiguration other than exposing the material to water (liquid). This limitation therefore constitutes new matter.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11-26 and 31-37 are rejected here because the claims all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-26 and 29-37 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.
Claims 1, 7, 29-30 and 35-37 have been amended to now recite that the transition from the first to the second configuration is not “merely incidental to water absorption” but is a “designed functional reconfiguration”. This language is indefinite because it is not clear what this “designed reconfiguration” is or how it is any different than the structural expansion that results from the absorption of liquid. Moreover, the examiner notes that the material is specifically selected for its ability to absorb liquid and expand, thus it would seem that all of the transitions from first to second configurations would be expected when the material is exposed to liquid and thus would be inherently “designed structural expansion”. For examination purposes, this “designed expansion” will be considered as inherent in the device, as the expansion is expected and therefore, “designed”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-18, 20-24, 29-31 and 33-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,711,420 (Parks).
As concerns claim 1, Parks discloses a sediment/erosion/perimeter control device comprising: a water-permeable exterior defining an interior, the water-permeable exterior comprising a netting, weave, knit, nonwoven textile, or woven geotextile; a material within the interior, the material being configured such that the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is reconfigurable between at least: a first configuration in which the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device has a first size, shape, and/or volumeand/or volumeand/or volumes that the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device has in the first configuration (see at least the Abstract, where the first configuration is prior to exposing the material to water and the second configuration is at least 50% greater than the dry weight); wherein the first configuration is an intentionally compressed transport configuration in which the material is pre-compressed to reduce overall device volume for storage and shipping;(see at least 2:7+, “Palm fronds tend to be less dense than other fill materials. When space for transportation is limited, bags or wattles filled with palm material can be compressed to allow for the transportation of more bags or more wattles than similar structures filled with traditional materials”) wherein the second configuration is a deployed configuration in which the material expands upon exposure to water and increases an external dimension of the device (Abstract); and wherein the reconfiguration from the first configuration to the second configuration comprises a designed structural expansion of the device from the compressed transport configuration rather than solely an increase in weight due to absorption (in as much as the reconfiguration is expected, see 1:65+ (“Because the palm fronds can be shredded, chopped, and/or ground to various particle sizes, as described more in detail herein, palm fronds can absorb flow water. This allows the fiber bags to be relatively light during transport but to become sturdy and able to block or redirect flow water or erosion when the bags become wet. Similarly, wattles filled with material including palm can be easily transported due to their light weight to the site, but they become effective sturdy structures when they come in contact with water”, thus the reconfiguration is “designed”).
As concerns claim 2, Parks discloses the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 1, wherein the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is a wattle (Id.).
As concerns claim 4, Parks discloses the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 2, wherein: the wattle comprises the water permeable exterior; the material comprises an infill encapsulated within the interior defined by the water permeable exterior of the wattle; and the wattle is: compressible into the first configuration via compression of the infill; and expandable from the first configuration to the second configuration via expansion of the infill when the infill absorbs water passing through the water permeable exterior of the wattle (column 2, lines 9 and 15).
As concerns claim 5, Parks discloses the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 4, wherein the water permeable exterior of the wattle comprises movable, non-welded joints between horizontal and vertical twines that allow the twines to move independently thereby allowing for a reduction in the potential for wildlife entanglement in the twines (one would certainly understand that a device made from palm fabric would have non-welded joints).
As concerns claim 7, Parks discloses the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 1, wherein the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is expandable from the first configuration to the second configuration upon exposure to water (abstract), and wherein water-permeable exterior is structured to permit outward expansion of the material in at least one outward radial direction without constraining volumetric growth such that the expansion produces a change in the device's external geometry including an increased cross-sectional profile for sediment/erosion/perimeter control rather than solely an increase in weight (the expansion of the particles would inherently change the geometry of the device, see 10:10+), whereby the transition from the first configuration to the second configuration is not merely incidental to water absorption but is a designed functional reconfiguration enabling reduced shipping volume and enhanced in-field performance.t(in as much as the reconfiguration is expected, see 1:65+ (“Because the palm fronds can be shredded, chopped, and/or ground to various particle sizes, as described more in detail herein, palm fronds can absorb flow water. This allows the fiber bags to be relatively light during transport but to become sturdy and able to block or redirect flow water or erosion when the bags become wet. Similarly, wattles filled with material including palm can be easily transported due to their light weight to the site, but they become effective sturdy structures when they come in contact with water”, thus the reconfiguration is “designed”).
As concerns claim 8, Parks discloses the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 1, wherein the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is compressible into the first configuration and expandable into the second configuration upon exposure to water (2:7+, abstract),
As concerns claim 9, Parks discloses the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 1, wherein the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is hygroexpandable from the first configuration to the second configuration. (2:9 and 2:15).
Regarding claim 11: at least hygroexpandable infill is inherent in palm fronds, also plainly either "natural" or "non-natural" is anticipated by Parks.
As concerns claim 12, see figure 10 for the “pores”.
Regarding claim 13: col. 2 lines 23-24.
Regarding claim 14: col. 2 line 58-59 "water treatment agents"
As concerns claim 15, Parks discloses the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 1, wherein the material is configured with the capability of filtering water and the ability to expand from an initial volume and/or initial weight of the material (figure 10 shows a mesh structure 1000 that may be used as part of the sheath 816 and/or the jacket (in certain configurations). The mesh structure 1000 comprised of a mesh material 1004. The structure 1000 may include tiny pores and/or larger openings to allow for the flow of water therethrough. In this way, water may be allowed to come in contact with the interior of the sheath 816 and/or the jacket. This can allow the weight of the portable structure to increase and/or allow the shape of the structure to deform to create a better damming effect).
Regarding claim 16: examiner finds that the chopped palm fronds amount to "natural" material
Regarding claim 17: "erosion control" (title) anticipates a sediment retention device- including the material compressible and expandable (col. 2 lines 9 and 15).
As concerns claim 18, Parks discloses the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 1, wherein the material is encapsulated within the interior defined by the water permeable exterior of the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device, the material being compressible and hygroexpandable such and that the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is: compressible into a first, compressed configuration in which the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device has a first size, shape, and/or volume, expanded configuration in which the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device has a second size, shape, and/or volume, and/or volume, see 9:43+, describing the permeability of the burlap mesh which are compressible between first (dry) and second (wet), the examiner additionally notes that the dimensions are presented as alternatives).
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.
As concerns claim 29, Parks discloses method of using a sediment/erosion/perimeter control device comprising a water-permeable exterior defining an interior, the water-permeable exterior comprising a netting, weave, knit, nonwoven textile, or woven geotextile (see at least figure 10), and a material within the interior, the material being configured such that the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is reconfigurable between at least a first configuration in which the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device has a first size, shape, and/or volume, and/or volume,and/or volume,see at least the abstract, disclosing a 50% increase, the examiner notes that these limitations are presented as alternative), the method comprising: storing the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device while in the first configuration; andwherein the first configuration is an intentionally compressed transport configuration in which the material is pre-compressed to reduce overall device volume for storage and shipping (2:1-5); wherein the second configuration is a deployed configuration in which the material expands upon exposure to water and increases an external dimension of the device; and wherein the reconfiguration from the first configuration to the second configuration comprises a designed structural expansion of the device from the compressed transport configuration rather than solely an increase in weight due to absorption. (In as much as the reconfiguration is expected, see 1:65+ (“Because the palm fronds can be shredded, chopped, and/or ground to various particle sizes, as described more in detail herein, palm fronds can absorb flow water. This allows the fiber bags to be relatively light during transport but to become sturdy and able to block or redirect flow water or erosion when the bags become wet. Similarly, wattles filled with material including palm can be easily transported due to their light weight to the site, but they become effective sturdy structures when they come in contact with water”, thus the reconfiguration is “designed”).
As concerns claim 30, Parks discloses a method of using a sediment/erosion/perimeter control device that includes a water-permeable exterior defining an interior, the water-permeable exterior comprising a netting, weave, knit, nonwoven textile, or woven geotextile (figure 10), and a material within the interior, the material being configured such that the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is reconfigurable between at least a first configuration in which the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device has a first size, shape, and/or volume,and/or volume,and/or volume,see the abstract, noting a 50% increase, examiner notes that these limitations are presented as alternatives), the method comprising[[:]]packaging the device whereby the packaging itself compresses the material prior to shipment of the device such that the device is in the first configuration in which the device has a first volume and the material is restrained in a compressed state (see figure 5B); wherein the first configuration is an intentionally compressed transport configuration in which the material is pre-compressed to reduce overall device volume for storage and shipping (2:7+); wherein the second configuration is a deployed configuration in which the material expands upon exposure to water and increases an external dimension of the device; and wherein the reconfiguration from the first configuration to the second configuration comprises a designed structural expansion of the device from the compressed transport configuration rather than solely an increase in weight due to absorption. (In as much as the reconfiguration is expected, see 1:65+ (“Because the palm fronds can be shredded, chopped, and/or ground to various particle sizes, as described more in detail herein, palm fronds can absorb flow water. This allows the fiber bags to be relatively light during transport but to become sturdy and able to block or redirect flow water or erosion when the bags become wet. Similarly, wattles filled with material including palm can be easily transported due to their light weight to the site, but they become effective sturdy structures when they come in contact with water”, thus the reconfiguration is “designed”).
As concerns claims 31 and 33 the woven material would certainly not have welded joints.
As concerns claim 34, burlap would be understood to have a loose weave and natural fiber.
As concerns claims 35-37, see 1:65+, (“Because the palm fronds can be shredded, chopped, and/or ground to various particle sizes, as described more in detail herein, palm fronds can absorb flow water. This allows the fiber bags to be relatively light during transport but to become sturdy and able to block or redirect flow water or erosion when the bags become wet. Similarly, wattles filled with material including palm can be easily transported due to their light weight to the site, but they become effective sturdy structures when they come in contact with water”, thus the reconfiguration is “designed”).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 19 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,595,652 (Ranier).
As concerns claim 1, Ranier discloses a sediment/erosion/perimeter control device comprising: a water-permeable exterior defining an interior, the water-permeable exterior comprising a netting, weave, knit, nonwoven textile, or woven geotextile; a material within the interior (see figure 1), the material being configured such that the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is reconfigurable between at least: a first configuration in which the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device has a first size, shape, and/or volumeand/or volumeand/or volumes that the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device has in the first configuration (disclosed as a range of 5% to 20%, see 3:39+); wherein the first configuration is an intentionally compressed transport configuration in which the material is pre-compressed to reduce overall device volume for storage and shipping; wherein the second configuration is a deployed configuration in which the material expands upon exposure to water and increases an external dimension of the device; and wherein the reconfiguration from the first configuration to the second configuration comprises a designed structural expansion of the device from the compressed transport configuration rather than solely an increase in weight due to absorption. (in as much as the material disclosed is identical to applicant’s, i.e., a cellulose sponge, see 4:22+, it will inherently display the same characteristics and the expansion is expected and accordingly, “designed”).
As concerns claim 2, Ranier discloses the structure which is identical to a wattle (see figure 1).
As concerns claim 4, Ranier discloses the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 2, wherein: the wattle comprises the water permeable exterior; the material comprises an infill encapsulated within the interior defined by the water permeable exterior of the wattle; and the wattle is: compressible into the first configuration via compression of the infill; and expandable from the first configuration to the second configuration via expansion of the infill when the infill absorbs water passing through the water permeable exterior of the wattle (3:44+).
As concerns claim 6 and 19, Ranier discloses the cellulose sponge material (4:22+).
As concerns claim 32, Ranier discloses the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 1, wherein: the infill comprises a cellulose-based sponge material within the interior; the cellulose-based sponge material is mechanically compressed by packaging the device whereby the packaging itself compresses the cellulose-based sponge material prior to shipment of the device such that the device is in the compressed transport configuration in which the device has a first volume and the cellulose-based sponge material is restrained in a compressed state (4:22+); upon exposure to water after deployment, the cellulose-based sponge material expands and causes the device to transition into the deployed configuration in which the device has a second volume greater than the first volume and the device increases in at least one external dimension due to expansion of the cellulose-based sponge material; and the compressed transport configuration reduces shipping volume relative to the deployed configuration (in as much as the cellulose-based material is identical to applicant’s, the characteristics would be the same).
Claim(s) 1 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0280789 A1 (Mason).
As concerns claim 1, Mason discloses a sediment/erosion/perimeter control device comprising: a water-permeable exterior defining an interior, the water-permeable exterior comprising a netting, weave, knit, nonwoven textile, or woven geotextile (0021 et seq.); a material 32 within the interior, the material being configured such that the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is reconfigurable between at least: a first configuration in which the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device has a first size, shape, and/or volumeand/or volumeand/or volumes that the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device has in the first configuration (see, 0028); wherein the first configuration is an intentionally compressed transport configuration in which the material is pre-compressed to reduce overall device volume for storage and shipping; wherein the second configuration is a deployed configuration in which the material expands upon exposure to water and increases an external dimension of the device; and wherein the reconfiguration from the first configuration to the second configuration comprises a designed structural expansion of the device from the compressed transport configuration rather than solely an increase in weight due to absorption. (in as much as Mason also discloses sponges, either natural or “synthetic”, the characteristics would be the same, examiner notes that the device is deployed because it exhibits a structural expansion, hence the expansion is “designed”).
As concerns claim 25, Mason discloses a system comprising a silt fence and the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device of claim 1, wherein the sediment/erosion/perimeter control device is a wattle that is integrated with the silt fence such that the silt fence and the wattle are an integrated, singular, or unitary product (the same structure of a “wattle” is disclosed, see figure 1 showing an integrated product).
As concerns claim 26, Mason discloses the system of claim 25, wherein the integration of the wattle with the silt fence eliminates the need to manually add the wattle to the silt fence and enables the silt fence and the wattle to be: packaged into a single unit; shipped as a single unit; and/or deployed in the field as a single unit without having to trench a lower portion of the silt fence (see the embodiment of figure 2 and 0031, . “The opposite ends of tube 130 are stitched closed to prevent the loss of batting 132. Posts 114 driven into the ground 116 hold boom 112 in place. Staples 138 fasten wing to posts 114. No trenching is required to set up and use barrier 110 that lends itself to use in drier environments where washouts beneath boom 112 are unlikely”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of US 9,297,134 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 textile.
Dancer teaches a wattle with non-woven (abstract) geotextile exterior and suggests
(col. 12 line 60) that a non-woven textile has superior life to a woven textile.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of US 11,293,153 (Rugano). 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 discloses 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-Friday.
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 571-272-5405. 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.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/JAMES G SAYRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights