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
Claims 1, 4, 11, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, lines 3, 4, and 7, “A”, “A”, and “At” respectively, should not be capitalized;
Claim 4, line 2, “OZ” should not be capitalized;
Claim 10, lines 4-5, the recitation of “including with a bury depth indicator” (emphasis added) does not make sense grammatically. It appears that “with” should be deleted.
Claim 11, lines 3, 6, 8, “Providing”, “Driving”, and “Staking” respectively, should not be capitalized; and,
Claim 16, line 2, “OZ” should not be capitalized;
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 1-10 and 15 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.
Claim 1, lines 7-10, the recitation of “at least one stabilizing feature in the form of at least one of i) a top drawstring coupled to a top edge of the woven geotextile silt fabric and ii) stabilizing fins coupled to at least some of the stakes” is confusing, thus rendering the claims indefinite. Applicant recites “at least one of” however, the choices are i and ii. It is assumed that “and” should be or.
Claim 1, line 5, the recitation of “PVC” is not readily understood. The first occurrence of abbreviations or acronyms should additionally be “spelled” out i.e. PVC (polyvinyl chloride).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the length" in at line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15, line 3, the recitation of “PVC” is not readily understood. The first occurrence of abbreviations or acronyms should additionally be “spelled” out i.e. PVC (polyvinyl chloride).
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.
Insofar as understood, claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gagliardi et al (US 4,279,535).
As to claim 1, Gagliardi et al discloses a silt fence comprising: a plurality of spaced stakes 35; a woven geotextile comprising a polyester yarn (17,19) with a PVC coating (see col. 4, lines 11-37); and a top drawstring 25 coupled to a top edge of the woven geotextile fence fabric.
As to claim 2, Gagliardi et al discloses the woven geotextile comprises multifilament polyester yarn (17,19) with a PVC coating (see col. 4, lines 11-37).
As to claim 3, Gagliardi et al discloses the yarns are woven in a conventional fashion and then coated with PVC leaving mesh openings (see col. 4, lines 11-37).
As to claims 5 and 6, Gagliardi et al discloses the top drawstring 25.
As to claim 7, Gagliardi et al discloses the top drawstring 25 coupled via a coupling strip 23 that is folded over.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (US 8,100,609).
As to claim 11, Wilson discloses a trenchless method of installing a silt fence comprising: providing a silt fence bundle comprising a plurality of wooded or metal stakes 30 and a geotextile silt fence fabric (generally at 12) and including an integral ground engaging apron 14; driving a plurality of stakes 30 into the ground until the apron 14 is flush with the ground; and staking the apron with staking elements 32.
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.
Insofar as understood, claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagliardi et al (US 4,279,535).
As to claim 4, Gagliardi et al discloses all that is claimed except for the fabric being 10 oz coated mesh. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide 10 oz coated mesh because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Insofar as understood, claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagliardi et al (US 4,279,535) in view of Singleton (US 7,465,129).
As to claim 8, Gagliardi et al discloses all that is claimed except for the fabric comprising polypropylene yarn. Singleton discloses a silt fence fabric comprising polypropylene yarn (see col. 2, lines 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide polypropylene yarn, since doing so provides the expected benefit of higher strength geotextile fabric which resist tearing and pulling.
Insofar as understood, claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagliardi et al (US 4,279,535) in view of Singleton (US 7,465,129) and further in view of Zock (US 2019/0176059).
As to claim 9, Gagliardi et al in view of Singleton disclose all that is claimed except for the stabilizing fins with a bury depth indicator. Zock discloses a stake 20 having stabilizing fins 50 with a bury depth indicator (i.e. top edge of fins, see figure 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide stabilizing fins with a bury depth indicator as disclosed by Zock, since doing so provides the expected benefit of an anchor resistant to horizontal movement.
Insofar as understood, claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabaniss et al (US 5,108,224) in view of Zock (US 2019/0176059).
As to claim 10, Cabaniss discloses a method of installing a silt fence comprising providing a geotextile 32 coupled to a plurality of stakes 31, digging a trench 34, placing the silt fence in the trench 34; and filling the trench 34. Cabaniss does not disclose the stakes comprising stabilizing fins with a bury depth indicator. Zock discloses a stake 20 having stabilizing fins 50 with a bury depth indicator (i.e. top edge of fins, see figure 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide stabilizing fins with a bury depth indicator as disclosed by Zock, since doing so provides the expected benefit of an anchor resistant to horizontal movement.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 8,100,609) in view of Woudenberg et al (US 8,596,930).
As to claim 12-14, Wilson discloses all that is claimed except for the staples. Woudenberg et al discloses securing geotextile to the ground via staples 50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide staples as disclosed by Woudenberg et al, since doing so provides the expected benefit of securing a geotextile material to the ground. Furthermore, the grouping of staples would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 19, Wilson discloses the geotextile comprising polypropylene.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 8,100,609) in view of Woudenberg et al (US 8,596,930) and further in view of Gagliardi et al (US 4,279,535).
As to claim 15, Wilson in view of Woudenberg et al discloses all that claimed except for the fabric comprising woven multifilament polyester yarn with a PVC coating.
Gagliardi et al discloses a woven geotextile comprising a polyester yarn (17,19) with a PVC coating (see col. 4, lines 11-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fabric comprising woven multifilament polyester yarn with a PVC coating as disclosed by Gagliardi et al, since doing so provides the expected benefit of higher strength and porosity for a silt type fence.
As to claim 16, Gagliardi et al discloses all that is claimed except for the fabric being 10 oz coated mesh. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide 10 oz coated mesh because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 17, Gagliardi further discloses a top drawstring 25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a top drawstring as disclosed by Gagliardi, since doing so provides the expected benefit of tensioning a silt fence and securing a silt fence to stakes.
As to claim 18, Gagliardi further discloses a top drawstring 25 located with a coupling strip 23 that is folded over. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a top drawstring coupled via a coupling strip as disclosed by Gagliardi, since doing so provides the expected benefit of tensioning a silt fence and securing a silt fence to stakes.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 8,100,609) in view of Woudenberg et al (US 8,596,930) and further in view of Zock (US 2019/0176059).
As to claim 20, Wilson in view of Woudenberg et al discloses all that is claimed except for the stakes including stabilizing fins. Zock discloses a stake 20 having stabilizing fins 50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide stabilizing fins as disclosed by Zock, since doing so provides the expected benefit of an anchor resistant to horizontal movement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm.
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.
/FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678