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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 July 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1 contains two views: 1) a perspective view of a silt fence post and 2) an exploded view of a fastener. Each figure should only illustrate a single view and should be assigned a unique figure ID. Examiner suggests renumbering the two views of Fig. 1 as Figs. 1A and 1B, or something similar. The specification should be amended accordingly.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 - 7 and 9 - 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 2, “Claim” should be changed to “claim”. Similar changes should be made in claims 3 - 7 and 9 - 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyhamn (US 2015/0322636) in view of Billings (US 2017/0370120) and Trill (US 2002/0005512).
Regarding claim 1, Lyhamn discloses a silt fence post, comprising: a body (6) having a first end and an opposing ground end (pointed tip of post 6), and a connection assembly (lathes 8; screws 10), the body having a plurality of apertures (holes, not shown, in the post 6 into which the screws 10 are inserted) formed therethrough for receiving the connection assembly, and the connection assembly being configured to attach silt fencing (sheeting 2) to the body (6) (Fig. 3; abstract; paragraphs 0023 and 0029). Lyhamn fails to disclose a cap attached to the body proximate the first end, and the ground end being removable from the body. Billings teaches a cap (5) attached to the body (shaft 3 of post 1) proximate the first end (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. Billings fails to teach the ground end being removable from the body. Trill teaches the ground end (tip 30 or tip 32) being removable from the body (Figs. 4A and 4B; paragraphs 0032 and 0037). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the removable ground end as taught by Trill to allow the shape of the ground end to be modified based upon the properties of the soil strata into which the post is inserted.
Regarding claim 2, Lyhamn fails to disclose the cap is unitarily formed with the body, the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground. Billings teaches the cap (5) is unitarily formed with the body (3), the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post.
Regarding claim 3, Lyhamn further discloses the body (6) and the ground end (pointed tip of post 6) are made of metal (paragraph 0029). Lyhamn fails to disclose the cap is made of metal. Billings teaches a cap (5) and the body (3) are made of metal (paragraph 0017). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the metal post comprising a body and a ground end as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post.
Regarding claim 4, Lyhamn in view of Billings and Trill discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the body is square in cross section. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted a square cross sectional shape for the circular cross section as disclosed above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d. 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Lyhamn further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of apertures (apertures, not shown, in lathe 8 through which screws are inserted into post 6) formed therethrough for attaching the silt fence (2) (Fig. 3; paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 6, Lyhamn further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of connectors (screws 10) configured for insertion through the connection assembly, through the silt fencing, and into the post (6) (Fig. 3; paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 7, Lyhamn further discloses the ground end (pointed tip of post 6) is selected to accommodate different ground conditions (Fig. 3). Assuming arguendo that claim 7 requires the ground end is selected from a plurality of shapes and/or sizes, Trill teaches the ground end (tip 30 or tip 32) being removable from the body, wherein the ground end can have different shapes and/or sizes (Figs. 4A and 4B; paragraphs 0032 and 0037). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the removable ground end as taught by Trill to allow the shape of the ground end to be modified based upon the properties of the soil strata into which the post is inserted.
Claims 1 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, III (US 4,756,511) in view of Billings and Trill.
Regarding claim 1, Wright discloses a silt fence post, comprising: a body (main body portion 14) having a first end and an opposing ground end (pointed end 16), and a connection assembly (mounting strip 20, fasteners 22 comprising staples, nails, screws, or tacks), the body having a plurality of apertures (holes, not shown, in the body 14 into which the fasteners 22 are inserted) formed therethrough for receiving the connection assembly, and the connection assembly being configured to attach silt fencing (web 18) to the body (14) (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; col. 1, line 51 - col. 2, line 37). Wright fails to disclose a cap attached to the body proximate the first end, and the ground end being removable from the body. Billings teaches a cap (5) attached to the body (shaft 3 of post 1) proximate the first end (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. Billings fails to teach the ground end being removable from the body. Trill teaches the ground end (tip 30 or tip 32) being removable from the body (Figs. 4A and 4B; paragraphs 0032 and 0037). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the removable ground end as taught by Trill to allow the shape of the ground end to be modified based upon the properties of the soil strata into which the post is inserted.
Regarding claim 2, Wright fails to disclose the cap is unitarily formed with the body, the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground. Billings teaches the cap (5) is unitarily formed with the body (3), the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post.
Regarding claim 3, Wright further discloses the body (14) and the ground end (16) can be made of any suitable material (col. 1, line 57). Wright fails to disclose the cap, the body, and the ground end are made of metal. Billings teaches a cap (5), the body (3), and the ground end (bottom end of body 3) are made of metal (paragraph 0017). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the material of which the cap, body, and ground end as disclosed above with the metal material as taught by Billings as a design consideration within the skill of the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Wright further discloses the body of stake 12 may be of any suitable shape (col. 1, line 57). Wright in view of Billings and Trill discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the body is square in cross section. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted a square cross sectional shape for the circular cross section as disclosed above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d. 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Wright further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of apertures (apertures, not shown, in strip 20 through which fasteners 22 are inserted into post 12) formed therethrough for attaching the silt fence (18) (Figs. 2 - 4).
Regarding claim 6, Wright further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of connectors (fasteners 22) configured for insertion through the connection assembly (20), through the silt fencing (18), and into the post (12) (Figs. 2 - 4; col. 2, lines 29 - 34).
Regarding claim 7, Wright further discloses the ground end (16) is selected to accommodate different ground conditions (Figs. 2 and 4). Assuming arguendo that claim 7 requires the ground end is selected from a plurality of shapes and/or sizes, Trill teaches the ground end (tip 30 or tip 32) being removable from the body, wherein the ground end can have different shapes and/or sizes (Figs. 4A and 4B; paragraphs 0032 and 0037). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the removable ground end as taught by Trill to allow the shape of the ground end to be modified based upon the properties of the soil strata into which the post is inserted.
Claims 8 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyhamn in view of Billings, Trill, and Smith (US 9,003,722).
Regarding claim 8, Lyhamn discloses a silt fence post, comprising: a body (6) having a first end and an opposing ground end (pointed tip of post 6), and a connection assembly (lathes 8; screws 10), the body having a plurality of apertures (holes, not shown, in the post 6 into which the screws 10 are inserted) formed therethrough for receiving the connection assembly, and the connection assembly being configured to attach silt fencing (sheeting 2) to the body (6) (Fig. 3; abstract; paragraphs 0023 and 0029). Lyhamn fails to disclose a cap attached to the first end, the ground end being removable from the body, and a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Billings teaches a cap (5) attached to the first end of body (shaft 3 of post 1) (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. Billings fails to teach the ground end being removable from the body, and a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Trill teaches the ground end (tip 30 or tip 32) being removable from the body (Figs. 4A and 4B; paragraphs 0032 and 0037). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the removable ground end as taught by Trill to allow the shape of the ground end to be modified based upon the properties of the soil strata into which the post is inserted. Trill fails to teach a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Smith teaches a kick plate (stabilizing element 4) attachable to the body (1), the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces (Figs. 1, 4, 5, and 19; col. 13, line 66 - col. 14, line 26) to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the kick plate as taught by Smith to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground.
Regarding claim 9, Lyhamn fails to disclose the cap is unitarily formed with the body, the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground. Billings teaches the cap (5) is unitarily formed with the body (3), the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post.
Regarding claim 10, Lyhamn further discloses the body (6) and the ground end (pointed tip of post 6) are made of metal (paragraph 0029). Lyhamn fails to disclose the cap is made of metal. Billings teaches a cap (5) and the body (3) are made of metal (paragraph 0017). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the metal post comprising a body and a ground end as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post.
Regarding claim 11, Lyhamn in view of Billings, Trill, and Smith discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the body is square in cross section. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted a square cross sectional shape for the circular cross section as disclosed above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d. 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Lyhamn further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of apertures (apertures, not shown, in lathe 8 through which screws are inserted into post 6) formed therethrough for attaching the silt fence (2) (Fig. 3; paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 13, Lyhamn further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of connectors (screws 10) configured for insertion through the connection assembly, through the silt fencing, and into the post (6) (Fig. 3; paragraph 0029).
Claims 8 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, III (US 4,756,511) in view of Billings, Trill, and Smith.
Regarding claim 8, Wright discloses a silt fence post, comprising: a body (main body portion 14) having a first end and an opposing ground end (pointed end 16), and a connection assembly (mounting strip 20, fasteners 22 comprising staples, nails, screws, or tacks), the body having a plurality of apertures (holes, not shown, in the body 14 into which the fasteners 22 are inserted) formed therethrough for receiving the connection assembly, and the connection assembly being configured to attach silt fencing (web 18) to the body (14) (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; col. 1, line 51 - col. 2, line 37). Wright fails to disclose a cap attached to the first end, the ground end being removable from the body, and a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Billings teaches a cap (5) attached to the first end of the body (shaft 3 of post 1) (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. Billings fails to teach the ground end being removable from the body, and a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Trill teaches the ground end (tip 30 or tip 32) being removable from the body (Figs. 4A and 4B; paragraphs 0032 and 0037). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the removable ground end as taught by Trill to allow the shape of the ground end to be modified based upon the properties of the soil strata into which the post is inserted. Trill fails to teach a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Smith teaches a kick plate (stabilizing element 4) attachable to the body (1), the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces (Figs. 1, 4, 5, and 19; col. 13, line 66 - col. 14, line 26) to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the kick plate as taught by Smith to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground.
Regarding claim 9, Wright fails to disclose the cap is unitarily formed with the body, the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground. Billings teaches the cap (5) is unitarily formed with the body (3), the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post.
Regarding claim 10, Wright further discloses the body (14) and the ground end (16) can be made of any suitable material (col. 1, line 57). Wright fails to disclose the cap, the body, and the ground end are made of metal. Billings teaches a cap (5), the body (3), and the ground end (bottom end of body 3) are made of metal (paragraph 0017). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the material of which the cap, body, and ground end as disclosed above with the metal material as taught by Billings as a design consideration within the skill of the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Wright further discloses the body of stake 12 may be of any suitable shape (col. 1, line 57). Wright in view of Billings, Trill, and Smith discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the body is square in cross section. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted a square cross sectional shape for the circular cross section as disclosed above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d. 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Wright further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of apertures (apertures, not shown, in strip 20 through which fasteners 22 are inserted into post 12) formed therethrough for attaching the silt fence (18) (Figs. 2 - 4).
Regarding claim 13, Wright further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of connectors (fasteners 22) configured for insertion through the connection assembly (20), through the silt fencing (18), and into the post (12) (Figs. 2 - 4; col. 2, lines 29 - 34).
Claims 8 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyhamn in view of Billings, Trill, and Zock (US 2019/0176059).
Regarding claim 8, Lyhamn discloses a silt fence post, comprising: a body (6) having a first end and an opposing ground end (pointed tip of post 6), and a connection assembly (lathes 8; screws 10), the body having a plurality of apertures (holes, not shown, in the post 6 into which the screws 10 are inserted) formed therethrough for receiving the connection assembly, and the connection assembly being configured to attach silt fencing (sheeting 2) to the body (6) (Fig. 3; abstract; paragraphs 0023 and 0029). Lyhamn fails to disclose a cap attached to the first end, the ground end being removable from the body, and a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Billings teaches a cap (5) attached to the first end of body (shaft 3 of post 1) (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. Billings fails to teach the ground end being removable from the body, and a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Trill teaches the ground end (tip 30 or tip 32) being removable from the body (Figs. 4A and 4B; paragraphs 0032 and 0037). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the removable ground end as taught by Trill to allow the shape of the ground end to be modified based upon the properties of the soil strata into which the post is inserted. Trill fails to teach a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Zock teaches a kick plate (fin 50) attachable to the body (stake 20), the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces (Figs. 8 - 10; paragraphs 0047 and 0048) to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the kick plate as taught by Zock to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground.
Regarding claim 9, Lyhamn fails to disclose the cap is unitarily formed with the body, the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground. Billings teaches the cap (5) is unitarily formed with the body (3), the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post.
Regarding claim 10, Lyhamn further discloses the body (6) and the ground end (pointed tip of post 6) are made of metal (paragraph 0029). Lyhamn fails to disclose the cap is made of metal. Billings teaches a cap (5) and the body (3) are made of metal (paragraph 0017). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the metal post comprising a body and a ground end as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post.
Regarding claim 11, Lyhamn in view of Billings, Trill, and Zock discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the body is square in cross section. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted a square cross sectional shape for the circular cross section as disclosed above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d. 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Lyhamn further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of apertures (apertures, not shown, in lathe 8 through which screws are inserted into post 6) formed therethrough for attaching the silt fence (2) (Fig. 3; paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 13, Lyhamn further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of connectors (screws 10) configured for insertion through the connection assembly, through the silt fencing, and into the post (6) (Fig. 3; paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 14, Lyhamn fails to disclose a plurality of kick plate connectors configured for insertion through the kick plate and into the post. Zock teaches a plurality of kick plate connectors (nails 62) configured for insertion through the kick plate (50) and into the post (20) (Figs. 8 - 10; paragraphs 0047 and 0048) to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the kick plate and associated connectors as taught by Zock to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground.
Claims 8 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, III (US 4,756,511) in view of Billings, Trill, and Zock.
Regarding claim 8, Wright discloses a silt fence post, comprising: a body (main body portion 14) having a first end and an opposing ground end (pointed end 16), and a connection assembly (mounting strip 20, fasteners 22 comprising staples, nails, screws, or tacks), the body having a plurality of apertures (holes, not shown, in the body 14 into which the fasteners 22 are inserted) formed therethrough for receiving the connection assembly, and the connection assembly being configured to attach silt fencing (web 18) to the body (14) (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; col. 1, line 51 - col. 2, line 37). Wright fails to disclose a cap attached to the first end, the ground end being removable from the body, and a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Billings teaches a cap (5) attached to the first end of the body (shaft 3 of post 1) (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. Billings fails to teach the ground end being removable from the body, and a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Trill teaches the ground end (tip 30 or tip 32) being removable from the body (Figs. 4A and 4B; paragraphs 0032 and 0037). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the removable ground end as taught by Trill to allow the shape of the ground end to be modified based upon the properties of the soil strata into which the post is inserted. Trill fails to teach a kick plate attachable to the body, the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces. Zock teaches a kick plate (fin 50) attachable to the body (stake 20), the kick plate being configured to strengthen the body to external forces (Figs. 8 - 10; paragraphs 0047 and 0048) to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the kick plate as taught by Zock to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground.
Regarding claim 9, Wright fails to disclose the cap is unitarily formed with the body, the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground. Billings teaches the cap (5) is unitarily formed with the body (3), the cap being configured to prevent impalement and to provide protection when the post is being inserted into ground (Figs. 1 - 4; paragraphs 0005 and 0017) to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post.
Regarding claim 10, Wright further discloses the body (14) and the ground end (16) can be made of any suitable material (col. 1, line 57). Wright fails to disclose the cap, the body, and the ground end are made of metal. Billings teaches a cap (5), the body (3), and the ground end (bottom end of body 3) are made of metal (paragraph 0017). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the post as disclosed above with the cap as taught by Billings to receive an impact force for driving the post into the ground, thus preventing deformation of the end of the post. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the material of which the cap, body, and ground end as disclosed above with the metal material as taught by Billings as a design consideration within the skill of the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Wright further discloses the body of stake 12 may be of any suitable shape (col. 1, line 57). Wright in view of Billings, Trill, and Zock discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the body is square in cross section. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted a square cross sectional shape for the circular cross section as disclosed above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d. 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Wright further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of apertures (apertures, not shown, in strip 20 through which fasteners 22 are inserted into post 12) formed therethrough for attaching the silt fence (18) (Figs. 2 - 4).
Regarding claim 13, Wright further discloses the connection assembly includes a plurality of connectors (fasteners 22) configured for insertion through the connection assembly (20), through the silt fencing (18), and into the post (12) (Figs. 2 - 4; col. 2, lines 29 - 34).
Regarding claim 14, Wright fails to disclose a plurality of kick plate connectors configured for insertion through the kick plate and into the post. Zock teaches a plurality of kick plate connectors (nails 62) configured for insertion through the kick plate (50) and into the post (20) (Figs. 8 - 10; paragraphs 0047 and 0048) to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the kick plate and associated connectors as taught by Zock to improve the stability of the post when installed into the ground.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights