Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnston, US 2008/0113580.
Regarding claim 10, Johnston discloses a foam block capable of being securely assembled to a different foam block to create a structure that is larger than the foam block figures 1-3, paragraph 3), wherein the foam block has a plurality of channels defined in at least one side of the foam block (figure 4, paragraph 35), and wherein at least some of the plurality of channels is defined to accept a securing member that restricts vertical and horizontal movement of the foam block when the foam block is secured to the different foam block (paragraph 33-34).
Claim 1 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Johnston discloses the foam block of claim 9, wherein the securing member has a shape that enables the securing member to be inserted into at least one channel among the plurality of channels formed in the foam block (figures 1a-4, paragraph 33-34).
Regarding claim 13, Johnston discloses the foam block of claim 11, wherein the securing member have a shape matching the void shape (figures 1a-4, paragraph 33-34).
Regarding claim 2, Johnston discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: forming the securing member from foam, wherein the securing member has a shape that enables the securing member to be inserted into at least one channel among the plurality of channels formed in the foam block (figures 1a-4, paragraph 33-34).
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 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.
Claims 3-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Johnston in view of Peterman et al., US 2017/0215345.
Regarding claim 12, Johnston discloses the foam block of claim 9, wherein the plurality of channels are defined to have a void shape inside of the perimeter of the foam block (figures, paragraph 33-34).
Although Johnston teaches that the shape can be any shape (paragraph 34), Johnston is silent about the void shape is one of a T-shape, an X shape, or a keystone shape.
In an analogous art, Penterman discloses the void shape is one of a T-shape, an X shape, or a keystone shape (paragraph 12 and 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston’s block with the teachings of Peterman. The motivation would have been to have a secure structure for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claim 3 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 12.
Regarding claim 4, Johnston and Peterman disclose the method of claim 3, wherein forming the securing member comprises forming the securing member to have a shape matching the void shape (Johnston figures 1a-4, paragraph 33-34; Peterman figures 6 and 9-10).
Regarding claim 5, Johnston and Peterman disclose the method of claim 3, further comprising forming a plurality of channels in a different foam block, wherein at least one channel formed in the different foam block aligns with at least one channel that was formed in the foam block when edges of the foam block and the different foam block are aligned (Johnston figures 1a-4, paragraph 33-34; Peterman figures 6 and 9-10).
Claim 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Johnston in view of Peterman in view of Pease, US 6,892,507.
Regarding claim 6, Johnston and Peterman disclose the method of claim 5.
Although Johnston teaches that the size can be a variable size (paragraph 35), Johnston and Peterman are silent about a length of each edge of the received foam block is at least two feet each.
In an analogous art, Pease discloses a length of each edge of the received foam block is at least two feet each (col. 5, lines 58-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston and Peterman’s method with the teachings of Pease. The motivation would have been to have a bigger structure for the benefit of using less blocks.
Regarding claim 8, Johnston, Peterman and Pease disclose the method of claim 6, further comprising: forming a dimensioned block that has different dimensions than the foam block (Johnston figures 1a-4); forming at least one channel in the dimensioned block, wherein the at least one channel of the dimensioned block is formed at a location of the dimensioned block such that the at least one channel aligns with a given channel of the foam block when a corner of the dimensioned block is aligned with a corner of the foam block (Johnston figures 1a-4).
Regarding claim 9, Johnston and Peterman disclose the method of claim 8, wherein forming the dimensioned block comprises forming the dimensioned block to have:
a depth that matches the depth of the foam block (Johnston figures 1a-4);
a width that does not match the width of the foam block (Johnston figures 1a-4); and
a height that does not match the height of the foam block (Johnston figures 1a-4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Johnston in view of Peterman in view of Lanahan et al., US 5,943,775.
Regarding claim 7, Johnston and Peterman disclose the method of claim 5.
Johnston and Peterman are silent about forming a plurality of channels in at least one side of the foam block comprises forming the plurality of channels using a hot wire foam cutting table.
In an analogous art, Lanahan discloses forming a plurality of channels in at least one side of the foam block comprises forming the plurality of channels using a hot wire foam cutting table (col. 21, lines 23-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston and Peterman’s method with the teachings of Lanahan. The motivation would have been to properly cut the blocks for the benefit of making precise blocks.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Johnston in view of Pease.
Regarding claim 14, Johnston discloses the foam block of claim 9.
Although Johnston teaches that the size can be a variable size (paragraph 35), Johnston is silent about a length of each edge of the foam block is at least two feet each.
In an analogous art, Pease discloses a length of each edge of the foam block is at least two feet each (col. 5, lines 58-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston’s block with the teachings of Pease. The motivation would have been to have a bigger structure for the benefit of using less blocks.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421