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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Australia on March 6, 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2020900693 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-17, drawn to a method of manufacturing the paver, in the reply filed on July 31, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 5 recites “of aggregate and concrete forms”, and the Examiner believes this should read --of aggregate and cement forms-- as those are the parts of concrete and maintain consistent wording in the claim.
Claim 8, line 9 recites “in the plastic concrete state”, and the Examiner believes this should read --in the concrete plastic state-- to maintain consistent phrasing within the claims.
Claim 12, line 2 recites “aggregate and concrete in”, and the Examiner believes this should read --aggregate and cement in-- as those are the parts of concrete and maintain consistent wording in the claim.
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 8-17 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 8, line 8 recites “vibrating the mould at a high level for a predetermined period of time” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. The specification does not indicate the level of variability for “high”, therefore, it is unclear what limitations are required to meet the “high level” as claimed. Furthermore, the claim does not definite what “level” means, which further fails to provide context for what “high” could possibly mean. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret this as meaning any frequency between 50-100 Hz as disclosed in the specification and noted in dependent claim 15.
Claim 13, lines 1-2 recite “the first mixture of material” and “the second mixer of material” which lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 which does provide proper antecedent basis for “the base layer” and “the surface layer”, but claim 9, from which never claim 13 nor claim 12 depend from, recites “a first mixture of aggregate” and “a second mixture of aggregate”.
Claims 9-12 and 14-17 are rejected as depending from a rejected indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Douglas et al US Patent 8,617,438 hereinafter referred to as Douglas.
Regarding claim 1, Douglas discloses a method of manufacturing a water permeable paver (see Figures 4 - 7) comprising: mixing an aggregate with cement at a ratio of around 5 parts aggregate to 1 part cement (step 404 and Column 2, lines 50-55, which shows a 5:1 ratio of aggregate, 80%, to cement, 20%; see also Column 9, lines 62-66); adding water to said mixture of aggregate and cement so as said mixture of aggregate and concrete forms a concrete plastic state (steps 402 through 405 - note that Douglas discloses a hydratable cementitious binder and see also Column 4, lines 19-30 and step 404c); pouring said mixture in said concrete plastic state into a mould shaped to define the shape of the paver (step 407 - see also Column 14, lines21-26); vibrating the mould at a high level for a predetermined period of time until the mixture in the plastic concrete state has achieved a maximum state of compaction (step 408 - see also Column 8, line 65 through Column 9, line 24); and placing the mould in a curing chamber for a predetermined period of time to cure the paver (step 410 - see also Column 12, lines 38-64). Examiner notes that while the preamble notes a “water permeable paver”, Douglas discloses every claimed limitation and therefore reads on the scope of a claimed functional use of a water-permeable paver.
Regarding claim 15, Douglas further discloses wherein the mould is vibrated at a frequency of between 50 - 100 Hz for a duration of between 15 - 60 seconds (Column 9, lines 7-13).
Regarding claim 16, Douglas further discloses wherein the mould is vibrated at 65 Hz in two durations of around 30 seconds each (Column 9, lines 7-13 and Column 15, lines 6-9).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas.
Regarding claim 14, Douglas discloses wherein one of the embodiments of paver is cured for 24 hours which meets the limitations of the claim. However, it is further worth noting that Douglas teaches various compositions that require various cure times (see the various discussions of the exemplified compositions beginning in Column 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to cure the mould for however long is necessary given the composition to be cured which could fall within the claimed range of 24-28 hours.
Claims 9-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Amigot et al US Patent Application Publication 2011/0286794 hereinafter referred to as Amigot.
Regarding claims 9-11, Douglas discloses the method of making a paver, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8, but Douglas fails to teach the specifically claimed paver. Amigot teaches a paver that is made via an analogous method of mixing, molding, vibrating, and curing [0039]. Amigot further teaches a paver with a base layer (3) and a surface layer (2) wherein the base layer and surface layer have different size aggregates ([0031] 0.1 - 5 mm for base layer and [0045] 0.1mm - 8mm for surface layer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to simply substitute the compositions of Douglas with the composition of Amigot to yield the predictable result of making a concrete paving element as taught by both Douglas and Amigot.
Regarding claim 12, Douglas fails to teach wherein the step of pouring the mixture of aggregate and concrete in the plastic concrete state into the mould comprises initially pouring a base layer of mixture in the plastic concrete state into the mould to define a base layer of the paver and secondly pouring a surface layer of mixture in the plastic concrete state into the mould to define a surface layer of the paver. Amigot teaches a paver that is made via an analogous method of mixing, molding, vibrating, and curing [0039]. Amigot further teaches a paver with a base layer (3) and a surface layer (2) wherein the base layer and surface layer have different size aggregates ([0031] 0.1 - 5 mm for base layer and [0045] 0.1mm - 8mm for surface layer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to simply substitute the compositions of Douglas with the composition of Amigot to yield the predictable result of making a concrete paving element as taught by both Douglas and Amigot. With this modification, the methodology of Douglas would be modified to pour in layers as taught by Amigot [0039, 0062].
Regarding claim 13, Douglas further teaches adding a coloring agent to alter the aesthetic of the paver (Column 3, lines 42-45). With the modification of Douglas with Amigot, the surface layer would include the coloring agent to achieve the result in Douglas of controlling aesthetics of the paver.
Regarding claim 17, Douglas in view of Amigot further teach wherein the base layer is vibrated at 65 Hz for a first period of around 30 seconds and upon addition of the surface layer, the base layer and the surface layer are vibrated at 65 Hz for a further 30 seconds duration (Column 9, lines 7-13 and Column 15, lines 6-9 of Douglas).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Flynn et al US Patent Application Publication 2009/0129864 and Fraser US Patent 7,067,001 teach analogous water permeable pavers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA SCHIMPF whose telephone number is (571)270-7741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 3:30pm 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, John Fristoe can be reached at (571) 272-4926. 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.
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676