DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 29 June 2026
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending;
Claims 1-16 were previously presented;
Claims 1-16 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 29 June 2026 have been fully considered and they are not yet persuasive. Examiner is concerned with how the claims are presently written. Applicant presents several points but they go beyond what the claim actually recites. Examiner restates that the block in Figure 2 of Swierad is similar to applicant’s block in Figure 10, the main difference being the dimensions. Examiner further restates that electing dimensions for structural blocks is well-known to do as a matter of design choice to fulfill project, load and stability requirements and in this case changing the dimensions of the male and female grooves and male component would be obvious unless they produce a new and unexpected result. Examiner further restates that manufacturing errors may happen resulting in a block reading on the claimed dimensions. For example, an extremely small error of 1 micrometer in length would suffice to read on less than or greater than limitations. The claim as presently written does not state what dimensions T and B mean and it does not state what results does these dimensions -i.e. T and B- produce in the blocks and what does these dimensions i.e. T and B- allow to happen with the blocks. The claim as written does not preclude the possibility of manufacturing errors producing blocks reading on the claims. The claims also are not clear about how these dimensions produce new or unexpected results. Examiner hopes these indications help applicant formulate amendments to overcome the rejections.
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 1-16 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.
As to Claims 1-16, the claims state dimensions “B” and “T”. It is unclear what these dimensions mean and from where to where the dimensions extend. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 2 and 4-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierad et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,453,341) in view of Meyer (U.S. Patent No. D629,919).
As to Claim 1, Swierad discloses a retaining wall block comprising:
A block body (1) comprising:
A top side (Annotated figure A, “top”) and a bottom side (Annotated figure A, “bottom”) opposite the top side;
A front side (Annotated figure A, “front”) and a rear side (Annotated figure A, “rear”) opposite the front side; and
A first side (Annotated figure A, “first side”) and a second side (Annotated figure A, “second side”) opposite the first side;
A vertical interlock system comprising:
A first female component comprising a first groove (Annotated figure A, “first groove”) extending along the bottom side (Annotated figure A, “bottom side”) of the block body between the first side (Annotated figure A, “first side”) and the second side (Annotated figure A, “second side”), the first groove being spaced from the front side (Annotated figure A, “front”) by a distance and having a width;
A second female component comprising a second groove (Annotated figure A, “second groove”) extending along the bottom side (Annotated figure A, “bottom”) of the block body between the first side (Annotated figure A, “first side”) and the second side (Annotated figure A, “second side”), the second groove being spaced from the rear side (Annotated figure A, “rear side”) by a distance and having a width;
A male component (Annotated figure A, “male component”) extending across the top side (Annotated figure A, “top”) of the block body between the first side (Annotated figure A, “first side”) and the second side (Annotated figure A, “second side”), the male component being spaced from the rear side (Annotated figure A, “rear”) by a distance and having a width.
However, Swierad is silent about a lateral interlock system comprising a male lateral interlock interface integral with the first side midway between the front side and the rear side; and a female lateral interlock interface integral with the second side midway between the front side and the rear side and in lateral alignment with the male lateral interlock interface. Meyer discloses a lateral interlock system comprising a male lateral interlock interface (Protrusion in the block shown in Figures 1-6) integral with a first side midway between a front side and a rear side of a block body; and a female lateral interlock interface (Groove in the block shown in Figures 1-6) integral with a second side midway between the front side and the rear side and in lateral alignment with the male lateral interlock interface. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lateral interlock system comprising a male lateral interlock interface integral with the first side midway between the front side and the rear side; and a female lateral interlock interface integral with the second side midway between the front side and the rear side and in lateral alignment with the male lateral interlock interface. The motivation would have been to laterally connect adjacent blocks for greater stability.
Swierad as modified (See above paragraph) does not explicitly teach that the first groove is spaced from the front side by a distance of (Z or Z-T) and having a width Y+T, wherein each of Z, T and Y is greater than zero, and Z is greater than T, the second groove is spaced from the rear side by a distance Z+B and having a width Y+T, wherein B is greater than zero, and the male component is spaced from the rear side by a distance Z and having a width no greater than Y+T. But one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selecting dimensions for blocks to be used in structures is an obvious matter of design choice depending on project, load and stability requirements. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice to make the first groove spaced from the front side by a distance of (Z or Z-T) and having a width Y+T, wherein each of Z, T and Y is greater than zero, and Z is greater than T, the second groove spaced from the rear side by a distance Z+B and having a width Y+T, wherein B is greater than zero, the male component spaced from the rear side by a distance Z and having a width no greater than Y+T since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art, in this case, in order to fulfill project, load and stability requirements..
PNG
media_image1.png
665
1078
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Block (Swierad)
As to Claim 2, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein the male component (Annotated figure A, “male component”) of the vertical interlock system is a single vertical male tongue.
As to Claim 4, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein the first groove (Annotated figure A, “first groove”) of the first female component is spaced from the front side by a distance of Z.
As to Claim 5, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein the first groove (Annotated figure A, “first groove”) of the first female component is spaced from the front side by a distance of Z-T.
As to Claim 6, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein the male lateral interlock interface comprises a first bearing wall (Left wall of protrusion in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) that extends laterally away from the block from a first position along the first side that is a distance X from the front side; and a second bearing wall (Right wall of protrusion in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) that extends laterally away from the block from a second position along the first side that is the distance X from the rear side; and the female lateral interlock interface comprises a third bearing wall (Left wall of groove in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) that extends laterally into the block from a third position along the second side that is the distance X from the front side; and a fourth bearing wall (Right wall of groove in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) that extends laterally into the block from a fourth position along the second side that is the distance X from the rear side.
As to Claim 7, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 6 (Refer to Claim 6 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches the first bearing wall (Left wall of protrusion in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) extends laterally away from the block at a same non-normal first angle as the third bearing wall (Left wall of groove in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) extends laterally into the block; and the second bearing wall (Right wall of protrusion in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) extends laterally away from the block at a same non-normal second angle as the fourth bearing wall (Right wall of groove in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) extends laterally into the block.
As to Claim 8, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 6 (Refer to Claim 6 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein the first bearing wall (Left wall of protrusion in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) is a part of a first lateral male key (Left half of the protrusion in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) and the second bearing wall (Right wall of protrusion in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) is a part of a second lateral male key (Right half of the protrusion in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) that is spaced from the first lateral male key along the first side (There’s a gap in the middle of the protrusion as figures 3 and 4 in Meyer show).
As to Claim 9, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 8 (Refer to Claim 8 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein the first lateral male key (Left half of the protrusion in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) is a mirror image of the second lateral male key (Right half of the protrusion in Meyer and also annotated Figure B) about a notional plane extending vertically through the top side and the bottom side midway between the front side and the rear side.
As to Claim 10, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 6 (Refer to Claim 6 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein the first bearing wall and the second bearing wall are both parts of a single lateral male key (Protrusion of Meyer).
As to Claim 11, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 6 (Refer to Claim 6 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein the first bearing wall, the second bearing wall, the third bearing wall and the fourth bearing wall all extend the same distance from respective sides (Meyer: Figures 1-6).
As to Claim 12, Swierad as modified teaches a set of retaining wall blocks comprising: a plurality of the retaining wall block of claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion), wherein in at least one of the plurality the first groove of the first female component (Annotated Figure A, “first groove”) is spaced from the front side by a distance of Z ("Unit A block"); and in at least one of the plurality the first groove (Annotated Figure A, “first groove”) of the first female component is spaced from the front side by a distance of Z-T ("Unit B block").
As to Claim 13, Swierad as modified teaches a retaining wall formed using at least the set of retaining wall blocks (Swierad: Figure 1) of claim 12 (Refer to Claim 12 discussion).
As to Claim 14, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 13 (Refer to Claim 13 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein successive courses of the retaining wall are battered with respect to previous courses (Swierad: Figures 4b and 4c).
As to Claim 15, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 13 (Refer to Claim 13 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein successive courses of the retaining wall are not battered with respect to previous courses (Swierad: Figure 4a).
As to Claim 16, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 13 (Refer to Claim 13 discussion). Swierad as modified also teaches wherein at least one course of the retaining wall comprises at least one of the Unit A block and at least one of the Unit B block (Swierad: Figure 1).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swierad et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,453,341) in view of Meyer (U.S. Patent No. D629,919); and further in view of Bender et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0343824).
As to Claim 3, Swierad as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Swierad as modified is silent about wherein the male component of the vertical interlock system comprises a plurality of vertical male tongues. Bender discloses a male-tyle component of a vertical interlock system comprises a plurality of vertical male tongues (28a, 30a). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the male component of the vertical interlock system comprise a plurality of vertical male tongues since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art.
PNG
media_image2.png
457
1192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Block (Meyer)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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, 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights