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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/25/25 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 7,762,033 B2) in view of Di (CN 208830583 U) in further view of Muse (US 3,780,484).
With regard to claim 1: Scott et al. discloses a structural system (figs. 1-3) comprising:
a plurality of blocks (22) arranged in rows stacked on each other, with the blocks (22) of each row staggered relative to the blocks (22) of adjacent said rows, each block (22) having a insulative foam core (fig. 3; col. 1, lines 30-32; col. 3, lines 12-14 and lines 24-34); and
a plurality of cement (cementitious material comprising concrete) columns extended through the adjacent rows of the plurality of blocks (22) via aligned columnar apertures (24, 26 and 34) defined within the insulative foam core of each block (22) (col. 2, lines 34-37; col. 3, lines 24-34), in which, for each block:
opposed side ends of the block (22) are structured to abut the side ends of adjacent blocks of the plurality of blocks (22) from opposed inside and outside faces of the block (22) (figs. 1-3).
Scott et al. does not disclose external coating plates cladding the opposed inside and outside faces of each block between the opposed side ends of each block.
However, Di discloses a block having a core with external coating plates (decorative plates) cladding opposed inside and outside faces of the block between opposed side ends of the block (figs. 5-6 and 11; Example 2 found on pages 5-6 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural system of Scott et al. to include external coating plates cladding opposed inside and outside faces of each block between opposed side ends of each block such as taught by Di in order to provide a decorative exterior for a desired aesthetic. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Scott et al. in view Di does not disclose that all of the columnar apertures each defined within the insulative foam core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from the inside faces, the outside face, and the opposed side ends, of each block.
However, Muse discloses blocks (10) each having all of columnar apertures (11-14) defined within a core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from an inside face, an outside face, and opposed side ends (fig. 5). Muse further discloses the blocks (10) in rows stacked on each other, with the blocks (10) of each row staggered relative to the blocks of adjacent said rows, wherein the columnar apertures (11-14) are aligned (figs. 5-6; col. 2, lines 37-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural system of Scott et al. previously modified by Di to have all of the columnar apertures each defined within the core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from the inside face, the outside face, and the opposed side ends, of each block such as taught by Muse yielding the predictable results of allowing ease of alignment and installation between rows of the blocks for uniformity of construction. No new unpredictable results would be obtained from having all of the columnar apertures each defined within the core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from the inside faces, the outside face, and the opposed side ends, of each block. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 2: Scott et al. discloses a plurality of structural beams (horizontal bars 20 and horizontal channels filled with cementitious material comprising concrete) extended through or between the rows of the plurality of blocks (22) (figs. 1-3; col. 3, lines 24-28).
With regard to claim 3: Scott et al. discloses that the plurality of structural beams (horizontal bars 20 and horizontal channels filled with cementitious material comprising concrete) are extended at an interface between the adjacent rows of the blocks (22) via aligned beam slots (horizontal bars 20 and horizontal channels filled with cementitious material comprising concrete) defined within one or both of top and bottom faces of the blocks (22) (figs. 3-5); and
the aligned beam slots (horizontal bars 20 and horizontal channels filled with cementitious material comprising concrete) are defined within both of top and bottom faces of the blocks (figs. 3-5).
With regard to claim 4: Scott et al. discloses that the aligned beam slots (horizontal bars 20 and horizontal channels filled with cementitious material comprising concrete) communicate with the aligned columnar apertures (24, 26 and 34) such that the plurality of cement columns and the plurality of structural beams (horizontal bars 20 and horizontal channels filled with cementitious material comprising concrete) integrally connect to form a structural matrix (col. 2, lines 34-37; col. 3, lines 24-28).
With regard to claim 5: Scott et al. discloses that the plurality of structural beams comprise rebar (20) (figs. 3-4).
With regard to claim 6: Scott et al. discloses that the plurality of cement columns comprise rebar (18) (figs. 3-4).
With regard to claim 7: Scott et al. discloses the structural system forms a wall (fig. 3); and
the rebar (18) of the plurality of cement columns secures to a floor below the wall (figs. 3-4).
With regard to claim 8: Scott et al. discloses that each foam core comprises polystyrene (pg. 2, lines 28-29 of translation). Scott et al. does not disclose that the polystyrene is expanded polystyrene.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural system of Scott et al. to have the polystyrene be expanded polystyrene for its desired inherent properties such as being energy efficient, fire resistant and being environmentally friendly. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the polystyrene foam material to be expanded polystyrene. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 9: Di discloses that the external coating plates comprise Sorel cement (magnesia cement) (fig. 5-6 and 11; Example 2 found on pages 5-6 of translation).
With regard to claims 11-12: Di discloses that the external coating plates are secured to the blocks via an adhesive (cast upon Sorel (magnesia) cement) (fig. 5-6 and 11; Example 2 found on pages 5-6 of translation).
With regard to claim 13: Di discloses the external coating plates are embedded with reinforcing mesh (pg. 5, lines 38-40 of translation).
With regard to claims 14-15: Scott et al. does not disclose that the cement columns comprise Sorel cement. Scott et al. does not disclose the cement columns comprise: magnesium chloride and magnesium oxide; fly ash; silica fume; reinforcing fibers; and sand; and are made with acrylic emulsion.
However, Di discloses cement for a block comprising magnesium chloride and magnesium oxide; fly ash; silica fume; reinforcing fibers; and sand; and made with acrylic emulsion (fig. 5-6 and 11; Example 2 found on pages 5-6 of translation). Examiner notes the Sorel (magnesia) cement is a mixture comprising magnesium chloride and magnesium oxide.
it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cement columns of Scott et al. to be formed of a Sorel cement including magnesium chloride and magnesium oxide; fly ash; silica fume; reinforcing fibers; and sand; and made with acrylic emulsion such as taught by DI in order to provide a known composition including Sorel cement having desired inherent properties such as bonding capacity and it ability to achieve strength in a short time.
With regard to claim 16: Scott et al. discloses a method comprising:
arranging a plurality of blocks (22) in rows stacked on each other, with the blocks (22) of each row staggered relative to the blocks (22) of adjacent said rows, each block (22) having an insulative foam core (fig.3; col. 1, lines 30-32; col. 3, lines 12-14 and lines 24-34); and
pouring cement (cementitious material comprising concrete) through the adjacent rows of the plurality of blocks (22) via aligned columnar apertures (24, 26 and 34) defined within the insulative foam core of each block (22) (col. 2, lines 34-37; col. 3, lines 24-28), in which, for each block:
opposed side ends of the block (22) abut the side ends of adjacent blocks of the plurality of blocks (22) from opposed inside and outside faces of the block (22) (figs. 1-3).
Scott et al. does disclose external coating plates cladding opposed inside and outside faces of the block between the opposed side ends of the block.
However, Di discloses a block having a core with external coating plates (decorative plates) cladding opposed inside and outside faces of the block between opposed side ends of the block (Fig. 5-6 and 11; Example 2 found on pages 5-6 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural system of Scott et al. to include external coating plates cladding opposed inside and outside faces of each block between opposed side ends of each block such as taught by Di in order to provide a decorative exterior for a desired aesthetic. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Scott et al. in view Di does not disclose that all of the columnar apertures each defined within the insulative foam core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from the inside faces, the outside face, and the opposed side ends, of each block.
However, Muse discloses blocks (10) each having all of columnar apertures (11-14) defined within a core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from an inside face, an outside face, and opposed side ends (fig. 5). Muse further discloses the blocks (10) in rows stacked on each other, with the blocks (10) of each row staggered relative to the blocks of adjacent said rows, wherein the columnar apertures (11-14) are aligned (figs. 5-6; col. 2, lines 37-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural system of Scott et al. previously modified by Di to have all of the columnar apertures each defined within the core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from the inside face, the outside face, and the opposed side ends, of each block such as taught by Muse yielding the predictable results of allowing ease of alignment and installation between rows of the blocks for uniformity of construction. No new unpredictable results would be obtained from having all of the columnar apertures each defined within the core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from the inside faces, the outside face, and the opposed side ends, of each block. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 17: Scott et al. discloses laying rebar beams (20) through or between rows of the plurality of blocks (22) (figs. 3-4); and
before pouring, extending rebar (18) through the adjacent rows of the plurality of blocks via the aligned columnar apertures (24, 26 and 34) (figs. 3-4; col. 3,lines 24-28).
With regard to claim 18: Scott et al. discloses that the plurality of blocks (22) form a wall; and further comprising securing the rebar (18) of the plurality of cement columns secures to a floor below the wall (figs. 3-4).
With regard to claim 19: Scott et al. as modified by Di discloses forming each block by adhering the external coating plates to the foam core (via Sorel (magnesia) cement). Examiner notes that molding is interpreted as the forming of the foam cores, which is disclosed by Scott et al.
With regard to claim 20: Scott et al. discloses structural block (22) comprising:
an insulative foam core (fig.3; col. 1, lines 30-32; col. 3, lines 12-14 and lines 24-34); and
a series of columnar apertures (24, 26 and 34), extended between and arranged in regular intervals along, top and bottom faces of the structural block (22), such that the columnar apertures (24, 26 and 34) align in use with corresponding columnar apertures of other respective structural blocks that are identical with the structural block when such other respective structural blocks are laid above and below the structural block in staggered conformation (figs. 3-4; col. 1, lines 30-32; col. 3, lines 12-14), with the opposed side end of the structural block (22) structured to abut the side ends of the other respective blocks (22) from opposed inside and outside faces (figs. 1-3).
Scott et al. does disclose external coating plates cladding the opposed inside and outside faces of the structural block between opposed side ends of the structural block.
However, Di discloses a block having a core with external coating plates (decorative plates) cladding opposed inside and outside faces of the block between opposed side ends of the block (fig. 5-6 and 11; Example 2 found on pages 5-6 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural system of Scott et al. to include external coating plates cladding opposed inside and outside faces of each block between opposed side ends of each block such as taught by Di in order to provide a decorative exterior for a desired aesthetic. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Scott et al. in view Di does not disclose that all of the columnar apertures of the structural block being defined within the insulative foam core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from the inside faces, the outside face, and the opposed side ends, of the structural block.
However, Muse discloses blocks (10) each having all of columnar apertures (11-14) defined within a core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from an inside face, an outside face, and opposed side ends (fig. 5). Muse further discloses the blocks (10) in rows stacked on each other, with the blocks (10) of each row staggered relative to the blocks of adjacent said rows, wherein the columnar apertures (11-14) are aligned (figs. 5-6; col. 2, lines 37-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural system of Scott et al. previously modified by Di to have all of the columnar apertures each defined within the core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from the inside face, the outside face, and the opposed side ends, of each block such as taught by Muse yielding the predictable results of allowing ease of alignment and installation between rows of the blocks for uniformity of construction. No new unpredictable results would be obtained from having all of the columnar apertures each defined within the core, spaced at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from the inside faces, the outside face, and the opposed side ends, of each block. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 7,762,033 B2) in view of Di (CN 208830583 U), Muse (US 3,780,484), and in further view of Zhang (CN 1657482 A).
With regard to claim 10: Di discloses the external coating plates comprise: fly ash and sand (Example 2 found on pages 5-6 of translation). Examiner submits the Sorel (magnesia) cement is a mixture comprising magnesium chloride and magnesium oxide.
Scott et al. in view of Di and Muse does not disclose the external coating plates comprising perlite.
However, Zhang discloses a block having a composition including cement and perlite (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural system of Scott et al. previously modified by Di and Muse to have the cement include perlite such as taught by Zhang in order to provide known properties such as improved insulative properties and lightweight construction. No new unpredictable results would be obtained from having the cement include perlite. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
The objection of claim 20 has been withdrawn in view the amendment filed 9/25/25.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 9/25/25.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “each reference fails to teach at least a plurality of blocks in which all of the columnar apertures of the block are defined within the insulative foam core, staggered at regular intervals from one another, and spaced from the inside face, outside faces, and the opposed side ends, of the block, and in which the opposed side ends of the block are structured to abut the side ends of adjacent blocks of the plurality of blocks from the inside faces to the outside faces of the blocks.”
Examiner respectfully submits that applicant’s arguments are directed to references individually, no arguments have been presented to the combinations of references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It submitted that the claimed combinations as presented in the instant Office Action meet the structure recited in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633