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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Upon further review a new reference is being applied to the pending claims as detailed below.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 15 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert L. Whitson (U.S. 6,594,959) herein referred to as Whitson in view of Terrence J. Lavery (U.S. 5,205,090), herein referred to as Lavery.
Regarding Claim 1: Whitson discloses a modular curb unit system, comprising (see Figs. 4 through 9), a main body (30) having a front side (70), a rear side (75), a top portion (61), and a bottom portion (41), the top portion having a first side (62) and a second side (65).
Whitson does not disclose wherein the first side having a first elongate groove and the second side having a second elongate groove, wherein the second elongate groove is disposed adjacent to and spaced apart from an upper surface of the bottom portion at a predetermined distance, and each of the first elongate groove and the second elongate groove is co-planar with a first plane.
However, Lavery discloses a modular curb system (see Figs. 1 & 4), comprising: a plurality of modular units (100) including a first modular unit and a second modular unit, wherein each of the modular units having a main body having a front side (140), a rear side (150), the first side having a first elongate groove (142) and the second side having a second elongate groove (152), and wherein each of the first elongate groove (142) and the second elongate groove (152) is co-planar with a first plane, and wherein the modular units are connected in series (see Fig. 3). Lavery further discloses wherein the grooves 142 & 152 add to horizontal stability by permitting earth gripping therein (Column 3=>Lines 28-30).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the modular curb unit (30) of Whitson to include the full-length elongate grooves (142 & 152) of Lavery to provide additional stability to the curb units of Whitson once installed (Column 3=>Lines 28-30).
Regarding Claim 2: Whitson in view of Lavery teaches the limitations presented in Claim 1 as previously discussed. Additionally, in light of the modification made in relation to Claim 1, Lavery further teaches that the elongate grooves (142/152) extend from the first end (120) to the second end (130) of the curb unit.
Regarding Claim 6: Whitson as modified above discloses the modular curb unit of claim 1. Whitson further discloses a modular curb unit system of claim 1 (see Fig. 4), wherein a first plane like that of the instant application is oriented substantially parallel with the upper surface (45) of the bottom portion (41) of the main body.
Regarding Claim 7: Whitson as modified above discloses the modular curb unit of claim 1. Whitson further discloses a modular curb unit system of claim 1 (see Fig. 4), wherein a first plane like that of the instant application is substantially horizontal upon installation of the modular curb unit (see Figs. 2A & 2B).
Regarding Claim 11: Whitson as modified above discloses the modular curb unit of claim 1. Whitson further teaches (see Fig. 2A) a modular curb/edging unit that has a top portion width that can be determined by subtracting the dimension "Wp (bottom portion top surface width)" from the dimension "W (maximum modular unit width)" in Fig. 4, a bottom portion with width "W" shown in Figs. 4 & 7. Whitson further teaches (see Fig. 2A) that the top portion width "W-Wp" being less than the bottom portion width "Wp".
Regarding Claim 15: Whitson as modified above discloses the modular curb unit of claim 1. Whitson further teaches in Figs. 2A, 2B,4 & 5 a modular curb/edging unit that comprises generally of an "L" shape profile and generally a rectangular block in shape.
Regarding Claim 16: Whitson discloses a modular curb unit system, comprising: a plurality of modular units including a first modular unit and a second modular unit (see Figs. 2A & 2B), wherein each of the modular units having a (see Figs. 4 through 9), a main body (30) having a front side (70), a rear side (75), a top portion (61), and a bottom portion (41), the top portion having a first side (62) and a second side (65).
Whitson does not disclose wherein the first side (62) having a first elongate groove and the second side (65) having a second elongate groove, wherein the second elongate groove is disposed adjacent to and spaced apart from an upper surface of the bottom portion at a predetermined distance, and each of the first elongate groove and the second elongate groove is co-planar with a first plane.
However, Lavery discloses a modular curb system (see Figs. 1 & 4), comprising: a plurality of modular units (100) including a first modular unit and a second modular unit, wherein each of the modular units having a main body having a front side (140), a rear side (150), the first side having a first elongate groove (142) and the second side having a second elongate groove (152), and wherein each of the first elongate groove (142) and the second elongate groove(152) is co-planar with a first plane, wherein the modular units are connected in series (see Fig. 3). Lavery further discloses wherein the grooves 142 & 152 add to horizontal stability by permitting earth gripping therein (Column 3=>Lines 28-30).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the modular curb unit (30) of Whitson to include the full-length elongate grooves (142 & 152) of Lavery to provide additional stability to the curb units of Whitson once installed (Column 3=>Lines 28-30).
Claims 4, 8, 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert L. Whitson (U.S. 6,594,959) in view of in view of Lavery (U.S. 5,205,090) as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of George D. Sutton (U.S. 329,344) herein referred to as Sutton.
Regarding Claim 4: Whitson in view of Lavery teaches in Claim 3, elongate groove(s) Fig. 6 (69) spaced apart from an upper surface Fig. 5 (45) of the base/bottom portion Fig. 5 (40) at a predetermined distance.
Whitson fails to teach wherein the blocks include the specific dimensions recited in the claim. However, Sutton discloses the use of curb forming blocks on Page 1 Lines 55-65, wherein " This curb may be twenty inches deep, (more or less) according to the requirements of the service for which it is intended, and of a width at top- say from five to eight inches, more or less- sufficient to cover the surface now usually occupied by the solid stone curbs. These dimensions will of course be subject to city and town regulations, and do not enter into the merits of my invention." As a result, Sutton teaches that the relative dimension of curb forming blocks are largely at the discretion of a user based on the needs of the installation location and local laws, and as such constitute a results effective variable.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, that curb and gutter apparatus does not comprise of parts that require fine tolerances or machine precision of parts, to function or be installed in a modular format. Likewise, it has been held that selecting a dimension for a curb element as such would merely constitute routine optimization of a results effective variable which has been held to be an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, A).
Regarding Claim 8: Whitson discloses in Claim 3, elongate groove(s) Fig. 6 (69) spaced apart from an upper surface Fig. 5 (45) of the base/bottom portion Fig. 5 (40) at a predetermined distance.
Whitson fails to disclose wherein the blocks included the specific dimensions recited in the claim. Additionally, Sutton teaches the use of curb forming blocks on Page 1 Lines 55-65, wherein " This curb may be twenty inches deep, (more or less,) according to the requirements of the service for which it is intended, and of a width at top- say from five to eight inches, more or less- sufficient to cover the surface now usually occupied by the solid stone curbs. These dimensions will of course be subject to city and town regulations, and do not enter into the merits of my invention." As a result, Sutton teaches that the relative dimension of curb forming blocks are largely at the discretion of a user based on the needs of the installation location and local laws, and as such constitute a results effective variable.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, that curb and gutter apparatus does not comprise of parts that require fine tolerances or machine precision of parts, to function or be installed in a modular format. Likewise, it has been held that selecting a dimension for a curb element as such would merely constitute routine optimization of a results effective variable which has been held to be an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, A).
Regarding Claim 12: Whitson teaches elongate grooves (see Fig. 6, 69) spaced apart from an upper surface (see Fig. 5, 45) of the base/bottom portion (see Fig. 5, 40) at a predetermined distance.
Whitson fails to teach wherein the blocks include the specific dimensions recited in the claim. Additionally, Sutton teaches the use of curb forming blocks on Page 1 Lines 55-65, wherein " This curb may be twenty inches deep, (more or less,) according to the requirements of the service for which it is intended, and of a width at top- say from five to eight inches, more or less- sufficient to cover the surface now usually occupied by the solid stone curbs. These dimensions will of course be subject to city and town regulations, and do not enter into the merits of my invention." As a result, Sutton teaches that the relative dimension of curb forming blocks are largely at the discretion of a user based on the needs of the installation location and local laws, and as such constitute a results effective variable.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, that curb and gutter apparatus does not comprise of parts that require fine tolerances or machine precision of parts, to function or be installed in a modular format. Likewise, it has been held that selecting a dimension for a curb element as such would merely constitute routine optimization of a results effective variable which has been held to be an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, A).
Regarding Claim 14: Whitson teaches in Claim 3, (see Figs. 5 & 6) elongate grooves (69) spaced apart from an upper surface (45) of the base/bottom portion (40) at a predetermined distance.
Whitson fails to teach the blocks included the specific dimensions recited in the claim. Additionally, Sutton teaches the use of curb forming blocks on (see page 1=>Lines 55-65) wherein, " This curb may be twenty inches deep, (more or less,) according to the requirements of the service for which it is intended, and of a width at top- say from five to eight inches, more or less- sufficient to cover the surface now usually occupied by the solid stone curbs. These dimensions will of course be subject to city and town regulations, and do not enter into the merits of my invention." As a result, Sutton teaches that the relative dimension of curb forming blocks are largely at the discretion of a user based on the needs of the installation location and local laws, and as such constitute a results effective variable.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, that curb and gutter apparatus does not comprise of parts that require fine tolerances or machine precision of parts, to function or be installed in a modular format. Likewise, it has been held that selecting a dimension for a curb element as such would merely constitute routine optimization of a results effective variable which has been held to be an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, A).
Claims 9 & 17 through 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert L. Whitson (U.S. 6,594,959) herein referred to as Whitson) in view of Lavery (U.S. 5,205,090) as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Jacob J. Tranchell (U.S. 1,922,462), herein referred to as Tranchell.
Regarding Claim 9: Whitson discloses in (see Figs. 4, 5, 8 & 9 and Column 6 Lines 8-14 + Lines 61-66), wherein bores (43 & 63) are formed into the bottom and rearward surfaces (42 & 62) respectively, proximal to each of its side edges. Each opening is adapted to receive a portion of a cylindrical shaped dowel. The dowel openings (43 & 63) are preferably quasi-circular or horseshoe shaped with a diameter adapted to snuggly and securely receive a corresponding dowel.” Whitson further discloses that upper bore (63) is disposed on and co-planar with the second plane that bi-sects the top portion (61).
Whitson fails to disclose the orientation of the lower bore (43) to be co-planar with the second plane. Further, Whitson fails to disclose that the holes/bores run thru the entire modular unit body from end to end, allowing a plurality of curb units to be tied together for extra strength.
However, Tranchell teaches a construction paver block (see Fig. 2 & 3) wherein during installation, the pavers are connected together using dowels (18) running through holes in the paver units, wherein the holes are arranged to bisect upper and lower portions of the pavers (as seen in Figure 3) and the pins being aligned in coplanar fashion (Page 1, Lines 41-50).It would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modular curb unit of Whitson to incorporate the through holes of Tranchell in order to connect a plurality of modular units together to prevent unintended movement of any modular unit and to provide a stronger locking together function with adjacent modular units.
Regarding Claim 17: Whitson teaches (see Figs. 4, 5, 8 & 9 and Column 6=>Lines 8-14 + 61-66), "One hole or opening (43 & 63) is formed into the bottom and rearward surfaces (42 & 62) proximal to each of its side edges. Each opening (43 & 63) is adapted to receive a portion of a cylindrical shaped dowel. The dowel openings (43 & 63) are preferably quasi-circular or horseshoe shaped with a diameter adapted to snuggly and securely receive a corresponding dowel.
Whitson fails to disclose holes/openings (43 & 63) are elongate and run through from side (70) to side (75) of each modular curb/edging unit.
However, Tranchell discloses in (see Figs. 2, 3 & 4) a top bore that can be formed through the top portion from the left side through to the right side and a lower bore(s) formed through the bottom portion from the left side through to the right side. Tranchell furthers dowel rods (Figs. 2, 3 & 4 (14 & 18)) that are elongate connectors that connect multiple modular curb/edging units together.
It would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modular curb unit of Whitson to incorporate the through holes of Tranchell in order to connect a plurality of modular units together to prevent unintended movement of any modular unit and to provide a stronger locking together function with adjacent modular units.
Regarding Claim 18: Whitson teaches (see Figs. 4, 5, 8 & 9 and Column 6=>Lines 8-14 + 61-66), "One hole or opening (43 & 63) is formed into the bottom and rearward surfaces (42 & 62) proximal to each of its side edges. Each opening is adapted to receive a portion of a cylindrical shaped dowel. The dowel openings (43 & 63) are preferably quasi-circular or horseshoe shaped with a diameter adapted to snuggly and securely receive a corresponding dowel.
Whitson fails to disclose holes/openings (43 & 63) are elongate and run through from side (70) to side (75) of each modular curb/edging unit to allow insertion of elongate dowel rods between adjacent curb units.
Tranchell teaches in Figs. 2, 3 and 4 a top bore that can be formed through the top portion from the left side through to the right side and a lower bore(s) formed through the bottom portion from the left side through to the right side. Tranchell further discloses (see Figs. 2, 3 & 4) dowel rods (14 & 18) that are elongate connectors that can connect multiple modular curb/edging units together.
It would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modular curb unit of Whitson to incorporate the through dowels of Tranchell in order to connect a plurality of modular units together to prevent unintended movement of any modular unit and to provide a stronger locking together function with adjacent modular units.
Regarding Claim 19: Whitson discloses a modular curb unit system, comprising (see Figs. 4 through 9), a main body (30) having a front side (70), a rear side (75), a top portion (61), and a bottom portion (41), the top portion having a first side (62) and a second side (65). The first and second sides having respective elongate grooves (69 & 49) and wherein
Whitson does not disclose wherein the first side having a first elongate groove and the second side having a second elongate groove, wherein the second elongate groove is disposed adjacent to and spaced apart from an upper surface of the bottom portion at a predetermined distance, and each of the first elongate groove and the second elongate groove is co-planar with a first plane. Wilson further fails to disclose (see Fig. 5) a step of finishing an installation atop the bottom portion of the extended bottom platform surface (45). The curb/edging invention in Whitson is of similar “L” shape profile and material composition that it can be used without modification, to have a finished installation atop the extended bottom platform surface (45).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, to modify the modular curb unit of Whitson to incorporate the curb/edged unit as taught by Tranchell (Lines 59-70 & Fig. 1) as a flush/semi flush transition band for two different paving materials or to delineate a shoulder or specific area(s) for certain types of traffic (Fig. 1). Tranchell further teaches a curb/gutter/edging modular unit can complete a paving or edging task by having paving or edged material placed atop of the top surface of the bottom portion (see Fig. 1). This placement of material atop the bottom portion of the modular curb/gutter/edging modular unit intrinsically helps secure the said unit in-place once it has been installed in the desired location.
Regarding Claim 20: Whitson teaches a modular unit for a curb/edging system comprising (see Figs 4 thru 9), straight body (block 30) having a front side (32), a rear side (33), a top portion (including surfaces 64/65/45), and a bottom portion (40; Col 6, Lines 15-44), the top portion having a first side (64) and a second side (45), the first and second sides having respective elongate grooves (69 and 49) Col 6, Lines 26-44.
Whitson fails to teach a step of finishing an installation atop the bottom portion of the modular curb/edging unit (Fig. 5 (64)). The curb/edging invention in Whitson is of similar shape and material composition that it can be used without modification, to have a finished installation atop the extended bottom (41) section surface (45).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, to modify the use of Whitson to use the curb/edged unit as taught by Tranchell (page 1=>Lines 59-70 & Fig. 1) wherein suitable paving subgrade and finish material can be placed atop the lower shoulder section (11). Placement of subgrade or finish material would provide the curb unit with secure placement and would prevent any undesired movement of the curb unit.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitson (U.S. 6,594,959) in view of Lavery (U.S. 5,205,090) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of James J. Dyer (U.S. 1,849,421), herein referred to as Dyer.
Regarding Claim 10: Whitson discloses the limitations presented previously in Claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the bottom portion (41) has a top side (45) and a bottom side (42).
Whitson does not disclose the use of a plurality of holes extending from the top side (45) to the bottom side (42).
However, Dyer discloses a path construction tool, wherein units forming the path (as seen in Figures 2-4), wherein a plurality of bores are arranged to run from a top surface to a bottom surface of the elements (see Figs. 3 & 4 & Lines 94-98) show and describe the vertically oriented spike holes (15).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modular curb unit of Whitson to include the anchor holes of Dyer between the top and bottom surfaces as taught by Dyer in order to better secure the modular curb unit to the substrate (see Dyer Lines 94-98).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitson (U.S. 6,594,959) in view of Lavery (U.S. 5,205,090) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Horacio Correia, (U.S. 5,478,165) herein referred to as Correia.
Regarding Claim 13: Whitson teaches in (see Column 5=>Lines 53-56 and Fig. 4) the total height (H) of the block (30) is preferably 3.5 inches, which includes the ledges see (Column 6=>Lines 2-5 and annotated figure below).
However, Correia teaches (see Fig.1) a modular curb unit (10) comprising a curb (top) section (11) and an anchoring projection (12) that form the curb paving stone invention. One can see from (see Fig. 1) that curb section (11) is of lesser height by a magnitude than the anchoring projection (12).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the relative dimensions of each of the upper and lower sections of Whitson such that the bottom portion has a larger height as taught by Correia as it has been held that mere changes in size/proportion are obvious design choices in instances wherein the device would not perform differently (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection IV, A).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
397
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. U.S. 390,322 to Thomas R. Weber relates to modular cast iron curbs with coupling and locking features for each modular unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT C. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3053. The examiner can normally be reached 7.30am to 5pm.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/K.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
