Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 9/04/25 and the supplemental response filed 12/11/25. Claims 12-29 are pending. Claims 1-11 have been canceled. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The drawings filed 7/08/25 are approved.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0018-0019] should be canceled as there is no need to recite there are no figures 12-13.
Appropriate correction is required.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-29 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.
It is not clear if the side panels of the block are made concrete or mortar. The claims use both terms but the two are different distinct materials. As noted in the attached article by David Beaulieu, cement, mortar, and concrete are often confused by DIYers as they are all materials that harden to form structures or act as binding agents. However, these terms are frequently used interchangeably and inaccurately.
The specification, as filed 7/08/25, make no mention of mortar and recites the mixture is aggregate (sand), cement, water and can have chopped fiber. This is concrete by definition and for the purposes of applying prior art the panels are considered to be reinforced concrete.
Claims 12-16, 20, 21, 25 and 26, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,665,992 to Hew.
Hew provides a permanent concrete construction block 10 for Structural Code monolithic reinforced concrete, the permanent concrete construction block comprising:
A. a first steel reinforced 40 concrete side panel 20, and a second steel reinforced 40 concrete side panel 20, wherein the first steel reinforced side panel and the second steel reinforced concrete side panel comprise molded sand-cement mortar comprising steel-bar reinforcement; and
B. an attachment assembly 24 or 24’ connecting the first steel reinforced side panel and the second steel reinforced concrete side panel in parallel alignment to provide a sufficient building wall thickness to accommodate structural concrete, rebar, thermal insulation, and electrical and mechanical embeds within the sufficient building wall thickness between the first steel reinforced side panel and the second steel reinforced concrete side panel (see for example recesses 32 for rebar 16).
Recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With respect to claims 13, 15 and 20, note column 5, lines 17-24, which recite the fasteners 22 may be nuts into which a threaded bolt is inserted. Square nuts are known and the shape is of no patentable significance.
With respect to claims 14 and 25, see support plate 26 which has support member 28 welded thereto (col. 4, line 60).
With respect to claims 16, 21 and 26, see wire mesh 42.
Claims 17, 22 and 27, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,665,992 to Hew in view of U.S 2019/0184602 to Liu et al.
Hew provides each of the of the elements of the claims as noted above except for an embedded box for electrical or utility service.
Liu teaches a sand aerated concrete panel pre-embedded with a wire box and a wire conduit, including a sand aerated concrete panel 1, a steel bar mesh cage 2, a wire box 4 and a wire conduit 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention that at least one of the side panels of Hew could have been provided with an embedded electrical wire box as taught by Liu to allow for electrical service through the panel.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of pre-embedding an electrical box to allow for wiring without any modifications to the block/panel of Hew.
Claims 18, 23 and 28, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,665,992 to Hew in view of U.S. 2009/0223156 to Lung.
Hew provides each of the elements of the claims as noted above except for a closed cell foam thermal layer on an inner surface of one of the side panels.
Lung teaches that at the time of the effective filing date of the invention it was known that the inner surface 22 of mech reinforced concrete side panels may be provided with an insulating foam 28/30. The foams listed in paragraph [0012] are of the closed cell type (Also note U.S. Patent 10,151,111 to Porter which specifies closed cell foam for insulting the inner surface of a concrete block).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention that the inner surfaces of the side panels of Hew could have been provided with a thermal closed-cell foam as taught by Lung to provide a layer of insulation.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of adding insulation the block of Hew.
Claims 19, 24 and 29, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,665,992 to Hew in view of U.S. Patent 6,594,959 to Whitson.
Hew provides each of the elements of the claims as noted above except for a reduced sized panel formed from a full size panel by a mitered cut.
Whitson teaches that at the time of the effective filing date of the invention it was known that a reduced sized block could formed from a full size block by a mitered cut.
“some straight blocks 30 are cut or mitered to form a mitered block 240 having a mitered end 241 with a mitered end surface, as shown in FIG. 20.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the time of the effective filing date of the invention that one of the side panels of Hew could have been provided with a mitered cut to form a panel for making corners of a wall.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of forming corner blocks with a mitered end from a full size block.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the two attached Japanese patents which teach the use of reinforced mortar for forming panels.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636