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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment dated October 14, 2025. Currently, claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 14-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 14, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the crossed out reference has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crigler et al. (US PGPub No 2014/0367961)(“Crigler”).
Referring to claim 1: Crigler teaches a reinforced concrete block assembly comprising: one or more concrete blocks (items S1 and S2) each having a substantially rectangular body, wherein each body comprises a hollow space extending along a longitudinal axis of the body; wherein each concrete block further comprises: a first side with a crenellation pattern (figure 4B), wherein the crenellation pattern comprises a series of merlons (protruding ends of S1 and S2) and embrasures (item 10), wherein the merlons extend outwardly from the first side; a second side opposite the first side, wherein the second side comprises openings aligned with the hollow space (figure 4B); and at least one duct (items D1 and D2) disposed within the hollow space and extending through the openings on the second side, wherein the at least one duct is configured to receive one or more tendons; wherein the crenellation pattern is configured to mate with a corresponding crenellation pattern of a subsequent concrete block assembly when arranged adjacent thereto, such that the merlons of a first concrete block align with the merlons of a concrete block, and the embrasures form an open space between the concrete blocks for facilitating installation and manipulation of the at least one duct and tendons (figure 4B).
Referring to claim 10: Crigler teaches a reinforced concrete block assembly comprising: a concrete block (items S1 and S2) having a body, wherein the body comprises a hollow space extending along the body; wherein the concrete block further comprises: a first side with a crenellation pattern (figure 4B), wherein the crenellation pattern comprises one or more merlons (protruding ends of S1 and S2) and embrasures (item 10), where the merlons extend outwardly from the first side; a second side opposite the first side, wherein the second side comprises openings aligned with the hollow space (figure 4B); and at least one duct (items D1 and D2) disposed within the hollow space and extending through the openings on the second side, where the at least one duct configured to receive tendons; wherein the crenellation pattern is configured to mate with a corresponding crenellation pattern of a second concrete block assembly when arranged adjacent thereto, such that the merlons of the first concrete block assembly align with merlons of the second concrete block assembly, and the embrasures form an open space between the first and second concrete block assemblies (figure 4B).
Referring to claim 15: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Crigler teaches wherein the at least one duct within each concrete block further comprises a central void, facilitating the passage of additional elements therethrough (figure 4B).
Referring to claim 19: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Crigler teaches wherein the concrete block has at least one selected from the group of a rectangular body and a square body (figure 5D teaches rectangular).
Referring to claim 20: Crigler teaches a concrete block assembly comprising: a concrete block (items S1 and S2) having a rectangular body, wherein the body comprises a hollow space extending along a longitudinal axis of the body, wherein the hollow space is configured to receive at least a duct (items D1 and D2); the concrete block further comprising: a first side with a crenellation pattern (figure 4B), the crenellation pattern comprising one or more merlons (protrusions of ends of S1 and S2) and one or more embrasures (item 10), wherein the merlons extend outwardly from the first side; a second side opposite the first side, wherein the second side comprises openings aligned with the hollow space; and wherein the crenellation pattern is configured to mate with a corresponding crenellation pattern of a second concrete block assembly and the embrasures are configured to comprise an open space between the first and second concrete block assemblies (figure 4B).
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) 2-8, 11, 14, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crigler.
Referring to claim 2: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Crigler does not specifically teach the concrete block further comprises reinforcing materials selected from the group consisting of steel bars, mesh, and fibers embedded within the concrete body. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it is well known in the art to reinforce concrete blocks using one of the above reinforcements in order to add strength to the block for structural applications. Adding reinforcements to concrete allows for better strength under compression.
Referring to claim 3: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Crigler does not specifically teach the merlons extend outwardly from the first side of the concrete block at a length ranging from 10% to 50% of the width of the concrete block. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the block taught by Crigler and have the merlons protrude a specific distance in order to allow for the end of the duct to be placed and manipulated when installing and connecting adjacent blocks.
Referring to claim 4: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Crigler does not specifically teach the crenellation pattern further comprises decorative features selected from the group consisting of grooves, ridges, and ornamental designs. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could interpret the alternating merlins and space between as being a pattern consisting of a groove as shown in figure 5D.
Referring to claim 5: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Crigler does not teach the at least one duct further comprises a corrosion-resistant material selected from the group consisting of stainless steel, plastic, and coated materials. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the duct out of a corrosion-resistant material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) Choosing a specific corrosion-resistant material for the duct allows for extended lifetime of the assembly.
Referring to claim 6: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the open space formed between the first and second concrete block assemblies is adaptable to accommodate additional functional elements selected from the group consisting of utility conduits, communication cables, and sensors. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have additional functional elements within the open spaces in order to allow for utilities to be easily run through the concrete blocks without the need for additional passages.
Referring to claim 7: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Crigler does not teach wherein the concrete block is manufactured using a precast molding process. However, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Referring to claim 8: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not teach the concrete block further comprises additives selected from the group consisting of fly ash, slag, and silica fume, to enhance the durability and sustainability of the assembly. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it is well known in the art to incorporate these additives to improve the characteristics of the concrete.
Referring to claim 11: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Crigler does not specifically teach wherein the open space between the first and second concrete block assemblies facilitates installation and manipulation of the at least one duct and tendons. However, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Referring to claim 14: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Crigler does not specifically teach each concrete block further comprises a plurality of ducts arranged in a parallel configuration within the hollow space. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of ducts, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378.
Referring to claim 16: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Crigler does not teach wherein the concrete block is manufactured using a precast molding process. However, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Referring to claim 18: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Crigler does not specifically teach wherein the assembly forms a load-bearing wall system, capable of supporting vertical and lateral loads while accommodating services and utilities. However, It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. It would have been obvious to use the device taught by Crigler in order to create a structure.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crigler in view of Stefano (IT 102010901834475A1).
Referring to claim 17: Crigler teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Crigler does not teach wherein the second side comprises a second crenellation pattern configured to mate with a corresponding crenellation pattern of a subsequent concrete block assembly when arranged adjacent thereto. However, Stefano teaches wherein the second side comprises a second crenellation pattern configured to mate with a corresponding crenellation pattern of a subsequent concrete block assembly when arranged adjacent thereto (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Crigler with the characteristic of having mating crenellation patterns as taught by Stefano in order to align ducts with ducts in adjacent blocks to make a continuous opening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Crigler does not teach that the embrasures form an open space between the blocks for facilitating installation and manipulation of the at least one duct and tendon. However, as noted above, the embrasures shown in figure 4B allow for an opening that is capable of allowing access.
Conclusion
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 PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635