DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: while some section headings are included, at least “Detailed Description” should be included following the brief description of the drawings. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because recitations of “basis” should be replaced with “base,” since this is the standard term in the art. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding the recitation of “measured in accordance with JIS A 5371” in claims 1 and 5, this is a process of measuring based upon a Japanese industrial standard and is not proper in the claims. Specifically regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to a product; therefore, this process type recitation is an improper product-by-process recitation. Regarding claim 5, this process of measuring is distinct from the claimed process of constructing. The claims have only been considered with the positively recited water permeability rates and water retention capacities and not treated with respect to measuring in accordance with this industrial standard.
Regarding claim 3, the recitations beginning with “produced by” are improper process recitations in a product claim. The manner in which claimed parts of a product are produce is beyond the permissible scope of a product claim. These recitations have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (KR 10-2252941 B1) in view of Kuroiwa et al. (JP 2007-145669 A) and Nisikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0247814).
Han discloses a ground structure including concrete blocks (Figure 1a, for example). The blocks contain cement, sand and an inorganic water retaining material (slag). There is a water permeability as claimed (.01-.05 cm/sec). Han discloses water retention, but does not specify a weight per cubic volume. Kuroiwa teaches concrete blocks having both the permeability and retention (.15g/cm³, for example) capacities as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Han with at least the retention capacity of Kuroiwa in order to retain a desired amount of water, since Kuroiwa teaches this arrangement. Han teaches optionally applying an artificial turf, but is silent regarding additional details; thereby leaving the arrangement to one skilled in the art. Nisikawa teaches an artificial turf having a synthetic resin base sheet (31) and synthetic resin pile (4) affixed to a base (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the turf of Nisikawa to the blocks of Han since Han teaches optionally includes artificial turf thereon and Nisikawa teaches an artificial turf to be applied to a base. Because water permeability and retention is important to Han, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included drain holes in order to enable water to reach the base through the turf.
Kuroiwa meets claim 2 recitations.
Regarding claim 3, Han teaches slag, but does not specify granulated slag. The examiner takes Official notice that the claimed slag is known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used this material as the slag of Han since this material is a known industrial by-product material and Han specifies that using industrial by-products reduces carbon dioxide generation.
Regarding claim 4, volumes of materials within blocks are typically recited in parts, rather than kg per m³. Han is silent regarding these; however, it is standard practice to use portions of materials deemed best suited to an application in which the blocks are to be used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed volumes in order to obtain a desired strength, permeability and retention, since Han teaches the same materials.
Regarding claim 5, given the combination of Han, Kuroiwa and Nisikawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the steps in order to produce the final ground structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach ground structure blocks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights