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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Canada on 4 October 2022 and 6 January 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CA3178337 or CA3186121 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 10 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” or more specifically, “Provided herein are various embodiments or” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0101]: Partitions 670A-D are configured to define a space between adjacent blocks
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim, including claim 11 (see MPEP § 608.01(n)). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Collison (US20090255211).
Regarding claim 1, Collinson discloses an insert member for a retaining wall block mold (“supporting form” (12), Fig 3, 5-12), the insert member comprising:
a top side (top portion of “supporting form” (12)) and a bottom side opposite the top side (bottom portion of “supporting form” (12));
a front side (left side of “supporting form” (12)) and a rear side opposite the front side (right side of “supporting form” (12)); and
a first side (visible portion of “supporting form” (12) in Fig 11) and a second side opposite the first side (not-visible portion of “supporting form” (12) in Fig 11);
the front side having a front wall extending between the first and second sides and having at least, in seriatim from the bottom side to the top side:
a vertical first front wall portion;
a convexly-arched vertical second front wall portion; and
a rearwardly-oblique third front wall portion (see Modified Collinson Fig 11 below);
the rear side having a rear wall extending between the first and second sides and having at least, in seriatim from the bottom side to the top side:
a vertical first rear wall portion;
a rearwardly-oblique second rear wall portion, the second rear wall portion parallel to the third front wall portion; and
a convexly-arched vertical third rear wall portion (see Modified Collinson Fig 11 below).
[AltContent: textbox (Modified Collinson Fig 11, wherein wall portions have been labeled and portion highlighted. The portion of the front wall with the black backfill and white strips is interpreted to be the “convexly-arched vertical second front wall portion” while the portion of the back wall with black backfill and white dots is interpreted to be the “convexly-arched vertical third rear wall portion. The dimensions from the original Fig 11 have not been altered in any way.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
278
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Collinson discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Collinson discloses that the insert member further comprises between the third front wall portion and the top side a vertical fourth front wall portion (see Modified Collinson Fig 11 above).
Regarding claim 10, Collinson discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Collinson discloses that the front wall and the rear wall have the same vertical height (Fig 11).
Regarding claim 11, Collinson discloses all limitations of claims 1, 9 and 10 as set forth above. Additionally, Collinson discloses that at least one of the vertical first front wall portion, the rearwardly-oblique third front wall portion, the vertical first rear wall portion, and the rearwardly-oblique second rear wall portion, is planar (see Modified Collinson Fig 11 above).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collison (US20090255211) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and further in view of Matys (US20190360201).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Collinson discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Collinson does not explicitly disclose that a vertical height of the first rear wall portion is greater than a combined vertical height of the first and second front wall portions (claim 2) or that a vertical height of the first rear wall portion is the same as a combined vertical height of the first and second front wall portions (claim 3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Matys, which is within the molding insert art, teaches that for wall blocks molded in part through the use of an insert member (“partitions” (400)), said wall blocks are formed to comprise of wall portions with varying dimensional lengths on a front side compared to a back side ([0103]-[0104], Fig 31), with said varying dimensions on the wall blocks achieved using corresponding partitions (Fig 23), for the benefit of creating lean in the blocks, improving the stability of walls built using said wall blocks ([0104]).
Regarding claims 4-8, Collinson teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Collinson does not explicitly disclose any particular dimensions for extent at which the third rear wall portion is convexly-arched, including from about 2 millimeters to about 5 mm (claim 4), about 2 millimeters (claim 5), about 3 millimeters (claim 6), about 4 millimeters (claim 7) or about 5 millimeters (claim 8), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that:
a) Matys, which is within the molding insert art, teaches that for wall blocks molded in part through the use of an insert member (“partitions” (400)), the dimensions of particular wall portions of the partitions (including of convexly-arched portions) that translate into the molded wall blocks (Fig 23, Fig 31) are shown to influence the properties of the wall block, including its ability to mitigate compaction force, enable for lean to improve wall stability and resist lateral forces ([0103], [0104]), establishing the extent of the dimensions of the convexly-arched wall portion as a result effective variable;
b) it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP2144.05(II)); and
c) one would have been motivated to optimize the extent of which the third front wall portion is convexly arched for the purpose of mitigating compaction force, enabling lean and resisting lateral forces.
Regarding claim 11, modified Collinson teaches all limitations of claims 2-8 as set forth above. Additionally, Collinson teaches that at least one of the vertical first front wall portion, the rearwardly-oblique third front wall portion, the vertical first rear wall portion, and the rearwardly-oblique second rear wall portion, is planar (see Modified Collinson Fig 11 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights