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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, drawn to a method of finishing block products in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length is greater than 150 words (e.g. 161 words).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, ll. 1-2, consider amending to, -- The method of claim 2, wherein said trimming excess plaster material from the one or more sides of the block products includes trimming excess plaster material—
Claim 4, ll. 1-3, consider amending to, -- The method of claim 2, wherein said trimming excess plaster material from the one or more sides of the block products includes trimming excess plaster material from one or more long sides of [[the ]]rectangular-shaped block products.—
Claim 30, ll. 4, consider amending to, --the one or more plaster layers applied to the block surface, onto a conveyor;--
Claim 30, ll. 5, consider amending to, --conveying the plurality of intermediate block products to a coarse grinding zone or station configured--
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 6, 8, 10-12, 22, 24, 26, 30 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.
Claims 6, 8, 10, 22, 24, 26, and 30 all recite range(s) for a grit size, modified by the term “about” prior the claimed grit size (e.g. claim 6 recites “grit size of about 20-grit to about 35-grit”) which is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The Examiner refers to pp. [0107] in disclosure which recites “the terms ‘about’…may be taken to mean an amount, value or condition that deviates by less than 20%, less than 10%, less than 5%, less than 1%, less than 01%, or less than 0.01% of the stated amount” and therefore, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes and as best understood, each range is between the claimed values (e.g.. claim 6, --a grit size of
Claim 11 recites the limitation "cleaning the one or more plaster layers of the block products" in ll. 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the Examiner which plaster layer the cleaning is performed on, e.g. coarsely ground plaster layers, finely ground plaster layers, and/or polished plaster layers. As best understood from instant and for examination purposes, cleaning is performed following the polishing step (--cleaning the one or more polished plaster layers of the block products--).
Similarly, claim 12 recites the limitation "applying a seal or surface treatment to the one or more plaster layers of the block products" in ll. 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the Examiner which plaster layer the sealer is applied on, e.g. coarsely ground plaster layers, finely ground plaster layers, and/or polished plaster layers. As best understood from instant and for examination purposes, applying a sealer is performed following the polishing step (--applying a sealer or surface treatment to the one or more polished plaster layers of the block products--).
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 1-2, 6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US Patent No. 5,085,008) in view of Palermo (US Patent No. 7,591,967), Yoo (KR 100975395), and Zhao (CN 113715175).
Regarding claim 1, Jennings (US Patent No. 5,085,008) discloses a method (embodiment of fig. 7) of finishing block products (masonry block units 12 to finished block products 14; col. 19, ll. 64 through col. 20, ll. 19) having one or more plaster layers (block products 12 are concrete masonry units comprised of an aggregate and binder; col. 1, ll. 17-26 and col. 1, ll. 51-54), the method comprising:
providing a plurality of block products (defined as step of loading block products 12 via arms 88; col. 10, ll. 41-44 and col. 19, ll. 66-67; fig. 1), each comprising a block substrate (items 12; fig. 1) and one or more plaster layers on the block substrate;
coarsely grinding the one or more plaster layers of the block products (defined as first portion of abrasion treatment via cylinder 210a; col. 20, ll. 10-15; fig. 7) by a coarse grinding cylinder (item 210a; col. 19, ll. 21-25; fig. 7) to yield block products having one or more coarsely ground plaster layers (block products 12 following abrasion treatment via cylinder 210a are defined as coarsely ground block products);
grinding the one or more coarsely ground plaster layers of the block products (following the coarse grinding cylinder 210a, the block products define coarsely ground plaster layers to then be further treated via second grinding cylinder; fig. 7) by a grinding cylinder (item 210b; fig. 7).
Though Jennings discloses the second abrasion treatment performed on the coarsely ground plaster layers of the block products is through a cylinder roller (via cylinder 210b) having a synthetic diamond matrix (col. 19, ll. 20-25), Jennings does not explicitly disclose this is a fine grinding cylinder to finely grind the one or more coarsely ground plaster layers to yield block products having fine ground plaster layers. As stated in instant disclosure, a fine grinding cylinder or roller can have a grit size ranging from about 70-grit to about 85-grit (pp. [0095], fig. 10 in instant disclosure).
Therefore, Palermo (US Patent No. 7,591,967) teaches a method for a concrete floor comprising a coarse grind step (step 126; fig. 1) and a fine grind step (step 130, wherein the grinding media is a 50-120 grit range, corresponding to fine-grit range in instant disclosure) following the coarse grind step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the grinding cylinder (210b) of the second abrasion treatment, as disclosed in Jennings, to include a fine-grit range, as taught in Palermo, in order for the machine to function as intended and achieve a finely ground layer prior to the remaining steps.
Further, Jennings does not explicitly disclose a polishing step following the finely grinding step, wherein polishing the one or more finely ground plaster layers of the block by a polishing cylinder or roller to yield block products having one or more polished plaster layers.
However, Yoo (KR 100975395) discloses a method (pp. [0001]; figs. 1 and 5 embodiment) of finishing block products having one or more plaster layers (defined as cured block 1; pp. [0029] and [0036-0037]; figs. 4-5), wherein the method comprises grinding the one or more plaster layers (step 100, pp. [0064], via items 41; fig. 5) then polishing the ground plaster layers (step 300; figs. 1 and 5, pp. [0033], via item 30) to yield block products having polished plaster layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of finishing block products, as disclosed in Jennings, to further include a polishing step to polish the finely ground plaster layers, as disclosed to Yoo, in order to polish the plaster layer to form a non-slip function on the surface to prevent slipping without reducing the decorative beauty of the block surface (pp. [0047-0049] in Yoo).
Lastly, Yoo discloses the polishing step is performed via polishing cutter (item 31; fig. 5) and does not explicitly disclose a polishing cylinder to perform the polishing.
However, Zhao (CN 113715175) teaches a method and apparatus for block production (pp. [n0001]) wherein the apparatus includes conveying table (fig. 1) analogous to the conveying mechanism of Jennings and along the conveying table is a polishing component (item 4; fig. 1), wherein the polishing component is a polishing roller (item 4; fig. 2).
Both Yoo and Zhao disclose means to perform polishing on a block product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polishing cutter, as disclosed in Yoo, with the polishing roller, as taught in Zhao, to achieve the predictable result of polishing the surface of the block product and ensure the entire surface of the block product is polished.
Regarding claim 2, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising trimming excess plaster material from one or more sides of the block products (block products receive further abrasion treatment via grinders 242 following the grinding and polishing processes; fig. 7) to yield trimmed block products (col. 19, ll. 34-40; grinders 242 provide block products with architecturally decorate relief including curved corners, beveled edges, i.e. trimmed block products) wherein the trimming is performed by cutting grinders (items 242; fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 1. Though Jennings disclose wherein the coarse grinding cylinder (210a) is provided with a pattern of abrasive such as natural or synthetic diamonds, Jennings does not explicitly disclose the grit size of the coarse grinding cylinder, such as the coarse grinding cylinder having a grit size of about 20-grit to about 35-grit.
However, Palermo (US Patent No. 7,591,967) teaches a method for a concrete floor comprising a coarse grind step (step 126; fig. 1), wherein the coarse grind step utilizes a grinding medium of diamond or carborundum with a 10-24 grit range (col. 7, ll. 52-54).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the coarse grinding cylinder, as disclosed in Jennings, to include a coarse-grit range between 10-24, as disclosed in Palermo, in order for the machine to function as intended and achieve uniform decorative aggregate prior to the following step.
Second, Palermo teaches a grit range (10-24 grit) that overlaps with the claimed grit range (20-grit to 35-grit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the grit range from Palermo from between 10-24 to between 20-24 since it has been that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 1. Palermo, as modified in, teaches the fine grinding cylinder has a grit range (50-120 grit) that overlaps with the claimed grit range (70-grit to 85-grit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the grit range from Palermo from between 50-120 grit to between 70-85 grit since it has been that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 10, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, but is silent on the polishing cylinder grit size. However, Palermo further teaches the method for a concrete floor comprising a polishing step (item 138; fig. 1), wherein the polishing step follows the coarse grinding step and fine grinding step, and wherein the polishing step utilizes a polishing medium of carborundum with 120 grit or higher (co. 8, ll. 36-38).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the polishing grinding cylinder, as disclosed in Jennings as modified by Yoo and Zhao above, to include a polishing-grit range of 120 grit or higher, as disclosed in Palermo, in order for the machine to function as intended and achieve a smooth, polished surface having the decorative aggregate exposed (Palermo; col. 8, ll. 29-30).
Second, Palermo teaches a grit range (120 grit or higher, i.e. infinity) that overlaps with the claimed grit range (110-grit to 125-grit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the grit range from Palermo from between 120 grit or higher to between 120-125 grit since it has been that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 11, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising cleaning the block products (col. 19, ll. 41-48; the block products are cleaned via piping 148c and nozzles 254 to remove debris from the plaster layer surface; fig. 7) by air or water (col. 19, ll. 41-42, defined as fluid under pressure).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising applying a sealer or surface treatment to the one or more polished plaster layers of the block products.
However, Koo (KR 100975395) further discloses the method of finishing block products comprising a final coating step (item 500; fig. 1), wherein the coating step comprises applying a surface treatment (pp. [0033-0034]) to the polished block product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, as disclosed in Jennings as modified above, to include a final coating step to apply a surface treatment to the polished plaster layers of the block products, as taught in Koo, in order to make the surface appearance beautiful (pp. [0033] in Koo).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US Patent No. 5,085,008) in view of Palermo (US Patent No. 7,591,967), Yoo (KR 100975395), and Zhao (CN 113715175), and further in view of Homenish.com (referred to as “Homenish”; Cinder Block Dimensions - What You Need to Know – Homenish; https://www.homenish.com/cinder-block-dimensions/).
Regarding claim 3, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2. Though Jennings discloses the method of finishing block products (fig. 1) is capable of handling a wide variety of sizes of block products (col. 3, ll. 62-66), Jennings is silent on the exact dimensions of the block products such as having a long size and short side in order for trimming excess plaster material from the one side of the block products includes trimming excess plaster material from the short sides of rectangular-shaped block products.
Homenish (attached NPL) teaches standard cinder block dimensions, including 4-inch, 6-inch, 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch cinder blocks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the block product, as disclosed in Jennings, to be a hollow pier 4-inch block (3 5/8’’ x 15 5/8” x 3 5/8” ), wherein the short side is defined by the width (3 5/8”), as disclosed in Homenish, in order for the method to function as intended. In this case, the grinders trimming the curved corners (Jennings, col. 19, ll. 34-40) would trim both the longer and shorter sides.
Regarding claim 4, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, Jennings discloses the method of finishing block products (fig. 1) is capable of handling a wide variety of sizes of block products (col. 3, ll. 62-66), Jennings is silent on the exact dimensions of the block products such as having a long size and short side in order for trimming excess plaster material from the one side of the block products includes trimming excess plaster material from the long sides of rectangular-shaped block products.
Homenish (attached NPL) teaches standard cinder block dimensions, including 4-inch, 6-inch, 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch cinder blocks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the block product, as disclosed in Jennings, to be a hollow pier 4-inch block (3 5/8’’ x 15 5/8” x 3 5/8” ), wherein the long side is defined by the length (15 5/8”), as disclosed in Homenish, in order for the method to function as intended. In this case, the grinders trimming curved corners (Jennings, col. 19, ll. 34-40) would trim both the longer and shorter sides.
Claims 13, 21-24, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US Patent No. 5,085,008) in view of Palermo (US Patent No. 7,591,967), and Yoo (KR 100975395).
Regarding claim 13, Jennings (US Patent No. 5,085,008) discloses a method (embodiment of fig. 7) of finishing block products (masonry block units 12 to finished block products 14; col. 19, ll. 64 through col. 20, ll. 19) having one or more plaster layers (block products 12 are concrete masonry units comprised of an aggregate and binder; col. 1, ll. 17-26 and col. 1, ll. 51-54), the method comprising:
placing a plurality of intermediate block products (defined as step of loading block products 12 via arms 88; col. 10, ll. 41-44 and col. 19, ll. 66-67; fig. 1), each comprising a block substrate (items 12; fig. 1) having one or more plaster layers (block products 12 are concrete masonry units comprised of an aggregate and binder; col. 1, ll. 17-26 and col. 1, ll. 51-54);
conveying the intermediate block products (col. 20, ll. 4-11; block products 12 are conveyed into processing station 62) to a coarse grinding zone (defined as first zone, i.e. station, of abrasion treatment within processing station 62; col. 20, ll. 10-15; fig. 7) configured with coarse grinding apparatus (item 210a; col. 19, ll. 21-25; fig. 7), the coarse grinding apparatus coarsely grinding the plaster layer to yield block products having one or more coarsely ground plaster layers (block products 12 following abrasion treatment via cylinder 210a are defined as coarsely ground block products);
conveying the block products with one or more coarsely ground plaster layers (col. 20, ll. 4-11; block products are continuously conveyed through processing station 62, i.e. through first abrasion treatment then second abrasion treatment) to a grinding zone (defined as second zone, i.e. station, of second abrasion treatment; col. 19, ll. 26-30) configured with grinding apparatus (item 210b; fig. 7), the grinding apparatus grinding the one or more coarsely ground plaster layers to yield block products having ground plaster layers (following the coarse grinding cylinder 210a, the block products define coarsely ground plaster layers to then be further treated via second grinding cylinder 210b; fig. 7).
Though Jennings discloses the second abrasion treatment performed on the coarsely ground plaster layers of the block products is through a cylinder roller (via cylinder 210b) having a synthetic diamond matrix (col. 19, ll. 20-25), Jennings does not explicitly disclose the cylinder is a fine grinding cylinder to finely grind the one or more coarsely ground plaster layers to yield block products having finely ground plaster layers. As stated in instant disclosure, a fine grinding cylinder or roller can have a grit size ranging from about 70-grit to about 85-grit (pp. [0095], fig. 10 in instant disclosure).
Therefore, Palermo (US Patent No. 7,591,967) teaches a method for a concrete floor comprising a coarse grind step (step 126; fig. 1) and a fine grind step (step 130, wherein the grinding media is a 50-120 grit range, corresponding to fine-grit range in instant disclosure) following the coarse grind step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the grinding cylinder (210b) of the second abrasion treatment, as disclosed in Jennings, to include a fine-grit range, as taught in Palermo, in order for the machine to function as intended and achieve a finely ground layer prior to the remaining steps.
Further, Jennings does not explicitly disclose conveying the block products with one or more finely ground plaster layers to a polishing zone configured with a polishing apparatus, the polishing apparatus polishing the finely ground plaster layers to yield block products having polished plaster layers.
However, Yoo (KR 100975395) discloses a method (pp. [0001]; figs. 1 and 5 embodiment) of finishing block products having one or more plaster layers (defined as cured block 1; pp. [0029] and [0036-0037]; figs. 4-5), wherein the method comprises conveying the block product along a conveyor (item 10; figs. 4-6), conveying the block product to a grinding zone (step 100, pp. [0064], via items 41; fig. 5) then conveying the grinded block product to a polishing zone (step 300; figs. 1 and 5, pp. [0033], via item 30) having a polishing apparatus (item 30; fig. 5) to polish the grinded block products to yield block products having polished plaster layers (pp. [0033]; fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of finishing block products, as disclosed in Jennings, to further include conveying the finely ground block products to a polishing zone with polishing apparatus to polish the finely ground plaster layers, as disclosed to Yoo, in order to form a non-slip function on the surface to prevent slipping without reducing the decorative beauty of the block surface (pp. [0047-0049] in Yoo).
Regarding claim 21, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the coarse grinding apparatus comprises a coarse grinding cylinder (item 210a; col. 19, ll. 21-25; fig. 7).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 21. Though Jennings disclose wherein the coarse grinding cylinder is provided with a pattern of abrasive such as natural or synthetic diamonds, Jennings does not explicitly disclose the grit size of the coarse grinding cylinder, such as the coarse grinding cylinder having a grit size of 20-grit to 35-grit.
However, Palermo (US Patent No. 7,591,967) teaches a method for a concrete floor comprising a coarse grind step (step 126; fig. 1), wherein the coarse grind step utilizes a grinding medium of diamond or carborundum with a 10-24 grit range (col. 7, ll. 52-54).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the coarse grinding cylinder, as disclosed in Jennings, to include a coarse-grit range between 10-24, as disclosed in Palermo, in order for the machine to function as intended and achieve uniform decorative aggregate prior to the following step.
Second, Palermo teaches a grit range (10-24 grit) that overlaps with the claimed grit range (20-grit to 35-grit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the grit range from Palermo from between 10-24 to between 20-24 since it has been that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 23, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the fine grinding apparatus comprises a fine grinding cylinder (item 210b, as modified above in Palermo to a fine-grit cylinder; fig. 7 in Jennings).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 23. Palermo, as modified in above, teaches the fine grinding cylinder has a grit range (50-120 grit) that overlaps with the claimed grit range (70-grit to 85-grit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the grit range from Palermo from between 50-120 grit to between 70-85 grit since it has been that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 27, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 21. Though Jennings discloses conveying the block product (col. 20, ll. 4-11, blocks 12 are continuously conveyed through processing station 62) to a cleaning zone (col. 19, ll. 41-48; the block products are cleaned via piping 148c and nozzles 254 to remove debris from the plaster layer surface; fig. 7) configured with a cleaning apparatus (defined as nozzles 254) to clean the block products with compressed air or water to remove dust or debris from the surface (col. 19, ll. 41-48; fig. 7), Jennings does not explicitly disclose wherein the blocks with one or more polished plaster layers are conveyed to a cleaning zone to remove dust or debris from the polished plaster layer and yield block products having one or more cleaned plaster layers.
However, the embodiment of fig. 6 in Jennings teaches a method of finishing block products wherein a cleaning zone (end of conveyor in which nozzles 128 are directed to; fig. 6) is provided following all abrasion treatment(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of finishing the block products, as disclosed in embodiment of fig. 7 in Jennings, to arrange the cleaning zone following the abrasion treatment(s), including the polishing zone (as modified in from Yoo above), as taught in embodiment of fig. 6 in Jennings, in order to cool the block product and remove cuttings therefrom to prevent impact on the surface in the remaining process (Jennings; col. 18, ll. 45-68).
Regarding claim 28, as best understood, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 27, but does not explicitly disclose further conveying the block products with cleaned plaster layers to a surface treatment zone configured with surface treatment apparatus applying a surface treatment composition to the cleaned plaster layers of the block products.
However, Koo (KR 100975395) discloses a method (pp. [0001]; fig. 1) of finishing block products, wherein the method comprises a grinding step (item 100; fig. 1), a cooling step (item 200; pp. [0058]; fig. 1), a polishing step (item 300; fig. 1), and a final coating step (item 500; fig. 1), wherein the coating step comprises applying a surface treatment composition to the surface of the block product (pp. [0033-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, as disclosed in Jennings as modified above, to convey the cleaned block products to a final coating step to apply a surface treatment to the cleaned plaster layers of the block products, as taught in Koo, in order to make the surface appearance beautiful (pp. [0033] in Koo).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings, Palermo, and Yoo as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zhao (CN 113715175).
Regarding claim 25, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 13. Yoo, as modified in above, discloses the polishing step is performed via polishing cutter (item 31; fig. 5) and does not explicitly disclose a polishing cylinder to perform the polishing.
However, Zhao (CN 113715175) teaches a method and apparatus for block production (pp. [n0001]) wherein the apparatus includes conveying table (fig. 1) analogous to the conveying mechanism of Jennings and along the conveying table is a polishing component (item 4; fig. 1), wherein the polishing component is a polishing roller (item 4; fig. 2).
Both Yoo and Zhao disclose means to perform polishing on a block product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polishing cutter, as disclosed in Yoo, with the polishing roller, as taught in Zhao, to achieve the predictable result of polishing the surface of the block product and ensure the entire surface of the block product is polished.
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 25, but is silent on the polishing cylinder having a grit size of 110-grit to 125-grit. However, Palermo further teaches the method for a concrete floor comprising a polishing step (item 138; fig. 1), wherein the polishing step follows the coarse grinding step and fine grinding step, and wherein the polishing step utilizes a polishing medium of carborundum with 120 grit or higher (co. 8, ll. 36-38).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the polishing grinding cylinder, as disclosed in Jennings as modified by Yoo and Zhao above, to include a polishing-grit range of 120 grit or higher, as disclosed in Palermo, in order for the machine to function as intended and achieve a smooth, polished surface having the decorative aggregate exposed (Palermo; col. 8, ll. 29-30).
Second, Palermo teaches a grit range (120 grit or higher, i.e. infinity) that overlaps with the claimed grit range (110-grit to 125-grit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the grit range from Palermo from between 120 grit or higher to between 120-125 grit since it has been that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings, Palermo, and Yoo as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Mizer (US Patent No. 3,213,510).
Regarding claim 29, Jennings as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 13. Though Jennings discloses a trimming zone (via grinders 242; col. 19, ll. 34-40; fig. 7), the trimming zone is configured following the abrasion treatment(s), i.e. grinding and polishing steps, and therefore, does not explicitly disclose further comprising conveying the intermediate block products to a trimming zone or station configured with trimming apparatus prior to conveying the intermediate block products to the coarse grinding zone, the trimming apparatus trimming excess plaster material from at least two sides of the block products to yield trimmed block products.
However, Mizer (US Patent No. 3,213,510) teaches a block finishing machine and method (figs. 1-2), wherein the method comprises conveying a plurality of intermediate block products (items 41; figs. 1-2) along conveyor (item 20; fig. 1) to a trimming zone (defined as zone passing into frame 62 and at first rollers 68, prior to grinding rollers 98; fig. 1) prior to conveying the intermediate block products to a grinding zone (trimming rollers 68 are prior to grinding rollers 98; fig. 1), the trimming zone configured with a trimming apparatus (defined as roller 84; fig. 5) for trimming excess plaster material (defined as material 94 in view of fig. 3) from at least two sides (left and right sides of block product in view of fig. 3) of the block products to yield trimmed block products (fig. 4).
Both Jennings and Mizer disclose means to trim excess plaster material from the corners and edges of the block products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the trimming zone following the abrasion treatment(s), as disclosed in Jennings, with the trimming zone prior to the abrasion treatments, as taught in Mizer, to achieve the predictable result of providing the block products with an architecturally decorate relief including curved corners and/or beveled edges and further, create uniformity around the edges (Mizer; col. 4, ll. 73 through col. 5, ll. 5).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US Patent No. 5,085,008) in view of Palermo (US Patent No. 7,591,967), Yoo (KR 100975395), and Zhao (CN 113715175).
Regarding claim 30, as best understood, Jennings (US Patent No. 5,085,008) discloses a method (embodiment of fig. 7) of finishing block products (masonry block units 12 to finished block products 14; col. 19, ll. 64 through col. 20, ll. 19) having one or more plaster layers (block products 12 are concrete masonry units comprised of an aggregate and binder; col. 1, ll. 17-26 and col. 1, ll. 51-54), the method comprising:
placing a plurality of intermediate block products (defined as step of loading block products 12 via arms 88; col. 10, ll. 41-44 and col. 19, ll. 66-67; fig. 1), each comprising a block substrate (items 12; fig. 1) and one or more plaster layers on the block substrate (block products 12 are concrete masonry units comprised of an aggregate and binder; col. 1, ll. 17-26 and col. 1, ll. 51-54), onto a conveyor (item 34; fig. 1; col. 19, ll. 64-67);
conveying the intermediate block products (col. 20, ll. 4-11; block products 12 are conveyed into processing station 62) to a coarse grinding zone (defined as first zone, i.e. station, of abrasion treatment within processing station 62; col. 20, ll. 10-15; fig. 7) configured with a coarse grinding cylinder (item 210a; col. 19, ll. 21-25; fig. 7), the coarse grinding cylinder coarsely grinding the plaster layer to yield block products having one or more coarsely ground plaster layers (block products 12 following abrasion treatment via cylinder 210a are defined as coarsely ground block products);
conveying the block products with one or more coarsely ground plaster layers (col. 20, ll. 4-11; block products are continuously conveyed through processing station 62, i.e. through first abrasion treatment then second abrasion treatment) to a grinding zone (defined as second zone, i.e. station, of second abrasion treatment; col. 19, ll. 26-30) configured with a grinding cylinder (item 210b; fig. 7), the grinding cylinder grinding the one or more coarsely ground plaster layers to yield block products having ground plaster layers (following the coarse grinding cylinder 210a, the block products define coarsely ground plaster layers to then be further treated via second grinding cylinder 210b; fig. 7).
First, Jennings does not explicitly disclose conveying the block products with one or more finely ground plaster layers to a polishing zone configured with a polishing apparatus, the polishing apparatus polishing the finely ground plaster layers to yield block products having polished plaster layers.
However, Yoo (KR 100975395) discloses a method (pp. [0001]; figs. 1 and 5 embodiment) of finishing block products having one or more plaster layers (defined as cured block 1; pp. [0029] and [0036-0037]; figs. 4-5), wherein the method comprises conveying the block product along a conveyor (item 10; figs. 4-6), conveying the block product to a grinding zone (step 100, pp. [0064], via items 41; fig. 5) then conveying the grinded block product to a polishing zone (step 300; figs. 1 and 5, pp. [0033], via item 30) having a polishing apparatus (item 30; fig. 5) to polish the grinded block products to yield block products having polished plaster layers (pp. [0033]; fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of finishing block products, as disclosed in Jennings, to further include conveying the finely ground block products to a polishing zone with polishing apparatus to polish the finely ground plaster layers, as disclosed to Yoo, in order to form a non-slip function on the surface to prevents slipping without reducing the decorative beauty of the block surface (pp. [0047-0049] in Yoo).
Additionally, Yoo discloses the polishing step is performed via polishing cutter (item 31; fig. 5) and does not explicitly disclose a polishing cylinder to perform the polishing.
However, Zhao (CN 113715175) teaches a method and apparatus for block production (pp. [n0001]) wherein the apparatus includes conveying table (fig. 1) analogous to the conveying mechanism of Jennings and along the conveying table is a polishing component (item 4; fig. 1), wherein the polishing component is a polishing roller (item 4; fig. 2).
Both Yoo and Zhao disclose means to perform polishing on a block product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polishing cutter, as disclosed in Yoo, with the polishing roller, as taught in Zhao, to achieve the predictable result of polishing the surface of the block product and ensure the entire surface of the block product is polished.
Second, though Jennings discloses conveying the block product (col. 20, ll. 4-11, blocks 12 are continuously convey through processing station 62) to a cleaning zone (col. 19, ll. 41-48; the block products are cleaned via piping 148c and nozzles 254 to remove debris from the plaster layer surface; fig. 7) configured with a cleaning apparatus (defined as nozzles 254) to clean the block products with compressed air or water to remove dust or debris from the surface (col. 19, ll. 41-48; fig. 7), Jennings does not explicitly disclose wherein the blocks with one or more polished plaster layers are conveyed to a cleaning zone to remove dust or debris from the polished plaster layer and yield block products having one or more cleaned plaster layers.
However, the embodiment of fig. 6 in Jennings teaches a method of finishing block products wherein a cleaning zone (end of conveyor in which nozzles 128 are directed to; fig. 6) is provided following all abrasion treatment(s). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of finishing block products, as disclosed in embodiment of fig. 7 in Jennings, to arrange the cleaning zone following the abrasion treatment(s), including the polishing zone (as modified in from Yoo above), as taught in embodiment of fig. 6 in Jennings, in order to cool the block product and remove cuttings therefrom to prevent impact on the surface in the remaining processes (Jennings; col. 18, ll. 45-68).
Third, Jennings does not explicitly disclose further conveying the block products with one or more cleaned plaster layers to a surface treatment zone configured with a surface treatment apparatus applying a surface treatment composition to the cleaned plaster layers of the block products.
However, Koo (KR 100975395) further discloses a final coating step (item 500; fig. 1), wherein the coating step comprises applying a surface treatment composition to the ground, polished, then cleaned layer of the block product (pp. [0033-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, as disclosed in Jennings as modified above, to convey the cleaned block products to a final coating step to apply a surface treatment to the cleaned plaster layers of the block products, as taught in Koo, in order to make the surface appearance beautiful (pp. [0033] in Koo).
Lastly, though Jennings disclose wherein the coarse grinding cylinder is provided with a pattern of abrasive such as natural or synthetic diamonds, Jennings does not explicitly disclose the grit size of the coarse grinding cylinder, such as the coarse grinding cylinder having a grit size of 20-grit to 35-grit; further, though Jennings discloses the second abrasion treatment performed on the coarsely ground plaster layers of the block products is through a cylinder roller (via cylinder 210b) having a synthetic diamond matrix (col. 19, ll. 20-25), Jennings does not explicitly disclose the cylinder is a fine grinding cylinder to finely grind the one or more coarsely ground plaster layers to yield block products having finely ground plaster layers. As further recited in the claim, a fine grinding cylinder or roller has a grit size ranging from 70-grit to 85-grit (pp. [0095], fig. 10 in instant disclosure); and further, Jennings as modified above is silent on the polishing cylinder having a grit size of 110-grit to 125-grit.
However, Palermo (US Patent No. 7,591,967) teaches a method for a concrete floor comprising a coarse grind step (step 126; fig. 1), wherein the coarse grind step utilizes a grinding medium of diamond or carborundum with a 10-24 grit range (col. 7, ll. 52-54), and a fine grind step (step 130; fig. 1) following the coarse grind step, wherein the fine grind step utilizes a grinding medium with a 50-120 grit range (col. 7, ll. 66 through col. 8, ll. 1), and a polishing step (item 138; fig. 1), wherein the polishing step follows the coarse grinding step and fine grinding step, and wherein the polishing step utilizes a polishing medium of carborundum with 120 grit or higher (co. 8, ll. 36-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the coarse grinding cylinder, the second grinding cylinder, and the polishing cylinder, as disclosed in Jennings as modified by Yoo, to include a coarse-grit range between 10-24, a fine-grit range between 50-120, and a polishing-grit range of 120 grit or higher, as disclosed in Palermo, in order for the machine to function as intended, achieve uniform decorative aggregate during grinding, and achieve a smooth, polished surface having the decorative aggregate exposed (Palermo; col. 8, ll. 29-30).
Further, Palermo teaches a coarse cylinder grit range (10-24 grit) that overlaps with the claimed coarse cylinder grit range (20-grit to 35-grit) and a fine cylinder grit range (50-120 grit) that overlaps with the claimed fine cylinder grit range (70-grit to 85-grit) and a polishing-grit range (120 grit or higher) that overlaps with the claimed polishing grit range (110-grit to 125-grit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the coarse cylinder grit range from Palermo from between 10-24 to between 20-24 and, select the fine cylinder grit range from between 50-120 to between 70-85, and further, to select the polishing grit range from between 120 grit or higher to between 120-125 grit since it has been that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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 Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. 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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights