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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response on 6/1/26 has resolved the previously presented drawing objections and some of the 112(b) rejection(s). Those which have not been resolved are discussed and presented again below.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 (as amended) and claim 4, and now claim 24, for recitations of a relationship to an “imaginary” feature. Applicant asserts that the term does not render the claim unclear or unambiguous because it is merely used as a reference geometry. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that the recitation of an “imaginary curved frustum or curved truncated cone” is not a specific reference geometric shape. But it encompasses infinitely many variations such as in in its relative dimensions. It is further noted that applicant’s own arguments regarding the prior art appear to emphasize the ability of the prior art to ‘at least partially conform’ to this imaginary feature. As explained below, the examiner believes that the prior art is capable of conforming to this imaginary feature, applicant asserts it does not. It appears that applicant has a conception of what this imaginary feature must possess which is not clear when considered in view of the specification and the prosecution record. The examiner respectfully maintains that the limitation in question is indefinite.
Regarding the prior art rejection, applicant assets that the third region of Gooden is not “a convex transition region” that “at least partially conforms to a lateral surface of an imaginary curved frustum or curved truncated cone”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears that applicant has a narrower review as to where the “convex” portion of the region must exists or a particular view of the “generally convex region”. Convex is defined as, “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle”, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convex. The conical shape of element 52 certainly has a “curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle” when viewed cross-sectionally and this broadly and reasonably constitutes a “generally convex region” which is able to at least partially conform to/fit an “imaginary” feature (such as a conical structure of slightly larger size). Applicant is also directed to Fig 9 in which the cells 50 are stacked within/conform to other conically shaped cells 50.
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, 3-15, 18, and 21-24 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 1, 4, and 24 recite structural particulars of the claimed module in relation to an “imaginary” feature. It is not clear what exactly these structural particulars require. As discussed in the response to arguments, and not repeated again here in its entirely, the recitation of an “imaginary curved frustum or curved truncated cone” is not a specific reference geometric shape. It encompasses infinitely many variations such as in in its relative dimensions. It is further noted that applicant’s own arguments regarding the prior art appear to emphasize the ability of the prior art to ‘at least partially conform’ to this imaginary feature, which renders it unclear what is required of the recitation.
Dependent claims 3-15, 18, and 21-23 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim and/or otherwise containing the problematic claim language.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-15, 18, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gooden (US 20150284914 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gooden teaches a void forming module, the module including a support surface (Fig 4, surface when viewed from the top) including:
a first generally planar upper region (Fig 4, upper planar region/face 51),
a second generally planar lower region (Fig 4, bottom planar region/face at bottom face of 52), and
a third generally convex region joining the first region and the second region (Fig 4, 52, convex region), wherein the third region of the support surface at least partially conforms to a lateral surface of an imaginary curved frustum or curved truncated cone (Fig 4, 52 could fit into and conform to a larger sized “imaginary” cone, please see discussion in response to arguments above which is not repeated here for the sake of argument);
wherein at least one of the first region, the second region, and/or the third region includes at least one aperture for the passage of fluid through the void forming module (Fig 4, central opening for drainage seen through 52, through the top plane extending to the bottom).
Regarding claim 3, Gooden teaches wherein the module further includes a void forming surface (Fig 4, surface when viewed from the bottom; please note this is consistent with applicant’s specification) including:
a first generally planar upper region (Fig 4, upper planar region/face 51),
a second generally planar lower region (Fig 4, bottom planar region/face at bottom face of 52), and
a third generally concave region joining the first region and the second region (Fig 4, 52, convex region);
wherein the module provides a void between the first region of the void forming surface and the second region of the void forming surface (Fig 4, void between 52).
Regarding claim 4, Gooden teaches wherein the third region of the void forming surface at least partially conforms to a lateral surface of an imaginary curved frustum or curved truncated cone (Fig 4, 52 could fit into and conform to a larger sized “imaginary” cone, please see discussion in response to arguments above which is not repeated here for the sake of argument).
Regarding claim 5, Gooden teaches wherein the second region of the support surface is generally circular (Fig 1, 4, circular surface seen).
Regarding claim 6, Gooden teaches wherein the third region of the support surface meets the first region of the support surface at a generally circular edge (Fig 4, meet at circular edge/meeting of 51 and 52).
Regarding claim 7, Gooden teaches wherein the second region of the void forming surface is generally circular (Fig 4, bottom planar region/face at bottom face of 52 is circular).
Regarding claim 8, Gooden teaches wherein the third region of the void forming surface meets the first region of the void forming surface at a generally circular edge (Fig 4, bottom planar region/face at bottom face of 52 is generally circular).
Regarding claim 9, Gooden teaches further including a strengthening formation supporting the third region of the support surface and/or the first region of the support surface (Fig 4, strengthening feature 53 at the first region).
Regarding claim 10, Gooden teaches wherein the strengthening formation is or includes a fillet, protrusion, rib, and/or fin (Fig 4, 53 is a protrusion).
Regarding claim 12, Gooden teaches wherein the second region of the support surface and the second region of the void forming surface is or includes a grid having apertures being at least one of the at least one apertures (Fig 4, note, the regions may be defined to include a plurality of legs, resulting in a plurality of apertures in a grid, one of which is the at least one aperture).
Regarding claim 13, Gooden teaches wherein the third region of the support surface and the third region of the void forming surface includes at least one aperture of the at least one apertures (Fig 4, central opening for drainage seen through 52, this includes the at least one aperture).
Regarding claim 14, Gooden teaches wherein the first region of the support surface and the first region of the void forming surface includes at least one aperture of the at least one apertures (Fig 4, central opening for drainage seen through 52, this includes the at least one aperture).
Regarding claim 15, Gooden teaches wherein the support surface further includes: a plurality of further second generally planar lower regions, and a plurality of third generally convex regions joining the first region and the further second regions (Fig 4, plurality of the structures seen, see how they are each mapped in claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Gooden teaches wherein the void forming surface further includes: a plurality of further second generally planar lower regions, and a plurality of third generally concave regions joining the first region and the further second regions (Fig 4, plurality of the structures seen, see how they are each mapped in claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, Gooden teaches including a mating formation adapted to mate with a mating formation of another corresponding module (Fig 4, mating formation 53).
Regarding claim 22, Gooden teaches a structure comprising at least one or more material parts (Fig 7-8, part 54) and a void forming module according to any preceding claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, Gooden teaches further including a permeable or impermeable subbase layer or base course layer supported by the first, second, and/or third regions of the support surface (Fig 12, layer 205, see Para 0166).
Regarding claim 24, Gooden teaches a method of preparing a structure including: providing a void forming module (see following elements), the module including a support surface including:
a first generally planar upper region (Fig 4, upper planar region/face 51),
a second generally planar lower region (Fig 4, bottom planar region/face at bottom face of 52), and
a third generally convex region joining the first region and the second region (Fig 4, 52, convex region), wherein the third region of the support surface at least partially conforms to a lateral surface of an imaginary curved frustum or curved truncated cone (Fig 4, 52 could fit into and conform to a larger sized “imaginary” cone, please see discussion in response to arguments above which is not repeated here for the sake of argument);
wherein at least one of the first region, the second region, and/or the third region includes at least one aperture for the passage of fluid through the void forming module (Fig 4, central opening for drainage seen through 52, through the top plane extending to the bottom, see also Para 0001), and providing a permeable or impermeable subbase layer or base course on the first, second, and/or third regions of the support surface (Fig 12, layer 205, see Para 0166).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooden (US 20150284914 A1), in view of Canney (US 20120255624 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Gooden teaches further includes a void forming surface (Fig 4, surface when viewed from the bottom; please note this is consistent with applicant’s specification) including:
a first generally planar upper region (Fig 4, upper planar region/face 51),
a second generally planar lower region (Fig 4, bottom planar region/face at bottom face of 52), and
a third generally concave region joining the first region and the second region (Fig 4, 52, convex region); wherein the module provides a void between the first region of the void forming surface and the second region of the void forming surface (Fig 4, void between 52); and
Gooden is silent on wherein the strengthening formation extends from the second region of the void forming surface to the first region of the void forming surface.
Canney teaches a strengthening formation extends from the second region of the void forming surface to the first region of the void forming surface (Fig 20-21, feature 26).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Gooden by having the strengthening formation and its particulars as disclosed by Canney because it allows for “significantly increased stability results in particular against transverse loads and against buckling, respectively, bending” (Para 0063).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights