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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1, 3-10 and 18-22, as amended 01 DEC. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 DEC. 25 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 8 ln. 2: after “about 5 to 15” replace “weight%” with --weight %--
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.
Claim 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 18-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 1 ln. 20, Cl. 18 ln. 15, and Cl. 19 ln. 13: the recitation(s) of “said coupling agent” is vague, indefinite, and confusing having not been heretofore introduced. It is suggested to replace “said” with --a-- in this phrase and the claims have been interpreted as such.
Cl. 20 ln. 2, Cl. 21 ln. 2 and Cl. 22 ln. 2: the phrase “a coupling agent” is vague indefinite and confusing as being unclear if this is in addition to the previously introduced “coupling agent”. It is suggested to replace “a” with --said-- in these claims and these have been interpreted as such.
Further, after “coupling agent,” it is suggested to insert --and-- and the claims have been interpreted as such, and after “said coupling agent” replace “comprising” with --comprises--.
Claims 3-5 and 7-10 though not particularly referenced in this section are nonetheless rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
CLAIMS PRESENTED BELOW IN HIERARCHICAL ORDER
Claim 1, 21, 18, 22, 19, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graniglia US 20170268226 A1 in view of Kinmount et al. US 20150175763 A1 (Kinmount) and Au et al. US 7765759 B2 (Au).
As per claim 1 Graniglia teaches a segmented composite (see “The blocks of the present invention… may be… plastic conglomerates” [0054]) construction block comprising:
a plurality of segments (full block 102, half block 104, FIG. 1; also full block 408, half block 406, FIG. 10), each segment (full block 102, half block 104, FIG. 1, 10) having a segment length,
a segment width equal to the segment length (see width equal to length, as broadly claimed FIG. 10), a first open end (top, FIG. 1, 10), a second open end (bottom, FIG. 1, 10) opposite the first open end, and an interior (see “interior”, FIG. 1, 10);
interlocking features (see “lip” extending upwards from slot 120 and groove 116, FIG. 1, 10) located along the first and second open ends of each segment,
the segmented composite construction block configured to interlock with adjacent blocks horizontally, vertically and orthogonally (see “the blocks may be connected both horizontally… as well as vertically” [0056]),
wherein the interlocking features of each segment (full block 102, half block 104, FIG. 1, 10) comprises a male lip (see “lip” extending upwards from slot 120 and groove 116, FIG. 1, 10) and a female inset (see “fitting the footing of one block into the groove of another block” abstract ln. 6; note “inset” at groove 116, FIG. 1), and
wherein the male lip (see “lip” extending upwards from slot 120 and groove 116, FIG. 1, 10) comprises a thickness that is equal to a dimension of the female inset (see “footings 114 fit into grooves 116” [0032]; note “inset” at groove 116, FIG. 1; these are recognized as “thickness…equal” as broadly claimed);
wherein the segmented composite construction block comprises a composite material (see “The blocks of the present invention… may be… plastic conglomerates” [0054]), but fails to explicitly disclose:
between 30% and 70% by weight of at least one of rice hulls and hemp fiber; and
a thermoplastic material, said thermoplastic material comprising at least one of polypropylene and polyethylene; and
wherein said composite material comprises less than 5% by weight of [[said]] --a-- coupling agent and less than 70% of said thermoplastic material.
Kinmount teaches a recycled polymer as claimed, specifically:
between 30% and 70% by weight of at least one of rice hulls and hemp fiber (“TABLE-US-00001 Component % by Weight Rice husk 58.5” [0082])
a thermoplastic material, said thermoplastic material comprising at least one of polypropylene and polyethylene (“polymer includes a thermoplastic material… polyethylene” [0037]); and
wherein said composite material comprises less than 70% of said thermoplastic material (see “TABLE-US-00001 Component % by Weight… High density polyethylene 32.5” [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Graniglia by substituting thermoplastic comprising an amount of the protective coverings of rice grains used as an additive to thermoplastic as taught by Kinmount in order to reduce the weight and reduce the environmental impact of the blocks.
Au teaches such a coupling agent, specifically
wherein said composite material comprises less than 5% by weight (“set-retarders… additives are typically present… 0.1 to 3 weight percent” 13:4) of [[said]] --a-- coupling agent (“maleic acid” [13:50]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount by including the maleic acid as a set-retarder at less than 5% by weight as taught by Au in order to enhance the compatibility and adhesion between the composite materials.
As per claim 21 Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Au further discloses the segmented composite construction block comprises a composite material comprising [[a]] --said-- coupling agent, --and-- said coupling agent [[comprising]] --comprises-- maleic acid grafted polymer (“maleic acid” [13:50]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au by including the maleic acid as taught by Au in order to enhance the compatibility and adhesion between the composite materials, thereby improving effective load transfer and overall performance.
As per claim 18, Graniglia teaches an assembly (“MODULAR INTERLOCKING BLOCKS”, title) comprising:
a first composite construction block including at least one segment (full block 102, half block 104, FIG. 1, 10) comprising a lip (see “lip” extending upwards from slot 120 and groove 116, FIG. 1, 10) formed at an end of the at least one segment; and
a second composite construction block including at least one segment (full block 102, half block 104, FIG. 1, 10) comprising an inset formed at an end of the at least one segment (full block 102, half block 104, FIG. 1, 10) of the second composite construction block; and
wherein the lip (see “lip” extending upwards from slot 120 and groove 116, FIG. 1, 10)is configured to fit within the inset and wherein a thickness of the lip (see “lip” extending upwards from slot 120 and groove 116, FIG. 1, 10)is equal to a dimension of the inset (see “footings 114 fit into grooves 116” [0032]; note “inset” at groove 116, FIG. 1);
wherein each of the first and second composite construction blocks comprise a composite material (see “The blocks of the present invention… may be… plastic conglomerates” [0054]) , but fails to explicitly disclose:
between 30% and 70% by weight of at least one of rice hulls and hemp fiber; and
a thermoplastic material, said thermoplastic material comprising high density polyethylene; and
wherein said composite material comprises less than 5% by weight of [[said]] --a-- coupling agent and less than 70% of said thermoplastic material.
Kinmount teaches a recycled polymer as claimed, specifically:
between 30% and 70% by weight of at least one of rice hulls and hemp fiber (“TABLE-US-00001 Component % by Weight Rice husk 58.5” [0082]); and
a thermoplastic material, said thermoplastic material comprising high density polyethylene (“polymer includes a thermoplastic material… polyethylene” [0037]); and
wherein said composite material comprises less than 70% of said thermoplastic material (see “TABLE-US-00001 Component % by Weight… High density polyethylene 32.5” [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Graniglia by substituting thermoplastic comprising an amount of the protective coverings of rice grains used as an additive to thermoplastic as taught by Kinmount in order to reduce the weight and reduce the environmental impact of the blocks.
Au teaches such a coupling agent, specifically
wherein said composite material comprises less than 5% by weight (“set-retarders… additives are typically present… 0.1 to 3 weight percent” 13:4) of [[said]] --a-- coupling agent (“maleic acid” [13:50]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount by including the maleic acid as a set-retarder at less than 5% by weight as taught by Au in order to enhance the compatibility and adhesion between the composite materials.
As per claim 22 Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au teaches the limitations according to claim 18 and Au further discloses each of the first and second composite construction blocks comprise a composite material comprising [[a]] --said-- coupling agent, --and-- said coupling agent [[comprising]] --comprises-- maleic acid grafted polymer (“maleic acid” [13:50]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au by including the maleic acid as taught by Au in order to enhance the compatibility and adhesion between the composite materials, thereby improving effective load transfer and overall performance.
As per claim 19 Graniglia teaches a composite construction block comprising at least one segment, the at least one segment (full block 102, half block 104, FIG. 1, 10) comprising:
a plurality of walls connected to one another and forming a first end, a second end opposite the first end, and an interior (see “interior”, FIG. 1, 10);
a lip (see “lip” extending upwards from slot 120 and groove 116, FIG. 1, 10) formed along the plurality of walls at the first end; and
an inset (see “inset” at groove 116, FIG. 1) formed along interior surfaces of the plurality of walls at the second end;
wherein the lip (see “lip” extending upwards from slot 120 and groove 116, FIG. 1, 10) comprises a thickness that is equal to a dimension of the inset (see “footings 114 fit into grooves 116” [0032]; note “inset” at groove 116, FIG. 1); and
wherein the composite construction block comprises a composite material (see “The blocks of the present invention… may be… plastic conglomerates” [0054]), but fails to explicitly disclose:
between 30% and 70% by weight of at least one of rice hulls and hemp fiber; and
a thermoplastic material, said thermoplastic material comprising high density polyethylene; and
wherein said composite material comprises less than 5% by weight of said coupling agent and less than 70% of said thermoplastic material.
Kinmount teaches a recycled polymer as claimed, specifically:
between 30% and 70% by weight of at least one of rice hulls and hemp fiber (“TABLE-US-00001 Component % by Weight Rice husk 58.5” [0082]); and
a thermoplastic material, said thermoplastic material comprising high density polyethylene (“polymer includes a thermoplastic material… polyethylene” [0037]); and
wherein said composite material comprises less than 70% of said thermoplastic material (see “TABLE-US-00001 Component % by Weight… High density polyethylene 32.5” [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount by including the maleic acid as a set-retarder at less than 5% by weight as taught by Au in order to enhance the compatibility and adhesion between the composite materials.
As per claim 20 Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au teaches the limitations according to claim 19, and Au further discloses wherein the composite construction block comprises a composite material comprising [[a]] --said-- coupling agent, --and-- said coupling agent [[comprising]] --comprises-- maleic acid grafted polymer (“maleic acid” [13:50]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au by including the maleic acid as taught by Au in order to enhance the compatibility and adhesion between the composite materials, thereby improving effective load transfer and overall performance.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balthes US 20030162461 A1
As per claim 3 Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
about 50 weight % hemp fiber.
Balthes teaches a laminate with hemp additive, specifically:
about 50 weight % hemp fiber. (“50 weight percent hemp” [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au by including the hemp as taught by Balthes in order to enhance strength and durability of the members.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Pieri et al. US 5471808 A (De Pieri).
As per claim 4 Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au Blumer teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein there are indications for drilling holes through the lips and insets.
De Pieri teaches such indications, specifically:
wherein there are indications (see “guiding notches for guiding an appropriate tool adapted to drill holes” Cl. 15) for drilling holes through the lips and insets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au by including the guiding notches at drilling locations —including through lips and insets— as taught by De Pieri in order to assist an assembler with assembly.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Logan et al. US 20100183840 A1 (Logan).
As per claim 5 Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
a metal wire or synthetic fiber mesh is molded into the exterior surface of the block.
Logan teaches incorporation of fiber mesh into the exterior surface of the block, specifically:
a metal wire or synthetic fiber mesh is molded into the exterior surface of the block (“The siding members 12, 12a can include a reinforcement material 50, such as but not limited to fibers, scrims, netting, meshes” [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au by including the meshes —including into an exterior surface— as taught by Logan in order to selectively reinforce the block. It would be obvious to reinforce the exterior surface where impact would be most likely.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Torres-Aranda, JR. US 20130015389 A1 (Torres).
As per claim 7 Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the composite material comprises about 5 to 20 weight % glass cenospheres.
Torres teaches such additives, specifically:
wherein the composite material comprises about 5 to 20 weight % glass cenospheres (“the cenospheres are present from about 5 percent to about 70 percent by weight of the composition.” claim 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au by including the glass cenospheres in an amount of about 5 percent as taught by Torres in order to reduce weight and improve strength.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. US 8904732 B2 (Chen).
As per claim 8 Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the composite material comprises about 5 to 15 [[weight%]] --weight %-- silica.
Chen teaches such a composition, specifically:
wherein the composite material comprises about 5 to 15 [[weight%]] --weight %-- silica (see “silica fume, fly ash, slag, clay, as examples including various combinations thereof. The siliceous source in the formulation is generally about 10 wt. %” 16:41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au by including the silica fume in the amounts claimed as taught by Chen in order to increase strength and durability.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zacarias et al. US 10414140 B2 (Zacarias).
As per claim 9 Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
the composite material comprises about 0.5 to 5 weight % thermoplastic elastomer.
Zacarias teaches such an obvious additive, specifically:
the composite material comprises about 0.5 to 5 weight % thermoplastic elastomer (see “elastomer” 2:42 and “from about 5 wt % to about 40 wt % of a thermoplastic resin” 2:50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au by including the thermoplastic resin as taught by Zacarias in order to increase the strength and stiffness.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CHIANESE US 20200283608 A1 (Chianese).
As per claim 10 Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the composite material comprises up to about 4 weight % un-melted thermoplastic film components.
Chianese teaches such un-melted, or scrap polymer, specifically:
wherein the thermoplastic composite comprises up to about 4 weight % un-melted thermoplastic film components (see “from 0% to 20% by weight of crosslinked waste polyurethane” [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Graniglia in view of Kinmount and Au by including the waste polyurethane as taught by Chianese in order to conserve resources.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10 and 18-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN D MATTEI can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. J. S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635