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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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) 1-5,7,9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginrghuber (EP3690138) in view of Beton (WO1999/0211691)
Regarding Claim 1, Girnghuber discloses a square edge recessed lug paver for maintaining proper joint size in any bonding pattern (1), the square edge recessed lug paver comprising: at least five recessed lugs formed on the square edge recessed lug paver (Figures 1a-1e; six lugs VS3 on side S3 and one lug VS1, VS2 on sides S1 and S2 respectively, where each lug is shortened so that it does not span the entire length of the sidewall and does not reach either the top or the bottom face, paragraph [0026], figure 1a-1e), each recessed lug comprising a depth equal to a proper joint size (VS1, VS2, VS3; paragraph [0002], paragraph [0032], figure 2a), a base (figure 1a, figure 1c), a height that maintains proper joint size and is not visible when the square edge recessed lug paver is installed (paragraph [0002], paragraph [0032], figure 1a-1e); and a shape that does not damage an adjacent square edge recessed lug paver and enhances safety during installation (The lugs are half cylinder projections from the sides of the pacing stone 1, which could enhance safety due to reduced corners, figure 1a-1e); a height; a width; a length; a lugged side, the lugged side having a number of recessed lugs as calculated by a first recessed lug equation (Side S3 has six lugs. It is inherent that a number of lugs could be arrived at via equation, paragraph [0026]), where the recessed lugs of the lugged side are positioned horizontally along the lugged side such that at least one recessed lug will contact at least one adjacent square edge recessed lug paver and will not contact recessed lugs of a first and second width side of adjacent square edge recessed lug pavers when installed (Figure 2a shows that when laid each of the lugs on each of the paving stones extends to meet a flat surface of an adjacent stone, without touching another lug); a first width side (Side S1, figure 1c), the first width side having a number of recessed lugs as calculated by a second recessed lug equation (Side S1 has one lug VS1. It is inherent that a number of lugs could be arrived at via equation, figure 1a); a second width side, the second width side having a number of recessed lugs as calculated by the second recessed lug equation (Side S2 has one lug VS2. It is inherent that a number of lugs could be arrived at via equation, figure la), wherein the recessed lug(s) of the first width side are placed horizontally along the first width side in a mirror location to the placement of the recessed lug horizontally along the second width side (Sides S1 and S2 have identical lugs VS1, VS2. Figures 1a-1e show that the projection of lug VS1 onto side S2 forms a mirror image with lug VS2 about a vertical axis between them and vice versa); and wherein the recessed lugs are centered vertically along the lugged side (Figure 1a-1e shows that the lugs VS3 are vertically centered on side S3), the first width side, and the second width side; a non-lugged side, the non-lugged side containing no recessed lugs (A flat end face S4 has no lugs, paragraph [0026]). Girnghuber fails to teach the lug having a base from 0.3175 to 1.111 centimeters, the paver comprising a height of from 2.54 to 10.16 centimeters and wherein the recessed lugs are centered vertically along the first width side, and the second width side. However, Beton teaches lugged pavers and teaches the lug having a base from 0.3175 to 1.111 centimeters (To produce the bricks with projections on the side, molding webs 14 are arranged, each having depressions with a depth of about 1.0 to 5.0 mm. Figures 1 and 2 show that the depth of the depressions on the molding webs 14 is equal to the outward distance of the projections 12, paragraph [0007-0017]), and wherein the recessed lugs are centered vertically along the first width side, and the second width side (Figures 5 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girnghuber to include the lug having a base from 0.3175 to 1.111 centimeters, and wherein the recessed lugs are centered vertically along the first width side, and the second width side as taught by Beton to allow the paving stone to be laid face up or face down and to ensure the lugs project outward a desirable distance depending on the intended joint size. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver comprising a height of from 2.54 to 10.16 centimeters, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and because it is common knowledge that standard paving stone heights between 1-4 inches are widely used in construction.
Regarding claim 2, Girnghuber as modified by Beton teaches the recessed lug height is equal to one third of the height (Figures 1a-1e show that the length of the lugs VS1 and VS2 is about 1/3 of paver block 1). Girnghuber fails to explicitly teach the height is from 3.81 to 10.16 centimeters. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the height is from 3.81 to 10.16 centimeters, since such a modification would have involved a mere chance in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Girnghuber as modified by Beton teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the height is from 2.54 to 10.16 centimeters and the recessed lug height is within 0.3175 centimeters from a top of the square edge recessed lug paver to 0.3175 centimeters from a bottom of the square edge recessed lug paver. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver wherein the height is from 2.54 to 10.16 centimeters since such a modification would have involved a mere chance in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver and the recessed lug height is within 0.3175 centimeters from a top of the square edge recessed lug paver to 0.3175 centimeters from a bottom of the square edge recessed lug paver, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation would have been for the paver to be a standard size commonly used in construction and for the lugs to be separated from the top and bottom surfaces of the paver so that the lugs would not be visible once the joints were formed.
Regarding claim 4, Girnghuber as modified by Beton teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the height is from 3.81 to 10.16 centimeters and the recessed lug height is within 1.27 centimeters from a top of the square edge recessed lug paver to 1.27 centimeters from a bottom of the square edge recessed lug paver. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver wherein the height is from 3.81 to 10.16 centimeters since such a modification would have involved a mere chance in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver and the recessed lug height is within 1.27 centimeters from a top of the square edge recessed lug paver to 1.27 centimeters from a bottom of the square edge recessed lug paver, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation would have been for the paver to be a standard size commonly used in construction and for the lugs to be separated from the top and bottom surfaces of the paver so that the lugs would not be visible once the joints were formed.
Regarding claim 5, Girnghuber as modified by Beton teaches the invention as described above but the cited embodiment (Paving stone shown in figures 1a-1e and 2a-2b) of fails to explicitly teach wherein the width to length ratio is 1:1. However, a second embodiment (Paving stone shown in figures 3a-3c and 4a-4b) of Girnghuber teaches the width to length ratio is 1:1 (square in figure 4a). 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 first embodiment of Girnghuber to include a width to length ratio of 1:1 as shown in the second embodiment of Girnghuber to produce a variety of lug configurations and a variety of paver dimensions depending on constructional or aesthetic needs.
Regarding claim 7, Girnghuber as modified by Beton teaches the width to length ratio is 1:2 (Figure 1c and figure 2a show that the paving stones have a width to length ratio of about 1:2).
Regarding Claim 9, Girnghuber as modified by Beton teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the width to length ratio is 1:3. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver wherein the width to length ratio is 1:3, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and because it is common knowledge that 4x12 inch paving stones are widely used in construction.
Regarding Claim 11, Girnghuber modified by Beton teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the width to length ratio is 1:4. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver wherein the width to length ratio is 1:4, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and because it is common knowledge that 4x16 inch paving stones are widely used in construction.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginrghuber (EP3690138) in view of Beton (WO1999/0211691) and in further view of Pollitt (6,122,890)
Regarding claim 6, Girnghuber as modified by Beton teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the width and length are 20.32 centimeters, and wherein the lugged side has three recessed lugs and the first and second width sides each have two recessed lugs. Pollitt teaches pavers having a lugged side with three recessed lugs and the first and second width sides each have two recessed lugs (110, 114; Figure 10; column 3, lines 65-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girnghuber to include wherein the lugged side has three recessed lugs and the first and second width sides each have two recessed lugs as taught by Pollitt to use the minimum number of lugs required to evenly space the pavers. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver wherein
the width and length are 20.32 centimeters, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and because it is common knowledge that 8x8 inch paving stones are widely used in construction.
Regarding Claim 8, Girnghuber as modified by Beton teaches the first and second sides each have one recessed lug (Sides S1 and S2 each have one lug VS1, VS2 respectively, figure 1c) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the width is 10.16 centimeters and the length is 20.32 centimeters, and wherein the lugged side has three recessed lugs. Pollitt teaches a paver with a lugged side that has three recessed lugs (Figure 10, 114). 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 paver of Girnghuber wherein the lugged side has three recessed lugs as taught by Pollitt to use the minimum number of lugs required to evenly space the pavers. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver wherein the width is 10.16 centimeters and the length is 20.32 centimeters, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and because it is common knowledge that 4x8 inch paving stones are widely used in construction.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginrghuber (EP3690138) in view of Beton (WO1999/0211691) and in further view of Bichan et al. (1,364,236) (“Bichan”).
Regarding claim 10, Girnghuber as modified by Beton teaches the first and second sides each have one recessed lug (Sides S1 and S2 each have one lug VS1, VS2 respectively, figure 1c) but fails to teach the width is 10.16 centimeters and the length is 30.48 centimeters, and wherein the lugged side has four recessed lugs. Bichan teaches a paving block wherein the lugged side has four recessed lugs (Figure 2). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver wherein the width is 10.16 centimeters and the length is 30.48 centimeters, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and because it is common knowledge that 4x12 inch paving stones are widely used in construction.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginrghuber (EP3690138) in view of Beton (WO1999/0211691) and in further view of Beton (DE 10149230) (“Beton ‘230).
Regarding claim 12, Girnghuber as modified by Beton teaches the first and second sides each have one recessed lug (Sides S1 and S2 each have one lug VS1, VS2 respectively, figure 1c) but fails to teach the width is 10.16 centimeters and the length is 40.64 centimeters, and wherein the lugged side has five recessed lugs. Beton '230 teaches pavers wherein the lugged side has five recessed lugs (Five spacers 22 are arranged at equal distances from one another on each longitudinal side surface of a paving slab, paragraph [0025], figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girnghuber to include wherein the lugged side has five recessed lugs as taught by Beton '230. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to produce a paver wherein the width is 10.16 centimeters and the length is 40.64 centimeters, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and because it is common knowledge that 4x16 inch paving stones are widely used in construction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Thorkelson teaches a paver with lugs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights