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 .
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellabaum (US 8,944,803 B2) in view of Dantin et al. (US 9,932,489 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Fellabaum discloses a method of forming a masonry unit (title/abstract), comprising:
mixing together a mixture having a wet mixture weight, wherein an amount of the water to be mixed is determined based on a target moisture content for the mixture (6:58+);
extruding the mixture through an extruder mold to form one or more masonry units (17:53+); and
drying the one or more polymer masonry units (20:33+).
Fellabaum does not appear to expressly disclose the claimed composition.
However, Dantin discloses a re-dispersible composition for civil engineering works (title/abstract) including an absorbent filler, such as calcium carbonate (5:53+), and 1-10% polymer (7:30).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fellabaum to include the composition of Dantin, because such composition are known in the art and provide desirable non-efflorescing and cement-free building materials.
Regarding claim 2, Dantin excludes sodium carbonate (5:53+).
Regarding claim 3, Dantin discloses the polymer is a styrene-butadiene based polymer (5:12).
Regarding claim 4, Fellabaum discloses extruding the mixture through the extruder mold to form one or more masonry units includes:
extruding the mixture through the extruder mold to form a slug band onto a receiving surface; and
cutting the slug band into the one or more masonry units (18:59+).
Regarding claim 6, Fellabaum discloses the extruder mold is configured to impart a form to the slug band (17:59+).
Regarding claim 7, Fellabaum discloses the extruder mold is configured with one or more cores configured to create a respective void within each of the one or more polymer masonry units (18:3+).
Regarding claim 9, Fellabaum discloses that drying the one or more polymer masonry units includes:
directing the one or more polymer masonry units into a temperature-controlled drying room, wherein the temperature-controlled drying room provides ambient drying and is configured to dry the one or more polymer masonry units without using a heat source (20:63+).
Regarding claim 10, Fellabaum discloses a method of forming a polymer masonry unit (title/abstract), comprising:
mixing 5-7% water to form a slurry (6:58+, 8:14+);
directing the slurry into a feeder hopper configured to homogenize the slurry and to optimize a feeding rate for feeding the slurry into an extruder (8:32+);
extruding the slurry through the extruder to form a slug band onto a receiving surface; cutting the slug band into one or more individual polymer masonry units (17:53+, 18:59+); and
drying the one or more individual polymer masonry units (20:33+).
Fellabaum does not appear to expressly disclose the claimed composition.
However, Dantin discloses a re-dispersible composition for civil engineering works (title/abstract) including an absorbent filler, which excludes sodium carbonate (5:53+), and 1-10% polymer (7:30).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fellabaum to include the composition of Dantin, because such composition are known in the art and provide desirable non-efflorescing and cement-free building materials.
Regarding claim 11, Dantin suggests the absorbent filler includes calcium carbonate aggregate (5:53+).
Regarding claim 12, Dantin suggests the calcium carbonate aggregate is limestone generated as a quarry byproduct (5:53+).
Regarding claim 15, Fellabaum discloses the extruder mold is configured to impart a form to the slug band (17:59+).
Regarding claim 16, Fellabaum discloses the extruder mold is configured with one or more cores configured to create a respective void within each of the one or more polymer masonry units (18:3+).
Regarding claim 18, Fellabaum discloses that drying the one or more polymer masonry units includes:
directing the one or more polymer masonry units into a temperature-controlled drying room, wherein the temperature-controlled drying room provides ambient drying and is configured to dry the one or more polymer masonry units without using a heat source (20:63+).
Regarding claim 19, Dantin discloses the polymer is a styrene-butadiene based polymer (5:12).
Claims 5, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellabaum (US 8,944,803 B2) in view of Dantin et al. (US 9,932,489 B2) as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, further in view of Ramsdell et al. (US 2015/0210476 A1)
Fellabaum does not appear to expressly disclose that the conveyor includes a non-stick.
However, Ramsdell discloses a conveyor with non-stick slats (title/abstracts) made from PTFE or PEEK (¶ 45).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conveyor of Fellabaum to include the non-stick slats of Ramsdell, in order to prevent the extruded bricks from sticking to the conveyor and allow for simple removal without damage.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellabaum (US 8,944,803 B2) in view of Dantin et al. (US 9,932,489 B2) as applied to claim 1 or 10 above, further in view of Webb (US 2,693,016 A).
Fellabaum does not appear to expressly discloses providing a lubricant to the extruder.
However, Webb discloses a similar method for extruding clay sewer pipes which includes a lubricating apparatus for depositing lubricant upon the surfaces of the former die (1:15+, 1:46+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conveyor of Fellabaum to include the lubricant of Webb, in order to further prevent the extruded bricks from sticking and tearing during subsequent processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant contends that Fellabaum does not discloses that the aggregate is calcium carbonate and that there is no motivation to combine with Dantin. The Examiner agrees that Fellabaum is silent as to the composition of the aggregate, only broadly defined as, “rigid or semi rigid particles, such as sand, gravel, rock, suitable recycled material(s), or even clay and can include fly ash” (6:67+). It is the Examiner’s position that Dantin teaches that it is conventional in similar processes for the aggregate to be calcium carbonate and therefore it is prima facie obvious to use calcium carbonate as the aggregate in Fellabaum’s process. Applicant contends that the Examiner’s motivation to combine is inadequate pointing to a “requisite explanation is not whether the prior art references could be or can be combined but rather why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references and also how the combination of the references was supposed to work.” This is not the standard for nonobviousness. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner has established that Dantin’s composition are known in the art and provide desirable non-efflorescing and cement-free building materials, e.g. at least one of the KSR rationales:
(B) a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way;
(D) applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(F) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
(G) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success to the combination of Fellabaum and Dantin. Pointing to the Examiner’s alleged lack of reason for how these system can be combined successfully. However, as discussed above the Examiner Dantin’s calcium carbonate is known in similar process and would be a simple substitute for the Fellenbaum’s broad aggregate. Applicant has not presented evidence that said combination is not predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that Fellabaum fails to disclose the claimed proportions and that Dantin fails to cure said deficiencies. However, the Examiner position is that Fellabaum discloses the claimed amount of water and that the combined teaching with Dantin suggest the polymer and base material proportions. Applicant’s arguments fail to address this position. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742