DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/421,903. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 are examined.
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 12 is 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.
Claim 12 defines “a connection element of the edging stone securing device of claim 1” but does not disclose any other element from the invention of claim 1 yet goes on to further define “said second plate” and “each first plate,” thus rendering the claimed invention indefinite as to what is being defined. Does the second and first plates comprise of the same structure as defined in claim 1? Are more than one first plate required? Furthermore, the end of claim 12 further defines limitations that have already been included within the limitations of claim 1, such as the length of the connection element, and thus one would not know what elements of claim 1 are required within claim 12. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, the connection element, and first and second plates of claim 12 require all of the limitations of claim 1, where the limitations of claim 12 further positively define the positioning and location of the plates relative to one another and the stones.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends from, has been amended to include all of the limitations of claim 4 and thus claim 4 does not further define claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-4, 6-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fargo (U.S. Patent 1,073,669).
Regarding claim 1, Fargo discloses an edging stone securing device for edging stones positioned intermediate a rain bed and a ground surface, comprising:
a first plate (the leftmost, horizontal plate #7’ of figure 3);
a second plate (the rightmost vertical plate #7 of figure 3) having a different orientation relative the first plate (the first and second plates are 90 degrees relative to one another);
a connection element (#8) extending in a first direction (the x-axis direction of figure 3), the connection element having a first end portion (the left end portion of figure 3) and an opposite second end portion (the right end portion of figure 3), wherein:
the first plate is attached to said first end portion and the second plate is attached to said second end portion (see figure 3);
the connection element is arranged to, at a mounted state, be fitted intermediate adjacent sides of a first and a second edging stone, allowing for the edging stones to be positioned intermediate said first and second plate, the first and the second plate being arranged to, in said mounted state, jointly support said first and second edging stones in said first direction (see figures 1-3, where the edging stones #2 comprise of recesses #4 in order to allow for placement of the connection element #8 between adjacent, abutting faces of such stones #2, where the attachment of all of the elements within such an assembly prevent movement of the stones and thus support such stones in the assembled state), wherein said first plate is arranged to, at said mounted state, be attached to or embedded in said ground surface, and oriented parallel to said ground surface (see figure 3, where the first plate is horizontal and thus would be parallel to and attached to a horizontal ground surface, where such an attachment is not positively defined),
wherein the connection element has a length being dimensioned to be greater than a thickness of the first and second edging stone (see figure 3, where the connection elements extend longer than the thickness of a single row of stones #2 in order to allow two rows of stones to be spaced from one another and thus are considered longer than the thickness of the stones),
wherein a distance between the first plate and the second plate is greater than said thickness of the first and the second edging stone in said first direction (see figure 3, where the first plate and second plate are spaced further away from one another so as to fit two different rows of stones #2 spaced from one another therebetween and thus are to be spaced longer than the thickness of a single row of such blocks),
wherein at said mounted state, the first end portion extends beyond the thickness first and second edging stone so that the first plate is not in contact with any one of the first and second edging stone (see figure 3, where the first plate extends past the left end of the right row of stones #2, which row of stones is considered to comprise of the first and second blocks and thus does not directly contact the stones #2).
However, Fargo does not specifically disclose the length of the connection element is 10 cm to 1 m. Page 1, ll. 73-77 of Fargo disclose that such a track or runway can be formed to any length as needed and therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the connection element to extend to a length between 10cm and 1 m in order to construct a track of a specific length based on the vehicle or other mechanism to be used with such a track formed by the stones and also since where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 2, Fargo renders obvious the first plate forms an angle of 75-105 degrees relative said second plate (see figure 3, where the first and second plates extend approximately 90 degrees relative to one another).
Regarding claim 3, Fargo renders obvious the second plate is arranged to, at said mounted state, be parallel to, and in contact with a vertically extending inner surface of at least one of said edging stones for supporting said edging stones in said first direction (see figure 3, where the inner surface of the stones can be considered the rightmost vertical surface of the figure and the second vertical plate #7 is to contact such inner surfaces).
Regarding claim 4, Fargo renders obvious said first plate is arranged to, at said mounted state, be attached to or embedded in a ground surface (see figure 3 and the explanation above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Fargo renders obvious an edge of said first plate is attached to said first end portion of said connection element (see figure 3, where the left edge of the first plate #7’ is attached to the left end portion plate #7 of said connection element #8).
Regarding claim 7, Fargo renders obvious the connection element comprises, at said first end portion, a cavity (the cavity formed by the two leftmost, vertical plates #7 of figure 3) extending in said first direction, wherein an edge of said first plate is accommodated by, and secured to said cavity (see figure 3, where the first plate #7’ is mounted to leftmost vertical plate #7 so as to be secured and positioned within the cavity).
Regarding claim 8, Fargo renders obvious said second end portion of said connection element is attached to an intermediate portion of said second plate (see figures 1 and 3, where the connection element #8 is attached to an intermediate portion between the longitudinal ends of the second, vertical rightmost plate #7).
Regarding claim 9, Fargo renders obvious said second plate comprises a first part and a second part, at least one of the parts being adjustable along said first direction for compensating thickness variations of the first edging stone relative to the second edging stone (The second plate can be considered to comprise of two parts, the two rightmost vertical plates #7 of figure 3, where the connection element comprises of threads so that a nut, as depicted in figures 1 and 3 but not labelled, can tighten the second plate parts against adjacent stones. Furthermore, such a second plate that is the second rightmost plate #7 of figure 3 can still be located a distance longer than the thickness of the stone relative to the first plate since the assembly is to span the thickness of more than two blocks as depicted in the figure.)
Regarding claim 11, Fargo renders obvious an edging stone arrangement comprising a first (the right stone #2 of figure 3) and a second edging stone (the stone that abuts the right stone of figure 3 which extends into or out of the page of the figure) and the edging stone securing device as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the connection element is, at said mounted state, fitted intermediate said first and second edging stone, allowing for the edging stones to be positioned intermediate said first and second plates (see figures 1 and 3, where the connecting element #8 would extend between adjacent stones #2 within the grooves #4 of the abutting faces of such stones).
Regarding claim 12, Fargo renders obvious a rain bed system comprising a water receiving area (the area to the right of the right blocks #2 of figure 3 can be considered a water receiving area), the water receiving area being at least partially enclosed by a plurality of edging stones (the right stones #2 of figure 3, where the left edge of the water receiving area is thus partially enclosed with such stones), wherein a connection element of the edging stone securing device of claim 1 is fitted in-between adjacent edging stones of said plurality of edging stones (see figures 1 and 3 and the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said second plate is in contact with at least one inner surface of a pair of adjacent edging stones (see figure 3, where the stones #2 comprise of right, inner surfaces which the right vertical second plates #7 contact), and each first plate is oriented parallel to and secured to a ground surface associated to an outer surface of said edging stones (see figure 3, where the first plate extends horizontally and parallel to the ground surface and is attached thereto by the weight of the stones #2 which rests above the first plate and holds the plate to the ground surface which the stones are supported upon) wherein the connection element has a length greater than a thickness of the first and second edging stones as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, wherein a distance between the first plate and the second plate is greater than said thickness of the first and second edging stones in said first direction as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the first end portion extends beyond the thickness of the first and second edging stone so that the first plate is not in contact with any one of the first and second edging stones as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the length of the connection element is 10 cm - 1 m as explained above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Fargo renders obvious a method for securing adjacent edging stones to a ground surface comprising:
providing the edging stone securing device as explained above in the rejection of claim 1 (see figure 3 and the rejection of claim 1 above);
inserting said connection element of said edging stone securing device in-between adjacent edging stones so that the first plate is parallel with said surface and the second plate is in contact with at least one vertical extending inner surface of at least one of said edging stones (see figures 1 and 3, where the first plate is horizontal and thus parallel with the horizontal ground surface which the assembly is supported upon and the second plate is in contact with the inner, right surfaces of the stones #2, where the connection element #8 extends within the grooves #4 between abutting surface of the stones in the right row of figure 3); and
securing said first plate to said ground surface (the first plate is secured to the ground surface by the weight of the left stones #2 placed thereabove).
Regarding claim 14, Fargo renders obvious the angle is 80-100 degrees (see figure 3, where the first and second plates extend approximately 90 degrees relative to one another).
Regarding claim 15, Fargo renders obvious the angle is 85-95 degrees (see figure 3, where the first and second plates extend approximately 90 degrees relative to one another).
Regarding claim 16, Fargo renders obvious the angle is 88-92 degrees (see figure 3, where the first and second plates extend approximately 90 degrees relative to one another).
Claim(s) 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fargo in view of Dall’agnol (WO 2019/145986).
Regarding claim 5, Fargo discloses the claimed invention except specifically for the first plate comprises at least one through hole. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Dall’agnol, that the L-shaped plate #1 used to form modular paths or tracks can comprise of a horizontal plate #30 attached to a vertical plate connected to one another by a connection element #33, where the horizontal plates #30 can comprise of a plurality of holes #9 in order to anchor the plate to a ground surface. See figure 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the first plate of Fargo to comprise of at least one through hole, as taught in Dall’agnol, in order to not only secure the stones to one another but to the ground surface as well to prevent movement of the stones out of place during use.
Regarding claim 17, Fargo in view of Dall’agnol render obvious the first plate comprises a plurality of through holes, the at least one through hole is one through hole of the plurality of through holes (see figure 2 of Dall’agnol, where a plurality of such holes would be provided within Fargo as explained above).
Regarding claim 18, Fargo in view of Dall’agnol render obvious the first plate comprises two to eight through holes (see figure 2 of Dall’agnol, where a plurality of such holes would be provided within Fargo as explained above and any two to eight of such holes can be considered the two to eight through holes which the first plate of the prior art comprises of).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fargo in view of Park (KR10-2016-0066330).
Regarding claim 10, Fargo discloses the connecting element is rod shaped and not is an oblong sheet. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Park, that boundary stone fixtures can comprise of two plates #10 and #20 attached to one another with a connecting element #310 that is either a threaded rod, as depicted in figure 2 or is an oblong sheet #340 that comprises of a threaded rod #350 which still allows for such a threaded connect between the plates, as depicted in figure 13. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the connection element of Fargo to comprise of an oblong sheet with a threaded connector, as taught in Park, in order to strengthen the connection element while still allowing for such a threaded connection and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed connection element was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, which was required because of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D Mattei can be reached at (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 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 V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635