DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed 02/06/2026
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-17, 20-26, 28-38, and 41-45 are currently pending;
Claims 1, 8, 16, and 22 are currently amended;
Claims 2, 5-7, 9-15, 17, 20-21, 23-26, and 28-38 were previously presented;
Claims 41-45 are new;
Claims 3, 18-19, 27, and 39-40 have been cancelled;
Claims 1-2, 4-17, 20-26, 28-38, and 41-45 are rejected hereinafter.
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 arguments, see page 10-13, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-40 under 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shaw (US 2005/0069389) in view of Stell (US 2022/0112677) (see rejection below).
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) 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-17, 20-22, 24-26, 28, 30-38 and 40-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2005/0069389) in view of Stell (US 2022/0112677).
`With regards to claim 1, Shaw discloses a wall system (50) comprising: a plurality of landscaping blocks (1), each comprising: a front portion (18), a back portion (19), and first and second sidewall portions (20, 21) extending between the front portion and the back portion (figure 1-2); an opening (8) having a perimeter defined along inner surfaces of the front, back and first and second sidewall portions (10, 9, 11, 12), respectively; and a lug process (29, 30) extending from each of the first and second sidewall portions; a first course comprising a first number of said landscaping blocks; and a second course comprising a second number of said landscaping blocks, stacked vertically with respect to the first course (figure 4); wherein the lug process extends from the inner surface to an outer surface of the respective sidewall portion; wherein the lug processes extending from the first and second sidewall portions of a landscaping block in the first course engage different openings in an adjacent pair of the landscaping blocks in the second course (figures 5-8). Shaw discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Shaw is silent about wherein the lug processes have beveled surfaces adapted to engage the openings along one or more of the respective inner surfaces. Stell discloses a similar wall system including a block wherein the lug processes (208) have beveled surfaces adapted to engage the openings along one or more of the respective inner surfaces (figure 14; paragraph 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the lug process of Shaw for the shape as taught by Stell, since it would provide a beveled surface to contact the opening inner surface of an adjacent block at different angles.
As to claim 2, Shaw discloses wherein the lug processes (29, 30) on adjacent sidewall portions of an adjacent pair of the landscaping blocks in the first course engage a same opening of a single landscaping block in the second course (figure 5 and 8).
As to claim 4, Shaw as modified above discloses wherein the beveled surfaces of the lug processes are symmetric about a centerline extending between the front and back portion of the landscaping block (Shaw figure 1; Stell figure 12).
As to claim 5, Shaw as modified above discloses wherein the beveled surfaces (208) are oriented toward the back portion of the landscaping block, and configured to engage the different openings along the inner surfaces of the respective back portions of the landscaping blocks in the second course (Shaw figure 1 and 5; Stell figures 1 and 14).
As to claim 6, Shaw as modified above discloses wherein the beveled surfaces (208) are oriented toward the front portion of the landscaping block, and configured to engage the perimeters of said openings along the inner surfaces of the respective front portions of the landscaping blocks in the second course (Shaw figure 1 and 8; Stell figures 1 and 14).
As to claim 7, Shaw as modified above discloses wherein the first and second sidewall portions (20, 21) of the landscaping block in the first course are configured share a load path with at least one sidewall portion of each of the adjacent pair of landscaping blocks in the second course (Shaw figure 14).
As to claim 8, Shaw discloses wherein: at least one side of each lug process (29, 30) extends flush with the inner surface of the respective sidewall portion; and at least one side of each lug process extends flush with an outer surface of the respective sidewall portion (figure 1 and 4).
As to claims 10-12 and 24-26, Shaw discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Shaw is silent about further comprising: a nesting structure defined along one or more exterior surfaces of the first and second sidewall portions of the landscaping block; wherein the nesting structure is adapted to receive a lug process of an additional instance of said plurality of landscaping blocks, when stacked in an adjacent layer for shipping or storage; wherein the nesting structure is adapted for landscaping blocks in the adjacent layer to have a reversed or rotated orientation when stacked for shipping or storage, or a stacked shipping or storage height that is the same as an installed height of the landscaping blocks in the first and second courses; and wherein the nesting structure is adapted to limit lateral motion of landscaping blocks in the adjacent layer during shipping by engaging the respective lugs thereof. Stell teaches a block including a nesting structure (outside surface of sidewalls 205, 207, 105, 107) defined along one or more exterior surfaces of the first and second sidewall portions of the landscaping block; wherein the nesting structure is adapted to receive a lug process of an additional instance of said plurality of landscaping blocks, when stacked in an adjacent layer for shipping or storage; wherein the nesting structure is adapted for landscaping blocks in the adjacent layer to have a reversed or rotated orientation when stacked for shipping or storage, or a stacked shipping or storage height that is the same as an installed height of the landscaping blocks in the first and second courses; and wherein the nesting structure is adapted to limit lateral motion of landscaping blocks in the adjacent layer during shipping by engaging the respective lugs thereof (figure 1 and 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the block of Shaw to have an outside surface shape as taught by Stell, since it would provide a surface to engage the adjacent block at different angles.
As to claim 13 and 14, Shaw discloses wherein: the second course is stacked vertically above and adjacent the first course; or the lug processes (29, 30) are offset from the back portions of the landscaping blocks along the respective sidewall portions, such that the second course is horizontally offset from the first course; and wherein: the first course is stacked vertically above and adjacent the second course; or the lug processes are offset from the front portions of the landscaping blocks along the respective sidewall portions, such that the first course is horizontally offset from the second course (figure 1-4).
As to claim 16, Shaw discloses a landscaping block comprising: a front wall portion(18); a back portion (19); first and second sidewall portions (20, 21) extending between the front wall portion and the back portion(figure 1-2); an opening (8) defined between the front wall portion, the back portion and the first and second sidewall portions, and having a perimeter defined along inner surfaces thereof; and lug processes (29, 30) extending from each of the first and second sidewall portions extending from the top surface and offset from the back portion (see claim 1 rejection). Shaw is silent about wherein the lug processes have beveled surfaces configured to engage different openings in an adjacent pair of such landscaping blocks, when stacked in adjacent course of a wall system. Stell discloses a similar wall system including a block wherein the lug processes (208) have beveled surfaces adapted to engage the openings along one or more of the respective inner surfaces (figure 14; paragraph 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the lug process of Shaw for the shape as taught by Stell, since it would provide a beveled surface to contact the opening inner surface of an adjacent block at different angles. Shaw as modified above discloses wherein the beveled surfaces (208) are oriented toward the back portion of the landscaping block, and configured to engage the different openings along the inner surfaces of the respective back portions of the landscaping blocks in the second course (Shaw figure 1 and 5; Stell figures 1 and 14). Shaw as modified above discloses wherein the beveled surfaces (208) are oriented toward the front portion of the landscaping block, and configured to engage the perimeters of said openings along the inner surfaces of the respective front portions of the landscaping blocks in the second course (Shaw figure 1 and 8; Stell figures 1 and 14).
As to claim 17, Shaw as modified above discloses wherein the beveled surfaces of the lug processes are symmetric about a centerline extending between the front and back portion of the landscaping block (Shaw figure 1; Stell figure 12).
As to claim 20, Shaw as modified above discloses wherein the beveled surfaces (208) are configured for the lug processes on adjacent sidewalls of a pair of such landscaping blocks to engage a same opening of a single such landscaping block, when stacked in the adjacent courses of the wall system (see claim 2-3 rejection).
As to claim 21, Shaw as modified above discloses wherein the first and second sidewall portions are configured to share a load path with at least one sidewall portion of each of the adjacent pair of landscaping blocks, when stacked in the adjacent courses of the wall system (see claim 7 rejection).
As to claim 22, Shaw as modified above discloses wherein: at least one side of each lug process extends flush with the inner surface of the respective sidewall portion; at least one side of each lug process extends flush with an outer surface of the respective sidewall portion; or opposing sides of each lug process extend flush with opposing sides of the respective sidewall portion (Shaw figure 1; Stell figure 1).
As to claim 28, Shaw as modified above disclose A wall system comprising a plurality of landscaping blocks according to claim 16 (see rejection above), stacked in first and second adjacent courses, wherein the lug processes on a single landscaping block in the first course engage the different openings in the adjacent pair of landscaping blocks in the second course (figure 8).
As to claim 30-33, Shaw discloses a landscaping block comprising: a front wall portion; a back portion; first and second sidewall portions extending between the front wall portion and the back portion; an opening (8) defined between the front wall portion, the back portion and the first and second sidewall portions, and having a perimeter defined along inner surfaces thereof; lug processes (29, 30) extending from each of the first and second sidewall portions (see claim 1 rejection). Shaw discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Shaw is silent about further comprising: a nesting structure defined along one or more exterior surfaces of the first and second sidewall portions of the landscaping block; wherein the nesting structure is adapted to receive a lug process of an additional instance of said plurality of landscaping blocks, when stacked in an adjacent layer for shipping or storage; wherein the nesting structure is adapted for landscaping blocks in the adjacent layer to have a reversed or rotated orientation when stacked for shipping or storage, or a stacked shipping or storage height that is the same as an installed height of the landscaping blocks in the first and second courses; and wherein the nesting structure is adapted to limit lateral motion of landscaping blocks in the adjacent layer during shipping by engaging the respective lugs thereof. Stell teaches a block including a nesting structure (outside surface of sidewalls 205, 207, 105, 107) defined along one or more exterior surfaces of the first and second sidewall portions of the landscaping block; wherein the nesting structure is adapted to receive a lug process of an additional instance of said plurality of landscaping blocks, when stacked in an adjacent layer for shipping or storage; wherein the nesting structure is adapted for landscaping blocks in the adjacent layer to have a reversed or rotated orientation when stacked for shipping or storage, or a stacked shipping or storage height that is the same as an installed height of the landscaping blocks in the first and second courses; and wherein the nesting structure is adapted to limit lateral motion of landscaping blocks in the adjacent layer during shipping by engaging the respective lugs thereof (figure 1 and 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the block of Shaw to have an outside surface shape as taught by Stell, since it would provide a surface to engage the adjacent block at different angles.
As to claims 34-35, Shaw as modified above discloses a storage system comprising a plurality of landscaping blocks according to claim 30, stacked in first and second adjacent layers, wherein the nesting structures of said landscaping blocks in the first layer engage the respective lug structures of said landscaping blocks in the second layer to limit lateral motion thereof (see Stell figure 1 and 14).
As to claim 36, Shaw as modified above discloses wherein the lug processes (208) have beveled surfaces configured to engage different openings in an adjacent pair of such landscaping blocks, when stacked adjacent the landscaping block in a wall system. (figure 14).
As to claim 37, Shaw as modified above discloses wall system comprising a plurality of landscaping blocks according to claim 36, stacked in first and second adjacent courses, wherein the lug process on one of the landscaping blocks in the first course engage the different openings in the adjacent pair of landscaping blocks in the second course (Shaw figure 8; Stell figure 8 and 14).
As to claim 38, Shaw as modified above discloses wherein: the first and second sidewall portions of the landscaping blocks in the second course are configured to engage at least one sidewall portion of each of the adjacent pair of landscaping blocks in the second course (Shaw figure 1 and 8).
With regards to claim 40-44, Shaw discloses a landscaping block (1) comprising: a front wall portion (18); a back portion (19); first and second sidewall portions (20, 21) extending between the front wall portion and the back portion; an opening (8) defined between the front wall portion, the back portion and the first and second sidewall portions, and having a perimeter defined along inner surfaces thereof (figures 1-2); and lug processes (29, 30) extending from each of the first and second sidewall portions; wherein the lug processes are configured to extend from a top surface of the landscaping block when installed in a course of a wall system, offset from the back portion along the respective sidewall portion and wherein the lug processes are configured to engage different openings in an adjacent pair of such landscaping blocks, when stacked in adjacent course of a wall system; (figures 1-8). Shaw discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Shaw is silent about wherein the lug processes have beveled surfaces configured to engage different openings in an adjacent pair of such landscaping blocks, when stacked in adjacent course of a wall system; and wherein the beveled surfaces are oriented toward the back portion of the landscaping block and configured to engage the perimeters of said different openings along the inner surfaces of the respective back portions of the adjacent pair of landscaping blocks. Stell discloses a similar wall system including a block wherein the lug processes (208) have beveled surfaces adapted to engage the openings in an adjacent pair of such landscaping blocks, when stacked in adjacent course of a wall system; and wherein the beveled surfaces are oriented toward the back portion of the landscaping block and configured to engage the perimeters of said different openings along the inner surfaces of the respective back portions of the adjacent pair of landscaping blocks (figure 14; paragraph 0066) Stell further discloses wherein the beveled surfaces of the lug processes are symmetric about a centerline extending between the front wall portion and the back portion of the landscaping block and wherein the beveled surfaces are configured for the lug processes on adjacent sidewalls of a pair of such landscaping blocks to engage a same opening of a single such landscaping block, when stacked in the adjacent courses of the wall system; and wherein: each lug process extends from the inner surface to an outer surface of the respective sidewall portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the lug process of Shaw for the shape as taught by Stell, since it would provide a beveled surface to contact the opening inner surface of an adjacent block at different angles.
As to claim 45, Shaw discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Shaw is silent about further comprising a flat formed on the first and second sidewall portions of the landscaping block, adjacent the lug processes, wherein the lug processes are spaced from the inner surfaces of the sidewall portions by the flats. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the lug processes as claimed, since such a modification would have involved mere change in the shape/dimensions of a component. A change in shape/dimension is generally considered as being within the level of one skilled in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). (See for example KR 1824176 showing lug processes spaced from the inner surface)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2005/0069389) in view of Whitson (US 2002/0023403).
As to claim 9, Shaw discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Shaw is silent about further comprising a flat formed on the first and second sidewall portions of the landscaping blocks, adjacent the lug processes, wherein the lug processes are spaced from the inner surfaces of the sidewall portions by the flats. Whitson teaches a similar block including lug process (100, 101) and further comprising a flat (figure 7) formed on the first and second sidewall portions of the landscaping blocks, adjacent the lug processes, wherein the lug processes are spaced from the inner surfaces of the sidewall portions by the flats (figures 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lug process of Shaw for the lug process as taught by Whitson, since it would provide a lug for different curves.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2005/0069389) in view of Stell (US 2022/0112677) and Rodrique (US 5,353,569).
As to claim 15, Shaw discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Shaw is silent about further comprising one or more angled or wedge structures defined on the back portion of one or more landscaping blocks in the first course, having a width selected to match a distance between the back portions of the adjacent pair of the landscaping blocks in the second course. Rodrique teaches a similar block including further comprising one or more angled or wedge structures defined on the back portion of one or more landscaping blocks in the first course, having a width selected to match a distance between the back portions of the adjacent pair of the landscaping blocks in the second course (figures 1-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the back portion of Shaw to include the angle structures as taught by Rodrique, since it would provide another angle structures to engage and guide the block location.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2005/0069389) in view of Stell (US 2022/0112677) and Whitson (US 2002/0023403).
As to claim 23, Shaw discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Shaw is silent about further comprising a flat formed on the first and second sidewall portions of the landscaping blocks, adjacent the lug processes, wherein the lug processes are spaced from the inner surfaces of the sidewall portions by the flats. Whitson teaches a similar block including lug process (100, 101) and further comprising a flat (figure 7) formed on the first and second sidewall portions of the landscaping blocks, adjacent the lug processes, wherein the lug processes are spaced from the inner surfaces of the sidewall portions by the flats (figures 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lug process of Shaw for the lug process as taught by Whitson, since it would provide a lug for different curves.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2005/0069389) in view of Stell (US 2022/0112677) and Rodrique (US 5,353,569).
As to claim 29, Shaw discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Shaw is silent about further comprising one or more angled or wedge structures defined on the back portion of one or more landscaping blocks in the first course, having a width selected to match a distance between the back portions of the adjacent pair of the landscaping blocks in the second course. Rodrique teaches a similar block including further comprising one or more angled or wedge structures defined on the back portion of one or more landscaping blocks in the first course, having a width selected to match a distance between the back portions of the adjacent pair of the landscaping blocks in the second course (figures 1-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the back portion of Shaw to include the angle structures as taught by Rodrique, since it would provide another angle structures to engage and guide the block location.
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 CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights