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 .
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application number 18/640,629 filed on 4/19/2024.
Currently, claims 1-7 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/17/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
Re claim 1, line 4; a citation “the combination” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required. Claims 2-7 depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected.
Re claim 5, line 2; a phrase “its” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because it is unclear whether “its” referring to which structure? Claim 6, line 2; having the same issues as mentioned is also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 10,729,077 to Bahler et al. (‘Bahler’).
Re claim 1: Bahler discloses a paver restraint system 10 (Fig. 2), comprising: a vertical wall 15 for positioning against an exposed edge of a paver block; a horizontal base 14 attached to a lower termination 13 of the vertical wall 15 so as to form an L-shaped configuration (i.e. as shown in Fig. 2), the combination of the vertical wall 15 and horizontal base 14 extending in a longitudinal direction; and at least one boss member 20 formed in the horizontal base 14 and oriented at an angle with respect to the vertical wall 15 such that upon driving an anchoring element 22 through a central aperture formed in the boss member 20, the anchoring element 22 is not parallel with the vertical wall 15 and a distal termination of the anchoring element 22 is disposed underneath of the paver block (see Fig. 4).
Re claim 6: wherein the at least one boss member 20 is positioned such that its aperture passes through a location along the horizontal base 14 that is spaced apart from the interior corner 13.
Re claim 7: wherein the at least one boss member 20 comprises a plurality of boss members 20 disposed in a spaced-apart relationship across the longitudinal extent of the paver restraint system 10 (Fig. 2).
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) s 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 10,729,077 to Bahler et al. (‘Bahler’).
Re claims 2, 3, 4: Bahler discloses basic structures for the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the at least one boss member is disposed at an angle of about 45° or less than 45° or greater than 45°with respect to the vertical wall. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the boss member disposed at any angle respected to the vertical wall, e.g. about, less than or greater than 45-degrees in order to fasten the paver restraint system more securement since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re claim 5: Bahler discloses basic structures for the claimed invention as stated and further discloses at least one boss member 20 is positioned through an interior corner of the L shaped configuration between a central wall 19 and the horizontal base 14 instead of the L-shaped configuration formed by the combination of the vertical wall and the horizontal base. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the boss member disposed at an interior corner of the L shaped configuration formed by the combination of the vertical wall and the horizontal base in order to securely facilitate the paver restraint system into the ground since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
100
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale