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 § 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeers, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0090325.
Regarding claim 1, Maeers discloses a block connecting element comprising first and second end members (components 202) and at least one bridging member (204) interconnecting said first and second end members, wherein a first central plane (horizontal plane bisecting each of 202) passes through the center of both said first and second end members, each of said first and second end members having plane symmetry about said first central plane (see Fig. 5, generally), each half of said first and second end members having a substantially tapered form (at 214) to engage and seat within at least one hole in either of said two masonry bricks. The phrase “to engage and seat within at least one hole in either of said two masonry bricks” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Maeers discloses a block connecting element wherein when either of said first and second end engage and seat within said at least one hole in either of said two masonry bricks, they do so in a tight fit (a compression fit, paragraph 34). The phrase “when either of said first and second end engage and seat within said at least one hole in either of said two masonry bricks, they do so in a tight fit” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Maeers discloses a block connecting element wherein said at least one bridging member is single bridging member (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Maeers discloses a block connecting member wherein said at least one bridging member has at least one curved side (206).
Regarding claim 11, Maeers discloses a block connecting element wherein said at least one bridging member has at least one opening (210) therein.
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) 2-5, 12-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeers, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0090325 in view of Belliveau, U.S. Patent 2,963,828.
Regarding claim 2, Maeers discloses a block connecting element wherein each of said masonry bricks is substantially rectangular in shape, having opposed upper and lower faces on either side of a second central plane, opposed sides, and opposed ends (as shown in Fig. 3), one of said upper and lower faces has at least a first channel (114) disposed longitudinally therein between said opposed ends, and wherein said at least one hole is two spaced apart holes (110, 112) each of which extends between said upper and lower face, but does not disclose both of said upper and lower faces has at least a first channel disposed longitudinally therein between said opposed ends, each of the two spaced apart holes extending between said first channels, nor each hole having a tapered bore portion near its open ends at respective said channels. Belliveau teaches channels for accommodating connecting elements on both of the top and the bottom faces of a block (11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the blocks with first channels of both surfaces to maximize connecting element usage in a multi-course wall, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Each of the two spaced apart holes will then extend between said first channels. It would also have been obvious to produce the block holes with tapered portions that reflect the shape of the tapered end members for a more secure fit, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Maeers, as modified, discloses a block connecting element wherein said masonry bricks are laid end-to-end in a first row for the purpose of constructing a wall or other structure (see Fig. 7), said masonry bricks having their respective channel in said upper face aligned (as it is located central on the face), and said (first type of, per claim 13) link insert removably connected (they are able to be removed in some manner) to same by the lower halves of said first and second end members engaging with holes within respective first channels of said masonry bricks (see Fig. 8) with at least a lower portion of said bridging member lying within said first channels (as modified). The phrase “for the purpose of constructing a wall or other structure” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Maeers, as modified, discloses a block connecting element wherein said masonry bricks are laid end-to-end in said first row with other like masonry bricks, said other like bricks similarly removably connected (they are able to be removed in some manner) by like link inserts, and a second row of bricks is laid upon said first row of bricks with said (first type of, per claim 13) link insert and like link inserts disposed therebetween, and the upper halves of said first and second end members of said (first type of, per claim 13) link insert and like link inserts engaging with holes in the first channels of the lower faces of said second row of masonry bricks with at least an upper portion of the respective bridging members of said (first type of, per claim 13) link insert and like link inserts disposed within said first channels of the lower faces of said second row of masonry bricks (see Fig, 8 generally; as modified with both upper and lower block face channels).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the prior art as modified discloses a block connecting element but does not specifically disclose wherein each said masonry brick has at least two second channels in each of said upper and lower faces, each second channel orthogonal to said first channel and disposed at a respective said hole, and each said second channel in said upper face allowing for a like masonry brick to be laid orthogonally to said masonry brick, and said (first type of, per claim 13) link insert removably connected to same by the lower halves of said first and second end members engaging with holes within said masonry brick and like masonry brick with at least a lower portion of said bridging member lying within said second channel of said masonry brick and the first channel in the upper face of said like brick. Belliveau teaches a second channel perpendicular to the first channel in each of the upper and lower faces (12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the clock with upper and lower face channels extending in both a longitudinal and a transverse direction for a versatile block that can be connected to adjacent corner blocks as shown in Fig. 8 of Maeers.
Regarding claim 12, Maeers discloses a block assembly, said system using a plurality of link inserts (200) to engage and interconnect with a plurality of masonry bricks, said plurality of link inserts includes at least a first type of link insert (as shown in Fig. 5); said first type of link insert comprising two end members (202) and at least one bridging member (204) interconnecting said first and second end members, wherein a first central plane passes through the centre of both said first and second end members (horizontal plane bisecting each of 202), each of said first and second end members having plane symmetry about said first central plane (upper and lower haves of the insert, see Fig. 5), each half of said first and second end members having a substantially tapered form (at 214, 216) to engage and seat within at least one of two spaced apart holes in either of said two masonry bricks; and each of said masonry bricks is substantially rectangular in shape (as shown in Fig. 3), having opposed upper and lower faces on either side of a second central plane, opposed sides, and opposed ends (as illustrated in Fig. 3), an upper or lower face has at least a first channel (114) disposed longitudinally therein between said opposed ends, and wherein said two spaced apart holes (110, 112) extend between said first channels, but does not disclose each hole having a tapered bore portion near its open ends at respective said channels, nor both upper and lower faces including a longitudinal channel. Belliveau teaches channels for accommodating connecting elements on both of the top and the bottom faces of a block (11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the blocks with first channels of both surfaces to maximize connecting element usage in a multi-course wall, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Each of the two spaced apart holes will then extend between said first channels. It would also have been obvious to produce the block holes with tapered portions that reflect the shape of the tapered end members for a more secure fit, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. The phrase “to engage and seat within at least one of two spaced apart holes in either of said two masonry bricks” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Maeers discloses a block connecting element wherein said at least one bridging member is single bridging member (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Maeers discloses a block connecting member wherein said at least one bridging member has at least one curved side (206).
Regarding claim 19, Maeers discloses a block connecting element wherein said at least one bridging member has at least one opening (210) therein.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeers, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0090325.
Regarding claim 6, Maeers discloses a block connecting element wherein said link insert is substantially made of plastic (paragraph 37), but does not specifically disclose the plastic including material which is recycled plastic. Maeers does teach the use of recycled materials (paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize recycled materials for the connecting element to lessen environmental damage cause in production of the block assembly, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a block construction system including a link insert having two end members as claimed in combination with a link insert including two end members as well as a central member as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633