DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits, responsive to applicant’s original disclosure, including the preliminary amendment filed on 6/19/2024.
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 Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s amended claims filed on 6/19/2024 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) based on the following informalities:
Claim 12 is not provided with the proper status identifier. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). Claim 12 is listed as “Currently Amended”. However, there are no text markings indicating any amendments have been made. Thus, the claim appears to be “Original”. Applicant is requested to check to see if an amendment was inadvertently omitted. 37 CFR 1.121(c). In order to advance prosecution, the examiner treated claim 12 as “Original”.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 6/19/2024 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/19/2024 are acceptable for examination.
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 1-29 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.
Claim 1, “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See also claims 19, 26 and 29.
Claim 3, “a uniform profile” is indefinite because “uniform” a relative term. The term “uniform” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How does applicant consider the profile to be uniform?
Claim 10, “the corresponding female engaging portion” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claims do not previously recite a corresponding female engaging portion.
Claim 20, the phrase "and/or" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Office’s preferred verbiage of elements A and B is “at least one of A and B” and not “A and/or B”. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811 at Footnote 1 (PTAB 2014). See also claim 21.
Claim 20, “the plant-based construction blocks” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. The claims previously require multiple plant-based construction blocks. Which construction blocks is the limitation referring to in the claim?
The remainder of the claims in this section are dependent upon directly or indirectly a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-5, 16, 19-20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 1004226 A (‘FR ‘226’).
Claim 1, FR ‘226 provides a plant-based construction block (page 3, left column, lines 2-3; “ciment à la pâte de bois” translates to wood pulp cement) for a building element, for example a wall (note that the building element, for example a wall is not positively recited and thus not required), the plant-based construction block comprising a uniform recess extending between two opposite faces of the plant-based construction block (recess extending between left and right faces as viewed in Fig. 1), the recess comprising first and second interlocking portions disposed on opposite sides of the recess (first and second interlocking portions at left and right portions of recess, as viewed in Fig. 1) such that an interlocking portion of a further identical plant-based construction block can be received in the recess and engage the first interlocking portion (note that a further identical plant-based construction block is not positively recited and thus not required, but that FR ‘226’s plant-based construction block is suitable to receive an interlocking portion of a further identical plant-based construction block in the recess and engage the first interlocking portion; Fig. 2), and such that an interlocking portion of a second further identical plant-based construction block can be received in the recess and engage the second interlocking portion (note that a second further identical plant-based construction block is not positively recited and thus not required, but that FR ‘226’s plant-based construction block is suitable to receive an interlocking portion of a second further identical plant-based construction block in the recess and engage the second interlocking portion; Fig. 2).
Claim 3, FR ‘226 further provides wherein the recess comprises a uniform profile extending between the top face and the bottom face such that the further identical construction block and the second further identical construction block can be slid into the recess (Figs. 1-2).
Claim 4, FR ‘226 further provides wherein the first interlocking portion is a mirror image of the second interlocking portion (Fig. 1).
Claim 5, FR ‘226 further provides wherein each of the first interlocking portion and the second interlocking portion comprises a male engaging portion and a female engaging portion arranged to receive a corresponding male engaging portion of the further or second further identical plant-based construction block, respectively (the dovetail-style interlocking portions each comprise a male portion and a female portion; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 16, FR ‘226 further provides a wood material (page 3, left column, lines 2-3; “ciment à la pâte de bois” translates to wood pulp cement).
Claim 19, FR ‘226 provides a building element, for example a wall, comprising a first plant-based construction block, a second plant-based construction block and a third plant-based construction block, each of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks being according to claim 1 (Figs. 2 and 13-15; see rejection of claim 1 as above), wherein one of the first and second interlocking portions of the second plant-based construction block and one of the first and second interlocking portions of the third plant-based construction block are both received in the recess of the first plant-based construction block so as to engage the first and second interlocking portions of the first plant-based construction block, respectively (Figs. 2 and 13-15).
Claim 20, FR ‘226 further provides wherein the second and/or third plant-based construction block is only partially inserted into the recess of the first plant-based construction block such that the plant-based construction blocks are staggered (it is understood that the second plant-based construction block or the third plant-based construction block or each of the second and third plant-based construction blocks are only partially inserted into the recess of the first plant-based construction block to obtain such staggered configuration; Figs. 13-16).
Claim 26, FR ‘226 further provides wherein the building element comprises a wall, for example an external wall of a building (Figs. 13-16).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 16, 19-20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 1431766 A (‘GB ‘766’).
Claim 1, GB ‘766 provides a plant-based construction block (10; page 3, right column, lines 90-100) for a building element, for example a wall (“walls” Figs. 5-8), the plant-based construction block comprising a uniform recess (11 or 12) extending between two opposite faces of the plant-based construction block (Figs. 1-4), the recess comprising first and second interlocking portions disposed on opposite sides of the recess (first and second interlocking portions on opposite sides of 11 or 12; Figs. 1-4) such that an interlocking portion of a further identical plant-based construction block can be received in the recess and engage the first interlocking portion (Figs. 5-8), and such that an interlocking portion of a second further identical plant-based construction block can be received in the recess and engage the second interlocking portion (Figs. 5-8).
3. (Currently Amended) The plant-based construction block of claim 1, wherein the recess comprises a uniform profile extending between the top face and the bottom face (Figs. 1-4) such that the further identical construction block and the second further identical construction block can be slid into the recess (Figs. 4-5 and 8).
Claim 3, GB ‘766 further provides wherein the recess comprises a uniform profile (see 112b rejection above with respect to “uniform”; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, GB ‘766’s recess comprises a uniform profile and thus meets the claim; Figs. 1-4) extending between the top face and the bottom face (Figs. 1-4) such that the further identical construction block and the second further identical construction block can be slid into the recess (Figs. 1-5 and 8).
Claim 4, GB ‘766 further provides wherein the first interlocking portion is a mirror image of the second interlocking portion (Figs. 1-4 and 5).
Claim 5, GB ‘766 further provides wherein each of the first interlocking portion and the second interlocking portion comprises a male engaging portion and a female engaging portion arranged to receive a corresponding male engaging portion of the further or second further identical plant-based construction block, respectively (each of the first and second interlocking portions comprise a dovetail-style engaging portion comprising a male portion and a female portion; Figs. 1-5 and 8).
Claim 16, GB ‘766 further provides a wood material (10; page 3, right column, lines 90-100).
Claim 19, GB ‘766 provides a building element (10; page 3, right column, lines 90-100), for example a wall (“walls” Figs. 5-8), comprising a first plant-based construction block 10, a second plant-based construction block 10 and a third plant-based construction block 10, each of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks being according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 as above), wherein one of the first and second interlocking portions of the second plant-based construction block and one of the first and second interlocking portions of the third plant-based construction block are both received in the recess of the first plant-based construction block so as to engage the first and second interlocking portions of the first plant-based construction block, respectively (Figs. 4-5, 8 and 10).
Claim 20, GB ‘766 further provides wherein the second and/or third plant-based construction block is only partially inserted into the recess of the first plant- based construction block such that the plant-based construction blocks are staggered (Figs. 4-5, 8 and 10).
Claim 26, GB ‘766 further provides wherein the building element comprises a wall, for example an external wall of a building (“walls” Figs. 5-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over GB 1431766 A (‘GB ‘766’).
Claim 2, GB ‘766 further provides wherein the plant-based construction block is generally cuboid (inasmuch as applicant’s block 2 is “generally cuboid”, GB ‘766’s block is also generally cuboid; note that “generally” is a relative term and was treated in accordance with applicant’s specifications to mean in general terms, without regard to particulars or exceptions) and has a top face, a bottom face, opposing side faces, a front face, and a rear face (top face, bottom face, opposing side faces, front and rear faces of 10; Figs. 1-4), and wherein the recess extends through the plant-based construction block between the top face and the bottom face and opens through the rear face (Figs. 1-4). In the event that applicant disagrees that GB ‘766 teaches the plant-based construction block being generally cuboid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the plant-based construction block to be generally cuboid, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape to form the plant-based construction block to permit interlocking with other construction blocks, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was 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 container was significant.).
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) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
FR 1004226 A (‘FR ‘226’) in view of WO 2009024651 A1 (‘WO ‘651’).
Claims 17-18, FR ‘226 teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as above. FR ‘226 does not teach [claim 17] wherein the wood material comprises a wood composite material, and [claim 18] wherein the plant-based construction block comprises a plurality of wood laminae. However, WO ‘651 teaches a plant-based construction block comprising a wood material comprising a wood composite material or a plurality of wood laminae (English translation “wood” is meant solid wood, engineered wood, chipboard, glued laminated wood, plywood…composite materials”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the plant-based construction block to comprise a wood composite material or a plurality of wood laminae, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known, readily available, sustainable and high-performing building materials to form the plant-based construction block, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
FR 1004226 A (‘FR ‘226’) in view of Cerrato (US 20070245673).
Claims 21-23, FR ‘226 teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as above. FR ‘226 does not teach [claim 21] a foundation supporting the first, second, and third plant-based construction blocks, and wherein the foundation is staggered such that the second and/or third plant- based construction block is only partially inserted into the recess of the first plant-based construction block, [claim 22] wherein the foundation further comprises an attachment for a tubular support rod arranged to extend through at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks, and [claim 23] a tubular support rod attachable to the foundation by a threaded connector. However, Cerrato teaches a building element comprising a plurality of blocks including a foundation (Figs. 5 and 15), wherein the foundation is staggered (Fig. 5), wherein the foundation further comprises an attachment (see apertures shown throughout the figures, such as 66 in Figs.18a-18c) for a tubular support rod arranged to extend through at least one of the blocks (tubular support rod 70), and the tubular support rod attachable to the foundation by a threaded connector (93; Fig. 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the building element of FR ‘226 to comprise a foundation supporting the first, second, and third plant-based construction blocks, and wherein the foundation is staggered such that the second and/or third plant- based construction block is only partially inserted into the recess of the first plant-based construction block, wherein the foundation further comprises an attachment for a tubular support rod arranged to extend through at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks, and the tubular support rod is attachable to the foundation by a threaded connector, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to provide a structurally sound base on which to support the building element comprising the plant-based construction blocks.
Claims 24-25, FR ‘226 teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as above. FR ‘226 does not teach [claim 24] a plurality of concrete construction blocks being shaped to interlock with the at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks, and [claim 25] wherein the plurality of concrete construction blocks are arranged to provide a load bearing sub-structure of the building element. However, Cerrato teaches a building element comprising a plurality of blocks, wherein the plurality of blocks may be formed of any masonry material including concrete ([0130]-[0132]), wherein the plurality of concrete construction blocks are arranged to provide a load bearing sub-structure of the building element (it is understood that the plurality of blocks are suitable to provide a load bearing sub-structure of the building element, and thus meets the claim; Figs. 5 and 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the building element of FR ‘226 to comprise a plurality of concrete construction blocks being shaped to interlock with the at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks, wherein the plurality of concrete construction blocks are arranged to provide a load bearing sub-structure of the building element, with the reasonable expectation of success of using readily available, known materials to perform a known function on a known structure to form the building element, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
FR 1004226 A (‘FR ‘226’) in view of Larger (US 3378969).
Claims 27-29, FR ‘226 teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as above. FR ‘226 does not teach [claim 27] wherein the building element comprises an outer skin attachable to an existing wall of a building, [claim 28] a plurality of mounting brackets attachable to the existing wall, and a plurality of support rods attachable to the mounting brackets, and wherein at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks is configured to be coupled to at least one of the plurality of support rods, and [claim 29] a bracket arranged to be retained between the first and second plant- based construction blocks and to provide a mounting point for a cladding system, for example a rail of a cladding system. However, Larger teaches a building element, wherein the building element comprises an outer skin attachable to an existing wall of a building (it is understood that the building element comprises an outer skin and is suitable to be attached to an existing wall of a building structure; Fig. 3), a plurality of mounting brackets (21 and/or 22) attachable to the existing wall (Fig. 3), and a plurality of support rods 16 attachable to the mounting brackets (via 21; Figs. 1 and 3), and wherein at least one of the blocks is configured to be coupled to at least one of the plurality of support rods (Fig. 3), a bracket (treated as mounting bracket 21 and/or 22) arranged to be retained between first and second blocks (Fig. 3) and to provide a mounting point for a cladding system, for example a rail of a cladding system (it is understood that the bracket is suitable to provide a mounting point for a cladding system, such as a rail 24 of a cladding system (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the building element of FR ‘226 such that the building element comprises an outer skin attachable to an existing wall of a building, a plurality of mounting brackets attachable to the existing wall, and a plurality of support rods attachable to the mounting brackets, and wherein at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks is configured to be coupled to at least one of the plurality of support rods, and a bracket arranged to be retained between the first and second plant-based construction blocks and to provide a mounting point for a cladding system, for example a rail of a cladding system, with the reasonable expectation of using the building element in a known way to obtain a known arrangement of a skin layer attachable to an existing wall of a building to form an outer cladding layer of the building.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1431766 A (‘GB ‘766’).
Claim 6, GB ‘766 teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as above. GB ‘766 does not teach in the embodiment of Figs. 1-4 wherein each male engaging portion and each female engaging portion are rounded. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 6, each male engaging portion and each female engaging portion are rounded (Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the block of the embodiments of Figs. 1-4 to have rounded male and female engaging portions, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape to interlock blocks together, since the embodiments of Figs. 1-4 and 6 were treated as obvious variants of one another.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1431766 A (‘GB ‘766’) in view of CN ‘105839833 A (‘CN ‘833’).
Claims 7-9, GB ‘766 teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as above and further teaches wherein each male engaging portion comprises a cylindrical sector and each female engaging portion comprises a tubular passage having a cross-section corresponding to the cylindrical sector of the male engaging portion (note that inasmuch as applicant’s male and female engaging portions are being treated as cylindrical, as the elements each comprise only partial cylindrical cross sections, GB ‘766’s male and female engaging portions were likewise treated as being cylindrical (Fig. 6). In the event that applicant disagrees that the male and female engaging portions are cylindrical, such cylindrical engaging portions are known in the art. CN ‘833 teaches male and female engaging portions (Figs. 2 and 4), [claim 8] wherein the cylindrical sector of each male engaging portion comprises at least 180 degrees of a cylinder (Figs. 2-4), [claim 9] wherein the cylindrical sector of each male engaging portion comprises between about 180 degrees and about 270 degrees of a cylinder (note that “about” was treated as a relative term and that since the male and female engaging portions extend at least about 75% of a cylinder, the male and female engaging portions of CN ‘833 meet the claim). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the male and female engaging portions such that each male engaging portion comprises a cylindrical sector and each female engaging portion comprises a tubular passage having a cross-section corresponding to the cylindrical sector of the male engaging portion, wherein the cylindrical sector of each male engaging portion comprises at least 180 degrees of a cylinder, wherein the cylindrical sector of each male engaging portion comprises between about 180 degrees and about 270 degrees of a cylinder, with the reasonable expectation of success of permitting a male engaging portion to more thoroughly interlock with a female engaging portion to further resist pulling apart, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was 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 container was significant.).
Claim 10, as modified above, the combination of GB ‘766 and CN ‘833 teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches wherein each male engaging portion is disposed adjacent to the corresponding female engaging portion such that a wall of the plant-based construction block has an inflection where the male engaging portion joins the female engaging portion (GB ‘766 under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such inflection occurs where the male engaging portion transitions to the female engaging portion; Figs. 4-6).
Claim 11, as modified above, the combination of GB ‘766 and CN ‘833 teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the male engaging members of the first and second interlocking portions are disposed at an exterior mouth of the recess opening through a side of the plant-based construction block (GB ‘766 Figs. 1-6), and wherein the female engaging members of the first and second interlocking portions are disposed on an internal side of the recess (GB ‘766 Figs. 1-6).
Claim 12, as modified above, the combination of GB ‘766 and CN ‘833 teaches all the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches wherein each male engaging member extends away from the plant-based construction block, beyond an exterior face of the plant-based construction block (CN ‘833 portion 7 extends away from the block, beyond an exterior face of the block; Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
GB 1431766 A (‘GB ‘766’) in view of CN ‘105839833 A (‘CN ‘833’) and further in view of Popp (US 20190226205).
Claims 13-15, GB ‘766 and CN ‘833 teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as above. GB ‘766 does not teach [claim 13] a hemp-composite material, [claim 14] wherein the hemp-composite material comprises a hemp shiv and a binder, and [claim 15] wherein the binder comprises a lime-based binder or a silica-based binder. However, Popp teaches a plant-based construction block, comprising a hemp-composite material ([0014]-[0015]), wherein the hemp-composite material comprises a hemp shiv and a binder ([0014]-[0016]), and wherein the binder comprises a lime-based binder or a silica-based binder (lime [0014]-[0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the plant-based construction block to comprise a hemp-composite material, the hemp-composite material comprising a hemp shiv and a binder, and the binder comprising a lime-based binder, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known, readily available, sustainable and high-performing building materials to form the plant-based construction block, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
GB 1431766 A (‘GB ‘766’) in view of WO 2009024651 A1 (‘WO ‘651’).
Claims 17-18, GB ‘766 teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as above. GB ‘766 does not teach [claim 17] wherein the wood material comprises a wood composite material, and [claim 18] wherein the plant-based construction block comprises a plurality of wood laminae. However, WO ‘651 teaches a plant-based construction block comprising a wood material comprising a wood composite material or a plurality of wood laminae (English translation “wood” is meant solid wood, engineered wood, chipboard, glued laminated wood, plywood…composite materials”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the plant-based construction block to comprise a wood composite material or a plurality of wood laminae, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known, readily available, sustainable and high-performing building materials to form the plant-based construction block, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
GB 1431766 A (‘GB ‘766’) in view of Cerrato (US 20070245673).
Claims 21-23, GB ‘766 teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as above. GB ‘766 does not teach [claim 21] a foundation supporting the first, second, and third plant-based construction blocks, and wherein the foundation is staggered such that the second and/or third plant- based construction block is only partially inserted into the recess of the first plant-based construction block, [claim 22] wherein the foundation further comprises an attachment for a tubular support rod arranged to extend through at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks, and [claim 23] a tubular support rod attachable to the foundation by a threaded connector. However, Cerrato teaches a building element comprising a plurality of blocks including a foundation (Figs. 5 and 15), wherein the foundation is staggered (Fig. 5), wherein the foundation further comprises an attachment (see apertures shown throughout the figures, such as 66 in Figs.18a-18c) for a tubular support rod arranged to extend through at least one of the blocks (tubular support rod 70), and the tubular support rod attachable to the foundation by a threaded connector (93; Fig. 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the building element to comprise a foundation supporting the first, second, and third plant-based construction blocks, and wherein the foundation is staggered such that the second and/or third plant- based construction block is only partially inserted into the recess of the first plant-based construction block, wherein the foundation further comprises an attachment for a tubular support rod arranged to extend through at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks, and the tubular support rod is attachable to the foundation by a threaded connector, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to provide a structurally sound base on which to support the building element comprising the plant-based construction blocks.
Claims 24-25, GB ‘766 teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as above. GB ‘766 does not teach [claim 24] a plurality of concrete construction blocks being shaped to interlock with the at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks, and [claim 25] wherein the plurality of concrete construction blocks are arranged to provide a load bearing sub-structure of the building element. However, Cerrato teaches a building element comprising a plurality of blocks, wherein the plurality of blocks may be formed of any masonry material including concrete ([0130]-[0132]), wherein the plurality of concrete construction blocks are arranged to provide a load bearing sub-structure of the building element (it is understood that the plurality of blocks are suitable to provide a load bearing sub-structure of the building element, and thus meets the claim; Figs. 5 and 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the building element to comprise a plurality of concrete construction blocks being shaped to interlock with the at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks, wherein the plurality of concrete construction blocks are arranged to provide a load bearing sub-structure of the building element, with the reasonable expectation of success of using readily available, known materials to perform a known function on a known structure to form the building element, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
GB 1431766 A (‘GB ‘766’) in view of Larger (US 3378969).
Claims 27-29, GB ‘766 teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as above. GB ‘766 does not teach [claim 27] wherein the building element comprises an outer skin attachable to an existing wall of a building, [claim 28] a plurality of mounting brackets attachable to the existing wall, and a plurality of support rods attachable to the mounting brackets, and wherein at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks is configured to be coupled to at least one of the plurality of support rods, and [claim 29] a bracket arranged to be retained between the first and second plant- based construction blocks and to provide a mounting point for a cladding system, for example a rail of a cladding system. However, Larger teaches a building element, wherein the building element comprises an outer skin attachable to an existing wall of a building (it is understood that the building element comprises an outer skin and is suitable to be attached to an existing wall of a building structure; Fig. 3), a plurality of mounting brackets (21 and/or 22) attachable to the existing wall (Fig. 3), and a plurality of support rods 16 attachable to the mounting brackets (via 21; Figs. 1 and 3), and wherein at least one of the blocks is configured to be coupled to at least one of the plurality of support rods (Fig. 3), a bracket (treated as mounting bracket 21 and/or 22) arranged to be retained between first and second blocks (Fig. 3) and to provide a mounting point for a cladding system, for example a rail of a cladding system (it is understood that the bracket is suitable to provide a mounting point for a cladding system, such as a rail 24 of a cladding system (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the building element such that the building element comprises an outer skin attachable to an existing wall of a building, a plurality of mounting brackets attachable to the existing wall, and a plurality of support rods attachable to the mounting brackets, and wherein at least one of the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks is configured to be coupled to at least one of the plurality of support rods, and a bracket arranged to be retained between the first and second plant-based construction blocks and to provide a mounting point for a cladding system, for example a rail of a cladding system, with the reasonable expectation of using the building element in a known way to obtain a known arrangement of a skin layer attachable to an existing wall of a building to form an outer cladding layer of the building.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635