DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the RCE filed on 8/7/2026. Claims 1, 4-15, 19, 21-25 and 27-29 are pending. Claims 2-3, 13, 16-18, 20 and 26 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. No new claims have been added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/7/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 14-15, 19, 21 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaul (US 3557505) in view of Radford (US 20160032586).
Claim 1, Kaul teaches a plant-based construction block (blocks 78, 80, 92; Figs. 6-8) for a vertically-extending wall (col. 1, lines 10-11), the plant-based construction block being formed from a material (col. 3, lines 37-38) and comprising a uniform vertically-extending recess (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the blocks each have a recess that extends vertically and uniformly, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 6-8) having a uniform profile extending from a planar top face to a planar bottom face of the plant-based construction block along a length of a rear face or a front face of the plant- based construction block (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the block has a recess having a uniform profile that extends from a planar top face to a planar bottom face along a length of what could be considered a rear face or a front face of each block, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 6-8), the planar top face and the planar bottom face being arranged horizontally in the vertically-extending wall with the planar bottom face being directed towards a ground surface (Figs. 6-8), the uniform profile of the vertically-extending recess comprising first and second interlocking portions (first and second interlocking portions of the blocks, see annotated Fig. 7 of Kaul shown below in Examiner’s Notes) disposed on opposite sides of the vertically-extending recess (annotated Fig. 7) such that an interlocking portion of a further identical plant-based construction block (“interlocking portion of further block”; annotated Fig. 7) can be received in the vertically-extending recess and engage the first interlocking portion (annotated Fig. 7), and such that an interlocking portion of a second further identical plant-based construction block can be received in the vertically-extending recess and engage the second interlocking portion with the further identical plant based construction block offset vertically relative to the plant-based construction block (annotated Fig. 7), such that the planar bottom face of the plant-based construction block and the planar bottom face of the further identical plant-based construction block are at different vertical heights to form a part of the vertically-extending wall (col. 5, lines 68-75 and col. 6, lines 1-19; annotated Fig. 7).
Kaul does not teach the plant-based construction block being formed from a hemp-composite material. However, Kaul teaches a plant-based construction block for a vertically-extending wall ([0039]; Figs. 1-33c), the plant-based construction block being formed from a hemp-composite material (“composites of organic or inorganic fibers, such as hemp” [0050]; “hemp hurd” [0067], [0076]). 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 be formed from a hemp-composite material, with the reasonable expectation of success of utilizing a well-known material that is readily available, that is recyclable and sustainable, provides good insulating qualities, be resistant to mold, termites and other insect pests, allows for fire resistance, and can sequester carbon dioxide, 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 4, Kaul further teaches wherein the first interlocking portion is a mirror image of the second interlocking portion (annotated Fig. 7).
Claim 5, Kaul further teaches wherein each of the first interlocking portion and the second interlocking portion comprises a male engaging portion (annotated Fig. 7) and a female engaging portion (annotated Fig. 7) arranged to receive a corresponding male engaging portion of the further or second further identical plant-based construction block, respectively (annotated Fig. 7).
Claim 6, Kaul further teaches wherein each male engaging portion and each female engaging portion are rounded (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least a portion of each of the male engaging portion and a portion of the female engaging portion are rounded, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 8).
Claim 14, as modified above, the combination of Kaul and Radford teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the hemp-composite material comprises a hemp shiv and a binder (Radford; note that shiv and hurd were treated as the same thing; [0050]; [0067]; lime-based binder or any suitable binder [0047]).
Claim 15, as modified above, the combination of Kaul and Radford teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches wherein the binder comprises a lime-based binder or a silica-based binder (lime-based binder or any suitable binder [0047]).
Claim 19, Kaul and Radford teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Kaul further teaches a vertically and horizontally extending planar 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 (see rejection of claim 1 as above; see blocks in Figs. 6-8), 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 vertically-extending 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. 6-8), wherein the second plant-based construction block and the third plant-based construction block are offset horizontally from the first plant-based construction block (Figs. 6-8), and wherein the second plant-based construction block and the third plant-based construction block are offset vertically relative to the first plant-based construction block (col. 5, lines 68-75 and col. 6, lines 1-19; Figs. 6-8).
Claim 21, Kaul further teaches a foundation 84 supporting the first, second, and third plant-based construction blocks (Figs. 6-8). Kaul teaches blocks 78 on the foundation creating a staggered assembly with other blocks (Figs. 6-8). Kaul does not specifically teach the blocks 78 forming a staggered foundation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the wall such that the foundation supports the first, second and third plant-based construction blocks such that the foundation is staggered such that the second and/or third plant-based construction block is only partially inserted into the vertically-extending recess of the first plant-based construction block, by forming the foundation integral with block 78, with the reasonable expectation of success of eliminating the step of manually positioning the block 78 on the foundation 84, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Claims 24-25, as modified above, the combination of Kaul and Radford further teaches all the limitations of claim 19, and further teaches [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 (Figs. 6-8; see also Figs. 9-10), [claim 25] wherein the plurality of concrete construction blocks are arranged to provide a load bearing sub-structure of the vertically and horizontally extending planar wall (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the plurality of concrete construction blocks are arranged to provide a load bearing sub-structure of the vertically and horizontally extending planar wall, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 6-8; see also Figs. 9-10).
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaul (US 3557505) in view of Radford (US 20160032586) as above and further in view of CN 105839833 A (‘CN ‘833’).
Claims 7-9, Kaul and Radford teach all the limitations of claim 6 as above. Kaul does not teach [claim 7] 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, [claim 8] wherein the cylindrical sector of each male engaging portion comprises at least 180 degrees of a cylinder, and [claim 9] wherein the cylindrical sector of each male engaging portion comprises between about 180 degrees and about 270 degrees of a cylinder. However, CN ‘833 teaches male and female engaging portions, wherein each male engaging portion comprises a cylindrical sector (Figs. 2 and 4) and each female engaging portion comprises a tubular passage having a cross-section corresponding to the cylindrical sector of the male engaging portion (Figs. 2-4), wherein the cylindrical sector of each male engaging portion comprises at least 180 degrees of a cylinder (Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the cylindrical sector of each male engaging portion comprises between about 180 degrees and about 270 degrees of a cylinder (Figs. 2 and 4). 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, such that the cylindrical sector of each male engaging portion comprises at least 180 degrees of a cylinder, and such that 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 using a known shape to permit the male engaging portion to interlock with the female engaging portion to 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, Kaul further teaches wherein each male engaging portion is disposed adjacent to a female engaging portion of the further or the second further identical plant-based construction block such that the vertically-extending wall of the plant-based construction block has an inflection where the male engaging portion joins the female engaging portion (annotated Fig. 7).
Claim 11, Kaul further teaches wherein the male engaging members of the first and second interlocking portions are disposed at an exterior mouth of the vertically-extending recess opening through a side of the plant- based construction block (Figs. 6-8), and wherein the female engaging members of the first and second interlocking portions are disposed on an internal side of the vertically-extending recess (Figs. 6-8).
Claim 12, as modified above, the combination of Kaul, Radford 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; Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaul (US 3557505) in view of Radford (US 20160032586) as above and further in view of Cerrato (US 20070245673).
Claims 22-23, Kaul and Radford teach all the limitations of claim 21 as above. Kaul does not teach [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 wall formed by building elements, comprising a plurality of blocks including a foundation (Figs. 5 and 15), wherein the foundation comprises an attachment (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 a first, second and third block (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 vertically and horizontally extending planar wall such that 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 a tubular support rod attachable to the foundation by a threaded connector, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to provide a structurally sound base on which to support a structure comprising the plant-based construction blocks.
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaul (US 3557505) in view of Radford (US 20160032586) as above and further in view of Larger (US 3378969).
Claims 27-29, Kaul and Radford teach all the limitations of claim 19 as above. Kaul does not teach [claim 27] wherein the vertically and horizontally extending planar wall 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. However, Larger teaches blocks forming a vertically and horizontally extending planar wall comprising an outer skin attachable to an existing wall of a building (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the vertically and horizontally extending planar wall shown in Fig. 3 constitutes an outer skin that is attachable to an existing wall of a building, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 2, lines 67-71; col. 3, lines 1-16; 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 (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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the vertically and horizontally extending planar wall such that the vertically and horizontally extending planar wall comprises an outer skin attachable to an existing wall of a building, to further comprise 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 comprising 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, with the reasonable expectation of success of using the building element in a known manner 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-15, 19, 21-25 and 27-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
369
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Kaul (US 3557505)
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
Prosecution Insights