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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 and 17-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 20, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 20th, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. In this case, a legible copy of Non-Patent Literature Document No. 4 (titled Play Heroes Hard-DIY Wooden Action Figure) has not been provided. Non-Patent Literature Document No. 4 (titled Play Heroes Hard-DIY Wooden Action Figure) has been lined through in the IDS and therefore not considered. Otherwise, all other references have been considered.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 20th, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: "Process to produce painted building blocks".
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 (Line 1) and Claim 13 (Line 1): “comprising” should read --further comprising--
Claim 26 (Line 1): “comprising” should read --further comprising--
Claim 12 (Line 1): “a top surface” should read --the top surface--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 31 is 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 31 recites the limitation "the plurality of cavities" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32, which depends on Claim 31, is equally rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11, 16, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (JP2005185495A), hereinafter "Noguchi" in view of White, Jr. (US5562956A), hereinafter “White, Jr.”. For text citation of Noguchi refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 11, Noguchi discloses a process (¶0013, Lines 1-9) comprising: performing a first cutting process (¶0013, Lines 1-4) to produce a partially-formed building block (¶0013, Lines 1-4; Fig. 1, Element A) having a solid body (Fig. 1, Element A) with a number of coupling regions (Fig. 1, Elements 2 and 3) located on a top surface (¶0013, Lines 1-4; see annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced below) of the partially-formed building block (Fig. 1, Element A; ¶0013, Lines 1-4) and performing a second cutting process (¶0013, Lines 4-9) on a bottom surface (¶0013, Lines 4-9; see annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced below) of the partially-formed building block (¶0013, Lines 1-4; Fig. 1, Element A) to produce a fully-formed building block (¶0013, Lines 4-9, Fig. 1, Element A) having one or more cavities (Fig. 1, Elements 4 and 5) within the body.
Noguchi fails to disclose applying paint to the partially-formed building block to produce a painted partially-formed building block; performing a drying process with respect to the painted partially-formed building block; and wherein the second cutting process is performed on a painted partially-formed building block.
Nonetheless, White, Jr. teaches applying paint (Column 4, Lines 16-24; Fig. 1) to the partially-formed building block (Column 4, Lines 9-15) to produce a painted partially-formed building block (Column 4, Lines 16-24); performing a drying process (Column 11, Lines 58-59) with respect to the painted partially-formed building block; and wherein the second cutting process is performed on a painted partially-formed building block (Column 4, Lines 25-28).
Noguchi and White, Jr. are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wood processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of White, Jr. of applying paint to the partially-formed building block to produce a painted partially-formed building block; performing a drying process with respect to the painted partially-formed building block; and wherein the second cutting process is performed on a painted partially-formed building block into the process disclosed by Noguchi to reduce the tendency of the building block to shatter during the second cutting (Column 4, Lines 19-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
547
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. renders the process as claimed in Claim 11 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. further teaches wherein: paint (White Jr. - Column 4, Lines 16-24) is disposed on a top surface (see annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced above) of the fully-formed building block (Noguchi - Fig. 1, Element A), a plurality of side surfaces of the fully-formed building block (see annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced above), and a portion of a bottom surface of the fully-formed building block (see annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced above); and an additional portion of the bottom surface is free of paint (¶0013, Lines 4-9, Fig. 1, Element 4 and 5; surfaces on where the cavities have been formed during the second cutting process; annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced above), the additional portion of the bottom surface corresponding to interior regions of a plurality of cavities of the fully-formed building block (annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced above illustrates the ones that are most visible in the Figure).
Regarding Claim 28, the prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. renders the process as claimed in Claim 11 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. further teaches wherein applying paint (White Jr. - Column 4, Lines 16-24) to the partially-formed building block (Noguchi - ¶0013, Lines 1-4; Fig. 1, Element A) includes applying paint (White Jr. - Column 4, Lines 16-24) to a top surface of the body (see annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced above) and to a plurality of side surfaces of the body (see annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 29, the prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. renders the process as claimed in Claim 11 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. further teaches wherein the body (Fig. 1, Element A) is comprised of a biodegradable material (Noguchi - ¶0013, Line 1) that includes bamboo or a wood material (Noguchi - ¶0013, Line 1).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of White, Jr. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Auer (DE4400836A1), hereinafter "Auer”. For text citation of Auer refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. renders the process as claimed in Claim 11 unpatentable as explained above.
While the prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. teaches applying paint (White, Jr. - Column 4, Lines 16-24; Fig. 1) to a top surface (see annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced above) and the number of coupling regions (Noguchi - Fig. 1, Elements 2 and 3) of the partially-formed building block (Noguchi - Fig. 1, Element A; Noguchi- ¶0013, Lines 1-4), it fails to teach applying an oil.
Nonetheless, Auer teaches applying an oil (¶0008).
Noguchi, White, Jr., and Auer are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wood processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Auer of applying an oil into the process disclosed by Noguchi and modified by White, Jr. to significantly improved the surface hardness (¶0009).
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., and Auer renders the process as claimed in Claim 12 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., and Auer, as of now, fails to teach comprising applying the oil to the top surface and the number of coupling regions of the fully-formed building block.
Nonetheless, Auer teaches a second process in which oil is applied to already oil-treated parts (¶0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Auer of applying an oil for a second time into the process disclosed by Noguchi and modified by White, Jr. so that oil is applied to the top surface and the number of coupling regions of the fully-formed building block to make the fully-formed building block insensitive to environmental influences (¶0015).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of White, Jr., and Auer as applied to claim13 above, and further in view of Zhao (CN111216211A), hereinafter "Zhao". For text citation of Zhao refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 26, the prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., and Auer renders the process as claimed in Claim 13 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., and Auer further teaches comprising: performing a curing process (Auer - ¶0021) after the oil (Auer - ¶0021) is applied to the top surface (see annotated Fig. 1 of Noguchi reproduced above) and the number of coupling regions (Noguchi - Fig. 1, Elements 2 and 3) of the partially-formed building block (Noguchi - Fig. 1, Element A; Noguchi- ¶0013, Lines 1-4), wherein the curing process is performed for a duration from about 24 hours to about 48 hours (Auer - ¶0021); and performing an additional curing process (Auer - ¶0021; Examiner Note: it is understood that the drying/curing process described by Auer occurs for both described processes in which oil is applied) after the oil is applied (¶0015) to the fully-formed building block (Fig. 1, Element A), wherein the additional curing process is performed for a duration from about 24 hours to about 48 hours (Auer - ¶0021).
Auer teaches the curing processes being performed at room temperatures (¶0021), thus the prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., and Auer fails to teach both curing processes being performed at temperatures from about 65°C to about 80°C.
Nonetheless, Zhao teaches a curing process (¶0031) performed at temperatures from about 65°C to about 80°C (¶0030).
Noguchi, White, Jr., Auer, and Zhao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wood processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhao of using temperatures from about 65°C to about 80°C into the curing processes of the process disclosed by Noguchi and modified by White, Jr. and Auer to allow the oil to penetrate into the building block more quickly (¶0032).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of White, Jr., Auer, and Zhao as applied to claim13 above, and further in view of Olloz (EP0346273A1), hereinafter "Olloz". For text citation of Olloz refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 27, the prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., Auer, and Zhao renders the process as claimed in Claim 26 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., Auer, and Zhao fails to teach wherein the oil is a hemp-based oil.
Nonetheless, Olloz teaches wherein the oil (¶0007-0008) is a hemp-based oil (¶0008).
Noguchi, White, Jr., Auer, Zhao, and Olloz are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wood processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Olloz of using a hemp oil into the process disclosed by Noguchi and modified by White, Jr., Auer, and Zhao to protect the building block from infestation by harmful insects (¶0007).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of White, Jr. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Knorr (WO2016172763A1), hereinafter “Knorr”.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. renders the process as claimed in Claim 11 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. fails to teach wherein the first cutting process and the second cutting process are performed using a computer numerical control (CNC) wood cutting machine.
Nonetheless, Knorr teaches wood processing (Page 5, Lines 5-9) using a computer numerical control (CNC) wood cutting machine (Page 9, Lines 6-10).
Noguchi, White Jr., and Knorr are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wood processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Knorr of using a computer numerical control (CNC) wood machine into the process disclosed by Noguchi and modified by White, Jr. such as that the first cutting process and the second cutting process are performed using a computer numerical control (CNC) wood cutting machine which would result in automation and efficient manufacture (Page 9, Lines 6-10).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of White, Jr. and Knorr as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US20100119857A1), hereinafter “Johnson”.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., and Knorr renders the process as claimed in Claim 14 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., and Knorr fails to teach wherein the drying process is performed at temperatures from about 60°C to about 90°C for a duration from about 36 hours to about 120 hours.
Nonetheless, Johnson teaches wherein the drying process (¶0073) is performed at a range of temperatures (¶0073) for a range of duration (¶0073). The drying process being performed at specific temperature ranges (temperatures from about 60°C to about 90°C) for a specific duration (a duration from about 36 hours to about 120 hours) is a result effective parameter since Johnson teaches ranges of temperatures and durations.
Noguchi, White, Jr., Knorr, and Johnson are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wood processing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to performed the drying process at temperatures from about 60°C to about 90°C for a duration from about 36 hours to about 120 hours, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective parameter involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesh, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA1980).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of White, Jr. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Taber (US1937858A), hereinafter “Taber”.
Regarding Claim 25, the prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. renders the process as claimed in Claim 11 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. fails to teach wherein paint is applied to the partially-formed building block using a spraying process.
Nonetheless, Taber discloses wherein paint (Column 2, Lines 50-64; Column 2, Lines 81-93) is applied using a spraying process (Column 2, Lines 81-93).
Noguchi, White, Jr., and Taber are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wood processing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Taber of applying paint using a spraying process into the process disclosed by Noguchi and modified by White, Jr. so that paint is applied to the partially-formed building block using a spraying process to produce a smooth and uniform surface with a dull finish (Column 2, Lines 81-93).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of White, Jr. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Qi et al. (CN108608541A), hereinafter "Qi”. For text citation of Qui refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 30, the prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. renders the process as claimed in Claim 11 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. fails to teach wherein the paint is a water-based paint.
Nonetheless, Qi teaches wherein the paint (¶0039) is a water-based paint (¶0039).
Noguchi, White, Jr., and Qi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wood processing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Qi of using water-based paint into the process disclosed by Noguchi and modified by White, Jr. to provide with a diluent that is a non-hazardous, non-flammable or explosive chemical (¶0007, Lines 3-5).
Claim 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of White, Jr. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Grimes (US20180296909A1), hereinafter "Grimes".
Regarding Claim 31, the prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. renders the process as claimed in Claim 16 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr. further teaches wherein the plurality of cavities (Fig. 1, Elements 4 and 5) include a first cavity (Fig. 1, Element 4) and a second cavity (Fig. 1, Element 5)
The prior art combination of Noguchi and White, Jr fails to teach wherein the second cavity is disposed within the first cavity, the first cavity having a rectangular shape and the second cavity having a circular shape.
Nonetheless, Grimes teaches wherein the second cavity (annotated Fig. 3 of Grimes reproduced below) is disposed within the first cavity (annotated Fig. 3 of Grimes reproduced below), the first cavity having a rectangular shape (annotated Fig. 3 of Grimes reproduced below) and the second cavity having a circular shape (annotated Fig. 3 of Grimes reproduced below).
Noguchi, White, Jr., and Grimes are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wood processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Grimes of wherein the second cavity is disposed within the first cavity, the first cavity having a rectangular shape and the second cavity having a circular shape into the process disclosed by Noguchi and modified by White, Jr. to provide a process of producing building blocks that is adapted for tailoring to a design need such as changing the contouring of the block (¶0006; ¶0021).
PNG
media_image2.png
438
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Grimes
Regarding Claim 32, the prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., and Grimes renders the process as claimed in Claim 31 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., and Grimes further teaches wherein: the bottom surface (annotated Fig. 3 of Grimes reproduced above) includes: a first boundary region (annotated Fig. 3 of Grimes reproduced above) that is disposed around the first cavity (annotated Fig. 3 of Grimes reproduced above); and a second boundary region (annotated Fig. 3 of Grimes reproduced above) that is within the first cavity and disposed around the second cavity (annotated Fig. 3 of Grimes reproduced above).
The prior art combination of Noguchi, White, Jr., and Grimes, as of now, fails to teach wherein the first boundary region and the second boundary region are painted.
Nonetheless, Grimes further teaches wherein the finished design is painted (¶0029; which would then include the first and second boundary region).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Grimes of painting the finished design including the first and second boundary region into the process disclosed by Noguchi and modified by White, Jr. and Grimes such that the first boundary region and the second boundary region are painted to paint and sculpt the finished design to a desired appearance (¶0029).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/A.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights