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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending and subject to examination in this Office action.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted to date are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1 (1st limitation), the terms “the upper portion” and “the lower portion” lack proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1 (1st limitation), the phrase “every direction” is recited. This phrase appears to contradict the present disclosure which indicates that the blocks are interlockingly stacked horizontally and vertically. Therefore, clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 3, the term “the front and rear surfaces” lacks proper antecedent basis. Moreover, as presently drafted, the phrase “one or more surfaces of the front and rear surfaces thereof” is confusing. Should this simply be “one or more front and rear surfaces thereof”?
Regarding claim 5, the term “the outer surfaces” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Accordingly, the pending claims will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Walter (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0328030).
Regarding independent claim 1 and method claim 5, as best understood, Walter describes a precast concrete reinforcing block assembly comprising:
a plurality of precast concrete reinforcing block units (110) each having a cuboidal body (112), an upper extension portion (146) protruding from the upper portion of the body in one direction, and a lower extension portion (125 or 141) protruding from the lower portion of the body in the other direction, so that the plurality of precast concrete reinforcing block units are interlockingly stacked on top of each other in every direction by means of hollow holes (122, 126, 148) formed therein to pass therethrough in longitudinal directions thereof (Fig. 25);
internal reinforcing bars (164) adapted to pass through the hollow holes of the plurality of precast concrete reinforcing block units stacked up and down on top of each other (Fig. 25); and
filling materials (i.e., binding agent; see e.g., ¶¶ [0075], [0079]) filled in the hollow holes of the plurality of precast concrete reinforcing block units.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the hollow holes pass through the body, the upper extension portion, and the lower extension portion, respectively, in vertical directions (Fig. 25).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Walter as applied above, and further in view of Weber (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0308698).
Walter does not appear to expressly describe external grooves oriented and positioned as claimed that receive external bars therein. As evidenced by Weber, it was old and well-known in the art to provide external grooves (38) oriented and positioned as claimed that receive external bars (50) therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide external receiving grooves oriented and positioned as claimed that receive external bars therein with a reasonable expectation of success to bolster the structural integrity of the block assembly. Such combination of known prior art elements that merely yields predictable results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16.
Accordingly, Walter as modified by Weber results in the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EDT.
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 on 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights