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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because:
Photographs-
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
(2) Color photographs. Color photographs will be accepted in utility and design patent applications if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) of this section.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-7 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 initially recites the limitation “one or more honeycomb assemblies, and then recites “each of said honeycomb assemblies”. It appears that the Applicant is establishing more than one assembly, therefore it is unclear. Examiner suggest that Applicant recite “said one or more assemblies” for clarity and consistency. Appropriate correction is necessary. Claims are examined as best understood.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reps (U.S. Patent No. 3,857,217).
Regarding claim 1, Reps discloses a building block that can be a brick (Fig. 1) comprising one or more honeycomb assemblies (Fig. 4) encased within a concrete encasement (10), each of said honeycomb assemblies comprising a top plate (20, Fig. 4), a bottom plate (18) spaced apart from and parallel to the top plate, and a honeycomb layer (12) positioned between the top plate and the bottom plate.
Regarding claim 2, Reps discloses the honeycomb layer comprises a plurality of cavities (14) where each cavity has a central axis which is oriented vertically (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, Reps discloses the honeycomb layer (12) comprises a plurality of cavities (14) where each cavity has a central axis and the central axis of each cavity is parallel to one another (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Reps discloses the honeycomb layer (12) comprises a plurality of cavities (14) where each cavity has at least one vertical wall, where each cavity shares a vertical wall with an adjacent cavity (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Reps discloses a side rib (24) extending outwardly from a first end of the brick; and a side notch (26) sized to accept the side rib and placed on an opposing second end of the brick (Fig. 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reps (U.S. Patent No. 3,857,217) in view of Sinclair (U.S. Patent No. 8,215,079).
Regarding claim 6, Reps discloses the brick as set forth above, but does not disclose the brick having a top rib extending upwardly from a top surface of the brick; and a bottom notch sized to accept the top rib and placed on a bottom surface of the brick. However, Sinclair teaches that it is known to have a building block capable of being of a brick (4, Figs. 4-6) that has a top rib (extension 5) extending upwardly from a top surface of the brick and a bottom notch (recess 6) sized to accept the top rib and placed on a bottom surface of the brick to help facilitate the interlocking of the bricks to help facilitate the ease of construction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made a brick with interlocking ribs to help ease of assembling the bricks during construction.
Regarding claim 7, Sinclair further discloses a pipe slot (approximate 5, Figs. 4 and 6) placed within the top rib.
Claim(s) 8-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reps (U.S. Patent No. 3,857,217) in view of Wielinga et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,117,520).
Regarding claim 8, Reps discloses a brick (Figs. 1 and 3-4) comprising a hollow center; a first honeycomb assembly (12) placed within the hollow center; but does not disclose a second honeycomb assembly placed within the hollow center and positioned directly atop the first honeycomb assembly. However, Wielinga et al. teaches that it is known to have a honeycomb cell structure that comprises at least a first and second honeycomb assemblies (Figs. 1-2) that are stacked and attached to one another for better reinforcement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a honeycomb cell that comprised of at least a first and second honeycomb assembly positioned directly atop of one another that occupied a hollow interior of a brick to provide optimum reinforcement and to make larger blocks.
Regarding claim 9, Wielinga et al. further discloses the first and second honeycomb assemblies each (Fig. 2) comprise a top plate, a bottom plate (4,6,7, 9) spaced apart from and parallel to the top plate, and a honeycomb layer (5, 8) positioned between the top plate and the bottom plate.
Regarding claim 10, Wielinga et al. further discloses the top plate (7) of the first honeycomb assembly is in contact with the bottom plate (6) of the second honeycomb assembly (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Wielinga et al. further discloses the top plate (4, 7) and bottom plate (6, 9) of both the first and second honeycomb assemblies are each oriented horizontally (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Wielinga et al. further discloses the honeycomb layer for both the first and second honeycomb assemblies (5, 8) comprises a plurality of hexagonal tubes, each tube having a central axis which is oriented vertically (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Reps discloses a side rib (24, Fig. 1) running vertically along on first end of the brick; and a side notch (26) sized to accept the side rib and running vertically along a second end of the brick.
Regarding claim 14, Reps discloses the axes of the hexagonal tubes are each parallel to the side rib (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 16, Reps discloses a brick (Figs. 1 and 3-4) comprising a first honeycomb assembly (Fig. 4) comprising a first top plate (20), a first bottom plate (18) spaced apart from and parallel to the first top plate, and a first honeycomb layer (12) positioned between the first top plate (20) and the first bottom plate (18). Reps discloses a concrete encasement layer (10) which completely surrounds the first honeycomb assembly, but does not disclose a second honeycomb assembly comprising a second top plate, a second bottom plate spaced apart from and parallel to the second top plate, and a second honeycomb layer positioned between the second top plate and the second bottom plate; or the concrete encasement layer completely surrounding the first and second honeycomb assemblies; and wherein the first and second honeycomb assemblies are placed atop one another such that the first top plate is in contact with the second bottom plate. However, Wielinga et al. teaches that it is known to have a honeycomb cell structure that comprises of at least a first and second honeycomb assemblies (Figs. 1-2) that each have a top plate (4, 7), a bottom plate (6, 9), a honeycomb layer (5, 8) placed there in-between and are placed atop one another such that first top plate is in contact with the second bottom plate to provide better reinforcement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a honeycomb cell that comprised of at least a first and second honeycomb assembly positioned atop of one another and completely surrounded by a concrete encasement to provide a brick with optimum reinforcement and to make larger bricks.
Claim(s) 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reps (U.S. Patent No. 3,857,217) and Wielinga et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,117,520) further in view of Sinclair (U.S. Patent No. 8,215,079).
Regarding claim 15, Reps and Wielinga et al. discloses the brick as set forth above, but does not disclose a top rib which extends along a top surface of the brick to join with the side rib at a right angle. However, Sinclair teaches that it is known
have a building block capable of being of a brick (4, Figs. 4-6) that has a top rib (extension 5) extending upwardly from a top surface of the brick capable of joining with the side rib at a right angle to help facilitate the interlocking of the bricks to help facilitate the ease of construction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made a brick with interlocking ribs to help ease of assembling the bricks during construction.
Regarding claim 17, Reps further discloses a side rib (24) extending outwardly from a first end of the brick; a side notch (26) sized to accept the side rib and placed on an opposing second end of the brick but does not disclose a top rib running horizontally along a top surface of the brick; and a bottom notch sized to accept the top rib and placed on a bottom surface of the brick. However, Sinclair teaches that it is known to have a building block capable of being of a brick (4, Figs. 4-6) that has a top rib (extension 5) running horizontally along a top surface of the brick and a bottom notch (recess 6) sized to accept the top rib and placed on a bottom surface of the brick to help facilitate the interlocking of the bricks to help facilitate the ease of construction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made a brick with interlocking ribs to help ease of assembling the bricks during construction.
Regarding claim 18, Reps further discloses the side rib (24) and side notch (26) each have a rectangular shape, at least in part (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Reps discloses the entire brick being encased in concrete as set forth above. It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date claimed invention to have the top rib comprise a strip of the concrete encasement layer which extends upwardly.
Regarding claim 20, Sinclair further teaches a pipe slot (approximate 5) placed within the top rib (extension 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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 J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633