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 .
Claim Status
The amendments filed October 30, 2024 have been entered and examined accordingly.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In this application, the claims recite the following limitations that invoke an interpretation under 35 USC 112(f):
“a load-joint locking and displacement prevention means” is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Per the specification and the claims, this is being interpreted (in the independent claims) as requiring (1) a locking means (interlocks), or (2) a displacement prevention means (cams), or (3) both (or equivalents).
“joint-material stabilizing device” is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Per the specification, this structure is being interpretated as cams (or equivalents)
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 7 and 14 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 7 recites “said head is polygonal” which depends from claim 1 which recites that the head comprises “a multiplicity of head side faces” which renders the scope indefinite. It is unclear how claim 7 further limits, or defines, the structure as presented in claim 1. It appears that claim 1 already requires at least three sides, thus rendering the scope of claim 7 unclear.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said at least one dummy joint" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagenah US Patent Application Publication 2005/0066607 hereinafter referred to as Hagenah.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Hagenah discloses a paving stone or paving slab (20), comprising: a base (see annotated figure below) comprising a load-joint locking and displacement prevention means (22 and 56) and a multiplicity of base side faces (as shown on the Figures, there are four shown); a head arranged on said base (see annotated figure below) having a head upper side (23) and a multiplicity of head side faces (as shown on the Figures, there are four shown); said head on its head upper side having a smaller periphery in a horizontal section than a nominal-dimension-based periphery of said base (space (38) versus space (32), given the chamfered edge as shown on Figure 8); said head side faces in a laid state of the paving stone or the paving slab form,
together with a head side face of an adjacent identical or similar paving stone or identical or
similar paving slab, a surface joint (38) with a surface-joint width which is the same as or larger
than a load-joint (32) width of a load joint between bases of adjacent identical or similar paving
stones or identical or similar paving slabs [0030 - 10mm for the surface joint versus 4mm for the load-joint]; and joint axes of said load joint and of said surface joint lying one on top of the other in a polysurface and said load joint and said surface joint connected to one another (as shown on Figures 9-16). Hagenah further discloses the additional limitation of claim 17, wherein Hagenah further discloses joint material (grass) in the-said surface joints (31) [0038].
[AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (line dividing the base and head)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (head of paver)][AltContent: textbox (base of paver)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
210
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Hagenah
Regarding claim 2, Hagenah further discloses the wherein said base side faces extend vertically [0001].
Regarding claim 3, Hagenah further discloses wherein said base is quadrilateral in said horizontal section (as shown on the figures).
Regarding claim 4, Hagenah further discloses wherein the load-joint locking and displacement prevention means has at least one spacer cams (56) on at least one of said base side faces for locking said load joints (the depressions (56) are considered equivalent structures as the disclosed spacer cams because they perform the same function as noted in [0039] that the depression (56) prevents horizontal shifting just like the disclosed spacer cams. Additionally, the specification does not define the structural scope of “cam” nor does it appear to be used in its normal meaning of a disk/plate that translates motion).
Regarding claim 5, Hagenah further discloses wherein the load-joint locking and displacement prevention means has at least two parallel, vertical, outwardly protruding interlock portions (22) on at least one of said base side faces for preventing displacement [0029], which in said laid state of the paving stone or the paving slab interact with said interlock portions on a base side face of an adjacent identical or similar paving stone or an adjacent identical or similar paving slab [0030-0033].
Regarding claim 6, Hagenah further discloses the load-joint locking and displacement prevention means has a load-joint locking device separate from a displacement prevention device (as cited in claims 4 and 5, Hagenah discloses distinct elements).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Hagenah further discloses wherein the head is polygonal in said horizontal section (as shown on the figures).
Regarding claim 8, Hagenah further discloses wherein the head side faces and said base side faces extend in side-parallel fashion (as shown on the figures).
Regarding claim 9, Hagenah further discloses wherein the head side faces extend downward with their cross sections widening (as shown on Figure 8 - via chamfer (27)).
Regarding claim 10, Hagenah further discloses comprising a console as claimed (see annotated figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (console)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (base of paver)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (head of paver)][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
227
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Hagenah
Regarding claim 11, Hagenah further discloses wherein said head side faces merge into said console (as shown on the Figure 8).
Regarding claim 12, Hagenah further discloses wherein said console extends horizontally (as shown on Figure 8, the console extends in both a vertical and horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 13, Hagenah further discloses at least one joint-material stabilizing device on at least one of said head side faces (see mapping to the console above - Examiner notes that this claim is directly off of claim 1, and therefore can be mapped to the same structure of claim 10).
Regarding claim 14, Hagenah further discloses at least one dummy joint (see mapping above to the console - Examiner notes that this claim is directly off of claim 1, and therefore can be mapped to the same structure of claim 10).
Regarding claim 15, Hagenah further discloses wherein said base is made of concrete (see title of the invention).
Regarding claim 18, Hagenah further discloses wherein said paving stones or paving slabs are configured and arranged such that straight profiles of said surface joints with identical surface-joint widths are produced or upper sides of said paving stones or paving slabs are flat or configured or arranged such that profiles of said surface joints with irregular surface-joint widths are produced [0032-0040].
Regarding claim 19, Hagenah further discloses wherein said base has a greater height than said head (as shown on the figures).
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 16, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagenah as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sturley US Patent Application Publication 2008/0217584 hereinafter referred to as Sturley.
Regarding claim 16, Hagenah discloses the paving stone according to claim 1 as discussed above. Hagenah fails to disclose wherein the head and base are made of distinct materials. Sturley teaches an analogous paving brick with a head (604, 606 - Figures 15-18) and a base (602). The head is made of a photoluminescent material in order to providing lighting in low light conditions [0004 and 0005]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the head and base portions of Hagenah with distinct materials, such as a photoluminescent material for the head to achieve the advantage of proving light for users.
Regarding claim 20, Hagenah fails to disclose wherein said head is fastened by adhesive bonding to said base. Sturley teaches an analogous paving brick with a head (604, 606 - Figures 15-18) and a base (602). The head is made of a photoluminescent material in order to providing lighting in low light conditions [0004 and 0005]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the head and base portions of Hagenah with distinct materials, such as a photoluminescent material for the head to achieve the advantage of proving light for users. With this modification, Sturley further teaches wherein the head portion would be adhered to the base [0077, 0088].
Regarding claim 21, Hagenah further discloses further comprising said head is made of one of natural stone, ceramic, glass, brick, wood, plastic, or metal. Sturley teaches an analogous paving brick with a head (604, 606 - Figures 15-18) and a base (602). The head is made of a photoluminescent material in order to providing lighting in low light conditions [0004 and 0005]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the head and base portions of Hagenah with distinct materials, such as a photoluminescent material for the head to achieve the advantage of proving light for users. With this modification, the head portion is made from plastic [0078].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu US Patent 5,409,325 teaches a paver with distinct materials for the head and base as well as being formed with interlocking elements between the pavers.
Scheiwiller US Patent Application Publication 2008/0101860 teaches an analogous paver with concave and convex interlocking side faces with a head portion and a base portion.
Geiger US Patent Application Publication 2002/0104283 teaches an analogous interlocking paver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA SCHIMPF whose telephone number is (571)270-7741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 3:30pm 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, John Fristoe can be reached at (571) 272-4926. 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.
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights