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 Species 1: Block of Fig. 1 in the reply filed on 03/19/2025 is acknowledged.
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 8-10 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.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear how a first imaginary line coincident with the first side surface intersects a first end of the second face and a second imaginary line coincident with the second side surface intersects a second end of the second face, when the first side surface is disclosed as having a length greater than the second side surface. The examiner will examine as best understood, with a first imaginary line coincident with the third side surface intersects a first end of the first face and a second imaginary line coincident with the fourth side surface intersects a second end of the first face as shown in the figures. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 USC 112 as being dependent on a rejected 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-12, 15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dawson, U.S. Patent 6,821,058.
Regarding claim 1, Dawson discloses a block comprising: a first end portion comprising a first face and first and second opposing side surfaces; a second end portion comprising a second face and third and fourth opposing side surfaces; and an intermediate portion extending between and interconnecting the first and second end portions; wherein the first and second side surfaces taper toward each other extending in a direction from the first face toward the second face; wherein the third and fourth side surfaces taper toward each other extending in a direction from the second face toward the first face (see Fig. 5A reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
419
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Dawson discloses a block wherein the intermediate portion comprises two parallel legs separated by a core (322, 324) extending the height of the block.
Regarding claim 3, Dawson discloses a block wherein the first end portion has a first depth and the second end portion has a second depth, wherein the first depth equals the second depth (see Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 4, Dawson discloses a block wherein the first end portion comprises at least one first core (318) configured to receive a block-connecting element and the second end portion comprises at least one second core (319) configured to receive a block-connecting element (as the portions comprise cavities, the portions are capable of receiving an element). The phrase “configured to receive a block-connecting element” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Dawson discloses a block wherein the first and second cores are spaced equidistant from a line parallel to the first and second faces and bisecting the block (when a line is drawn equidistant between inner surfaces of each core).
Regarding claim 7, Dawson discloses a block wherein the intermediate portion comprises opposing and parallel fifth and sixth outer side surfaces, wherein the fifth and sixth side surfaces are perpendicular to the first and second faces (see Fig. 5A reproduced above).
Regarding claim 11, Dawson discloses a wall comprising: at least a first lower course and a second upper course overlying the first course (as shown in Fig. 12), wherein each course comprises a plurality of blocks (300a), including at least a first subset of first blocks (any two of 300a as shown in Fig. 12); wherein each first block comprises: a first end portion comprising a first face and first and second opposing side surfaces; a second end portion comprising a second face and third and fourth opposing side surfaces; and an intermediate portion extending between and interconnecting the first and second end portions; wherein the first and second side surfaces taper toward each other extending in a direction from the first face toward the second face; wherein the third and fourth side surfaces taper toward each other extending in a direction from the second face toward the first face (see Fig. 5A reproduced above).
Regarding claim 12, Dawson discloses a wall comprising wherein a first block of the first course is interconnected with a first block of the second course via a block-connecting element (700; col. 2, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 15, Dawson discloses a wall wherein the first faces of one or more first blocks are exposed in the front surface of the wall and the second faces of one or more first blocks are exposed in the front surface of the wall (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 18, Dawson discloses a wall comprising: forming a first course of blocks arranged side-by-side along the first course (Fig. 12, lowest course); and forming a second course of blocks on top of the first course, the second course comprising blocks arranged side-by-side along the second course (Fig. 12, second course of blocks); wherein the blocks of the first and second courses include at least a first subset of first blocks (any two adjacent blocks of the first course), wherein each first block comprises: a first end portion comprising a first face and first and second opposing side surfaces; a second end portion comprising a second face and third and fourth opposing side surfaces; and an intermediate portion extending between and interconnecting the first and second end portions; wherein the first and second side surfaces taper toward each other extending in a direction from the first face toward the second face; wherein the third and fourth side surfaces taper toward each other extending in a direction from the second face toward the first face (see Fig. 5A reproduced above).
Regarding claim 19, Dawson discloses a wall further comprising interconnecting a first block of the first course and a first block of the second course with a separate block-connecting element (700, as shown in Fig. 13, generally).
Regarding claim 20, Dawson discloses a wall wherein the first faces of one or more first blocks are exposed in a front surface of the wall and the second faces of one or more first blocks are exposed in the front surface of the wall (see Fig. 12).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8-10, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson, U.S. Patent 6,821,058.
Regarding claim 6, Dawson discloses a block wherein the first face has a first length extending from the first side surface to the second side surface (as shown in Fig. 5A), and the second face has a second length extending from the third side surface to the fourth side surface (as shown in Fig. 5A), but does not disclose wherein the first length is greater than the second length. Dawson does teach, in an embodiment, the first length (at 104) is greater than the second length (at 105). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the block with the first length greater than the second length depending on a desired curvature of a resulting wall (see for example Fig. 12), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 8, Dawson discloses a block, but does not disclose, in the embodiment, wherein a first imaginary line coincident with the first side surface intersects a first end of the second face and a second imaginary line coincident with the second side surface intersects a second end of the second face. Dawson does teach, in an embodiment, a first imaginary line coincident with the third side surface intersects a first end of the first face and a second imaginary line coincident with the fourth side surface intersects a second end of the first face (with first and second edges being the outer edges of 109, see Fig. 2B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the block with the first length greater than the second length depending on a desired curvature of a resulting wall (see for example Fig. 12), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 9, Dawson discloses a block, as modified, wherein the block has a first void bounded by the first imaginary line, the third side surface, and the intermediate portion and a second void bounded by the second imaginary line, the fourth side surface, and the intermediate portion (as modified, see Fig. 2B), as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 10, Dawson discloses a block wherein the first face, the second face, the first side surface, the second side surface, the first imaginary line, and the second imaginary line define an isosceles trapezoid (see Figs. 2B, 5A).
Regarding claim 16, Dawson discloses a wall claim 16, Dawson discloses a wall wherein the plurality of blocks of each course includes a second subset of second blocks (any other set of two blocks as shown in Fig. 12), wherein the second blocks have first and second faces (same faces as the first blocks), but does not disclose wherein the first faces of the second blocks are longer than the first faces of the first blocks. Dawson does teach, in an embodiment, the first length (at 104) is greater than the second length (at 105). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the block with the first length greater than the second length depending on a desired curvature of a resulting wall (see for example Fig. 12), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 17, Dawson discloses a wall wherein the first blocks and the second blocks have the same shape (see Fig. 12, generally).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson, U.S. Patent 6,821,058 in view of Lundell et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0119915.
Regarding claim 13, Dawson discloses a wall but does not disclose wherein the first block of the first course is set back relative to the first block of the second course to form a positive batter. Lundell teaches courses of blocks offset from one another (Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the courses of the wall in such a manner depending on the desired wall appearance and depending on the size and location of first portion voids for placement of the connectors as an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 14, Dawson discloses a wall but does not disclose wherein the first block of the first course is set forward relative to the first block of the second course to form a negative batter. Lundell teaches courses of blocks offset from one another (Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the courses of the wall in such a manner depending on the desired wall appearance and depending on the size and location of first portion voids for placement of the connectors as an obvious design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633