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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because “the border” should be --the curved border--. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “23c” and “24c” has been used to designate both “flat edge portion” and “straight border”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wauhop (7,963,727) in view of Price (7,661,239).
1. Wauhop, figs. 1-15, abstract, col. 5, lines 34-66 to at least col. 6, lies 1-66, teaches a wall block having spaced-apart front and rear sections interconnected by two laterally spaced-apart side sections that jointly define a through-cavity extending in a top-bottom direction through the wall block from a top face thereof to a bottom face thereof, the front section having a panel (“panel 23”) on its front side, the panel surrounded around its entire perimeter by a curved border at its top and both sides and by a flat border at its bottom, col. 8, lines 57-66. Wauhop does not teach the panel is a raised panel having a beveled edge around its entire perimeter. Price teaches a panel is a raised panel (“generally planar surface 30 and marginal areas 32, 34, 36, and 38”) having a beveled edge (32, 34, 36, 38) around its entire perimeter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the panel to be a raised panel having a beveled edge around its entire perimeter (to replace the Wauhop “panel” as described with the Price raised panel) to accentuate the look of the front by replacing the rough textured panel with a smooth front surface/beveled edge raised panel for a more uniform appearance and contrast with the Wauhop curved border and to “create a raised panel effect”, col. 3, lines 42-43.
2. Wauhop in view of Price teaches the block according to claim 1, Price further teaching the raised panel has a smooth texture (“planar”) front surface.
Examiner indicates that Applicant discloses the sole benefit of a smooth textured front face wall block finished article is that certain “applications prefer or even require blocks having smooth front faces”, no corresponding examples of such applications being disclosed.
3. Wauhop in view of Price teaches the block according to claim 2, Wauhop in view of Price further teaching the front face of the raised panel is raised with respect to the border an amount equal to the thickness of the beveled edge in a front- rear direction because the modification of Wauhop is to replace the non-raised Wauhop panel with the Price raised panel.
5. Wauhop in view of Price teaches the block according to claim 1, Wauhop, fig. 1, further including two or more protuberances 12 protruding outwardly from the top face of the front section frontward of the through-cavity, the protuberances being laterally spaced apart from one another and lying along a straight line, and a groove 20 extending laterally in the bottom face of the front section frontward of the through- cavity, the groove being located and dimensioned relative to the protuberances so that two wall blocks can be stacked one atop another in staggered relation with one or more protuberances of the lower wall block fitted in the groove of the upper wall block and the upper wall block set back with respect to the lower wall block.
6. Wauhop in view of Price teaches the block according to claim 1, Wauhop, fig. 7, further including a retaining wall structure comprising successive courses of wall blocks stacked one atop another with each succeeding course set back relative to its preceding course and with the wall blocks of each course staggered relative to the wall blocks of adjoining courses, each of the wall blocks being constructed according to claim 1.
7. Wauhop in view of Price teaches the block according to claim 1, Wauhop further teaching the wall block composed of a concrete mixture, col. 1, line 26.
8. Wauhop, figs. 1-15, abstract, col. 5, lines 34-66 to at least col. 6, lies 1-66, teaches a wall block having spaced-apart front and rear sections interconnected by two laterally spaced-apart side sections that jointly define a through-cavity extending in a top-bottom direction through the wall block from a top face thereof to a bottom face thereof, the front section having a panel 24 on its front side, the panel being divided into two smaller panels of different widths by a groove that extends in the top-bottom direction, each smaller panel having a beveled edge around its entire perimeter, and the beveled edge being surrounded around its entire perimeter by a curved border at its top and both sides and by a flat border at its bottom (figs. 1-7 all show such a panel). Wauhop does not teach the panel is a raised panel. Price teaches a panel is a raised panel (“generally planar surface 30 and marginal areas 32, 34, 36, and 38”) having a beveled edge (32, 34, 36, 38) around its entire perimeter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the panel to be a raised panel having a beveled edge around its entire perimeter (to replace the Wauhop “panel” as described with the Price raised panel) to accentuate the look of the front by replacing the rough textured panel with a smooth front surface/beveled edge raised panel for a more uniform appearance and contrast with the Wauhop curved border and to “create a raised panel effect”, col. 3, lines 42-43.
9. Wauhop in view of Price teaches the block according to claim 8, Price further teaching each smaller raised panel has a smooth texture (planar) front face.
Examiner indicates that Applicant discloses the sole benefit of a smooth textured front face wall block finished article is that certain “applications prefer or even require blocks having smooth front faces” with no corresponding examples of such applications disclosed.
10. Wauhop in view of Price teaches the block according to claim 9, Wauhop, fig. 7, further teaching the front face of each smaller raised panel is raised with respect to the border an amount equal to the thickness of the beveled edge in a front-rear direction because the modification of Wauhop is to replace the non-raised Wauhop panel with the Pardo raised panel.
12. Wauhop in view of Price teaches the block according to claim 8, Wauhop, fig. 1, further including two or more protuberances 12 protruding outward from the top face of the front section frontward of the through-cavity, the protuberances being laterally spaced apart from one another and lying along a straight line, and a groove 20 extending laterally in the bottom face of the front section frontward of the through- cavity, the groove being located and dimensioned relative to the protuberances so that two wall blocks can be stacked one atop another in staggered relation with one or more protuberances of the lower wall block fitted in the groove of the upper wall block and the upper wall block set back with respect to the lower wall block.
13. Wauhop in view of Price teaches the block according to claim 8, Wauhop further teaching the wall block composed of a concrete mixture, col. 1, line 26.
14. Wauhop in view of Price teaches the block according to claim 8, Wauhop, fig. 7, further including a retaining wall structure comprising successive courses of wall blocks stacked one atop another with each succeeding course set back relative to its preceding course and with the wall blocks of each course staggered relative to the wall blocks of adjoining courses, each of the wall blocks being constructed according to claim 8.
Claims 4 and 11 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wauhop in view of Price and in further view of Pardo (4,993,206).
The Wauhop in view of Price border width as measured in the vertical plane of a front face of a raised panel is not expressly taught as being substantially (or considerably) greater than a thickness of an edge. Pardo teaches a border width bw as measured in the vertical plane of a front face of a raised panel is substantially or considerably greater than a thickness of an edge ew.
PNG
media_image1.png
261
199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 (Pardo)
11. Wauhop in view of Price does not expressly teach in each smaller raised panel, the width of the border as measured in the vertical plane of the front face thereof is substantially greater than the thickness of the beveled edge. Pardo teaches a border width bw as measured in the vertical plane of a front face of a raised panel is substantially or considerably greater than a thickness of an edge ew. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for in each smaller raised panel, the width of the border as measured in the vertical plane of the front face thereof to be substantially greater than the thickness of the beveled edge to highlight the Wauhop curve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amrein (10,513,834) teaches it is old in the art for a cast concrete architectural wall block front face textures to be either smooth or textured (“front surface 20 may include…a textured surface, a smooth surface…”, col. 5, lines 14-16, and “the face surface 75 is smooth with a uniform texture. It is foreseen, however, that the face surface 75 may have a non-flat surface and/or a non-uniform texture…the face surface 75 may be formed to have a natural-stone finish, a brick-wall finish, or other aesthetically-pleasing finish”, col. 8, lines 49-54).
Aaronson (1,086,975), fig. 1, teaches is old in the art for a cast concrete architectural wall block to have a raised front panel 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633