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 Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on April 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-19 were amended to indicate in the preamble that the claim is directed towards a concrete block depending from Group I.
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 4, 5, and 17-19 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.
Regarding claim 4: It is unclear what it means “an increased compressive strength”. What is the compressive strength increased over? What is it being compared to?
Regarding claim 5: It is unclear if the tensile strength of the third concrete-block layer is supposed to be 15% or 20% higher than that of the second concrete-block layer.
Regarding claim 17: It is unclear what “formed by at least one of the concrete block” and “formed by at least one of the concrete” means.
Additional claims rejected under 35 USC 112 but not addressed are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and failing to further remedy the issue(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjesdal (NO 20180329).
Referring to claim 1: Gjesdal teaches a concrete block in the form of a planar element that can be laid in bond for creating a surface covering, comprising at least one multi-layer concrete block body with at least one concrete-block lower face suitable for being laid on a foundation layer of an underlying surface and a concrete-block upper face opposite thereto, wherein the multi-layer concrete block body comprises at least one first concrete-block layer (item 12) disposed on the concrete-block upper face and designed as a face concrete layer, as well as at least one second concrete-block layer (item 10) formed as a core concrete layer, wherein the multi-layer concrete block body also comprises a third concrete-block layer (item 14) and wherein the second concrete-block layer, formed as a core concrete layer, is disposed between the first and the third concrete-block layer, wherein the third concrete- block layer is formed as a high-strength concrete base layer with increased tensile strength, wherein the increased tensile strength of the third concrete-block layer is increased in comparison with the tensile strength of the second concrete-block layer by at least 10% (page 4, lines 27-31). While Gjesdal doesn’t specifically teach the specific tensile strengths of the layers it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that tensile strength would be a function of densities, which is taught by Gjesdal. Therefore one of ordinary skill would recognize different densities would result in different tensile strengths for each layer.
Referring to claim 2: Gjesdal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gjesdal teaches wherein the third concrete-block layer is made of a structurally tight, high-strength concrete, wherein the high- strength concrete comprises a cement content of more than 380 kg/m3. (page 4, lines 27-31)
Referring to claim 3: Gjesdal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gjesdal teaches wherein the third concrete-block layer comprises an increased bending tensile strength and/or an increased split tensile strength and the third concrete-block layer thus comprises a specified minimum tensile strength of at least 3 N/mm2. (page 5, lines 12-14 teaches similar strength to the first layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Gjesdal and design the layers for any specific strength for the desired application.
Referring to claim 4: Gjesdal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gjesdal does not specifically teach wherein the third concrete-block layer further comprises an increased compressive strength. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose any specific compressive strength that would be applicable to the intended installation.
Referring to claim 5: Gjesdal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gjesdal teaches wherein an increased tensile strength of the third concrete-block layer is at least 15% higher than the tensile strength of the second concrete-block layer and at least 20% higher than the tensile strength of the second concrete-block layer (page 4, lines 27-31 and page 5, lines 12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that since Gjesdal teaches on page 4 the density of the first layer and by extension the third layer based on page 5 is three times that of the second layer, the tensile strength would be increased roughly the same as well.
Referring to claim 8: Gjesdal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gjesdal does not specifically teach wherein the third concrete-block layer comprises a layer thickness in a range of 14 mm to 20 mm. However, Gjesdal teaches a thickness of the first layer being about 11mm (page 8, lines 18-19) and the first and third layers being similar in thickness (figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the third layer could be similar in thickness to the first layer and they could be varied in thickness in order to provide a stronger layer. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to make the third layer between 14mm and 20mm, 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).
Referring to claim 9: GJesdal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gjesdal teaches wherein the second concrete-block layer formed as a core concrete layer, is made of a core concrete with a non-fines porous core concrete and forms a porous layer with an increased porosity (page 4, lines 26-35).
Referring to claim 10: Gjesdal teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Gjesdal teaches wherein the second concrete-block layer is permeable to water and/or designed to absorb and store water (page 4, lines 32-35).
Referring to claim 11: Gjesdal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gjesdal teaches wherein the second concrete-block layer formed as a core concrete layer comprises a core-concrete-layer thickness greater than a layer thickness of the third concrete-block layer (figure 3).
Referring to claim 16: Gjesdal teaches each concrete block comprises at least a first, a second and a third concrete-block layer, wherein the third concrete-block layer is formed as a high-strength concrete base layer with increased tensile strength and wherein the increased tensile strength of the third concrete-block layer is increased in comparison with a tensile strength of the second concrete-block layer by at least 10% (rejection of claim 1 above). Gjesdal does not specifically teach a surface covering comprising a plurality of multi-layer concrete blocks laid in bond on a foundation layer of an underlying surface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to lay the blocks in bond as it is a well known method for making a sturdy surface out of blocks.
Referring to claims 17-19: Gjesdal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gjesdal teaches the structure of the instant claim as noted in the rejection of the same limitations above. However, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the method step limitations have not been given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjesdal in view of Lankard (US Patent No 4,513,040).
Referring to claim 6: Gjesdal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gjesdal does not teach wherein the third concrete-block layer is made of an armored concrete or of a concrete reinforced with at least one embedded reinforcing material. However, Lankard teaches an armored concrete or of a concrete reinforced with at least one embedded reinforcing material (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Gjesdal with the teaching of an armored or reinforced concrete layer taught by Lankard in order to provide additional structural support to the block. It would have been obvious to use the teaching of Lankard to reinforce any layer, specifically the third layer in order to provide a strong base to the block.
Referring to claim 7: Gjesdal and Lankard teach all the limitations of claim 6 as noted above. Additionally, Lankard teaches wherein the third concrete-block layer is made of a fiber-reinforced concrete, of steel fiber concrete (Abstract). Steel fiber concrete is known for workability and strength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Gjesdal does not teach the specific layered concrete block in the specific shape of grating or bar slab grating as in the instant claim. This prior art as well as the additional cited prior art do not teach grating with the specific layered structure as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 at 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights