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 with traverse of Group l, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 08/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “It is respectfully submitted that any search for the invention embodied in Group I would necessarily include a search for the invention embodied in the remaining Group II. Thus, a simultaneous search for both groups is believed not to constitute an unreasonable search for the Patent Examiner.” (page 7). This is not found persuasive because:
As noted in the Restriction Requirement filed on 03/27/2026, this is a national stage application, and where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. In this application, the groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Group I to Group ll lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical features, an apparatus for the production of molded concrete blocks in claim 1, this technical feature is not special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Lawton (US 5,139,722). Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 08/27/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 03/27/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3 and 4 have been amended. Claims 11-17 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-17 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 3 has been amended to address the informalities, thus the objection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/27/2026 in pages 8-10 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) has been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Lawton shows that a layer of filter material is provided between the ram or base of the mold and the concrete, and that the filter material is secured by a discontinuous coat of adhesive applied to the ram and/or base of the mold. The adhesive is applied over a sufficient area of the filter material to ensure it adheres to the ram or base of the mold. Because Lawton's objective is the method of adhering the filter material (30, 32) to the supporting structure, Applicant's apparatus as set forth in amended claim 1 wherein the underside of the pressure piece, where the fluid openings are located, touches the concrete mixture) is far away from Lawton.” (page 9)
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Originally, Lawton teaches the use of filter material to facilitate removal of the compacted mix from the mould and allow the expression of the water from the mix during moulding because of its porous nature (co 1 li 20-28). Lawton further teaches the method of adhering the filter material to the supporting structure (i.e. ram or mould base or perforated plate) by a discontinuous coat of adhesive applied over a sufficient area of the filter material to ensure the adhesion of the filter material to the ram and/or base of the mould under normal working conditions (co 1 li 67-68, co 2 li 14-15), but it doesn’t mean that there is no fluid opening on the layer of the filter material, rather, Lawton further teaches that the use of a discontinuous coating of adhesive ensures that there are significant areas of the filter material through which water can flow substantially unimpeded by adhesive due to substantial areas of the filter material being left uncovered between discrete particles of the adhesive (co 2 li 24-29), and it is preferred that the pattern of particles covers substantially the entire area of the face of the filter material which will contact the face of the ram or base of the mould, and according to a preferred feature of the invention the adhesive is present over between 2% and 15% of the total surface area of the filter material (co 3 li 12-18). Namely, Lawton teaches the filter material having pores, which are not covered by adhesive, on the underside through which water can flow substantially unimpeded by adhesive from the mix during moulding. Thus, Lawton meets the claimed limitations.
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.
Claim 4 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 4 recites the limitation “the pressure piece (21) has a plurality of fluid openings (43) on the underside (31) and on the side surfaces (35)” in lines 2-3. It renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether “a plurality of fluid openings” is same as the one recited in the referred claim 1, and if that’s the case, whether there is same plurality of fluid openings in the side surfaces. For the compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted that the pressure piece further includes a plurality of fluid openings on the side surfaces.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lawton (US 5,139,722-of record). Additional Supporting evidence provided herewith by Madsen et al. (NPL-“How Pore and Fibrous Interstice Structure Influence Filter Performance”, BioProcessInternational, 2010).
With respect to claim 1, Lawton teaches an apparatus for the production of molded concrete blocks (“The apparatus…for forming concrete paving stones”, co 3 li 46-47 and Fig. 1), having
a lower mold part (“side walls 12” and “a lower press plate 14”), in which at least one mold cavity (“a mould 10 having side walls 12 which define a substantially rectangular cavity open at the top and bottom. The bottom surface of the mould 10 is closed by a lower press plate 14 which is adapted to be moved upwardly through the mould cavity by an injection mechanism”, co 3 li 48-53) is formed, and
an upper mold part (“a compression plate 20”, “a perforated metal plate 22”, and “filter material 30”, co 3 li 60 and co 4 li 1, 13) comprising at least one pressure piece (“a compression plate 20”, “a perforated metal plate 22”, and “filter material 30”) having an underside that faces the mold cavity (“Two layers of filter material 30 and 32 are provided which both closely conform to the shape of the mould cavity”, co 4 li 13-15), and a top side that faces away from the mold cavity, as well as side surfaces, wherein the pressure piece can be lowered in such a manner that it the pressure piece engages into the mold cavity (“when the ram mechanism 18 moves downwardly towards the mould 10, the plate 20 slides into the open top of the mould cavity.”, co 3 li 63-65), and wherein the pressure piece has a plurality of fluid openings (pores in the layer of filter material not covered by adhesive) on the underside (“The use of a discontinuous coating of adhesive ensures that there are significant areas of the filter material through which water can flow substantially unimpeded by adhesive due to substantial areas of the filter material being left uncovered between discrete particles of the adhesive.”, co 2 li 24-29; “the layers of filter material 30 and 32 …a surface of a smooth non-fibrous nature which is porous to water.”, co 4 li 18-21), and wherein the underside is configured to touch a concrete mixture in the mold cavity during compaction so that a fluid can be conducted directly out of the plurality of fluid openings or conducted away into the plurality of fluid openings (“The water flows through the filter material, then through the perforations of the metal plates 22 and 26, and thence out of the mould cavity via the series of holes and channels 16 and 21 formed in the lower press plate 14 and the compression plate 20.”, co 5 li 19-25).
With respect to claim 2, Lawton as applied to claim 1 above teaches that when the pressure piece is lowered, the fluid can be conducted out of the mold cavity by the plurality of fluid openings (“The ram mechanism 18 is then operated to move the plate 20 downwardly into the mould 10 to the position illustrated in FIG. 1. During the movement, the concrete mix 34 is compressed between the layers of filter material 30 and 32 and the compaction of the concrete mix 34 causes water to be expressed from the concrete mix. This water passes through the porous surfaces of the layers of filter material 30 and 32 which will allow the passage of water, but retain the cement and other fines content in the concrete mix 34. The water flows through the filter material, then through the perforations of the metal plates 22 and 26, and thence out of the mould cavity via the series of holes and channels 16 and 21 formed in the lower press plate 14 and the compression plate 20.”, co 5 li 10-25).
With respect to claim 4, Lawton as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the pressure piece further includes a plurality of fluid openings on the side surfaces (the outlets of the connecting channels 21 on the sides of the compression plate 20) and the fluid openings (pores in the layer of filter material not covered by adhesive) are configured as holes in the underside.
With respect to claim 5, Lawton as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that wherein the fluid openings (pores in the layer of filter material not covered by adhesive) are arranged on the underside of the pressure piece, and Madsen (NPL-provided as an additional supporting evidence) teaches that a filter membrane looks like a polymeric froth reticulated and irregular in its cage-like morphology, similar to a sponge (pg 5 li 8-9).
With respect to claim 7, Lawton as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that a porous layer (“the porous surfaces of the layers of filter material 30”, co 5 li 16-17) forms the plurality of the fluid openings.
With respect to claim 8, Lawton as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the apparatus is configured to conduct the fluid away out of the mold cavity into the plurality of the fluid openings (“This water passes through the porous surfaces of the layers of filter material 30 and 32 which will allow the passage of water …The water flows through the filter material, then through the perforations of the metal plates 22 and 26, and thence out of the mould cavity via the series of holes and channels 16 and 21 formed in the lower press plate 14 and the compression plate 20.”, co 5 li 16-25).
With respect to claim 10, Lawton as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the apparatus is configured to conduct fluid away out of the mold cavity (“The water flows through the filter material, then through the perforations of the metal plates 22 and 26, and thence out of the mould cavity via the series of holes and channels 16 and 21 formed in the lower press plate 14 and the compression plate 20.”, co 5 li 19-25).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawton (US 5,139,722) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Navarro Espinosa (ES 2253992A1-of record_ Machine Translation) (All of record).
With respect to claim 3, Lawton as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the upper mold part comprises at least one fluid reservoir (“connecting channels 21”) in the pressure piece, which comprises a fluid connector (the outlets of the connecting channels 21 on the sides of the compression plate 20) on the pressure piece, and wherein the plurality of the fluid openings (“the perforations of the metal plate 22”) extend up to the fluid reservoir (Fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach that the fluid connector (the outlets of the connecting channels 21) is arranged on the top side of the pressure piece.
In the same field of endeavor, pressing punch with water extraction system for tile manufacturing, Navarro Espinosa teaches that the pressing punch comprises a pressing die (6), a drainage support (11), and a drainage cap (15) (Pa [0036], [0040]), the drainage support (11) consists of a second set of holes (12) that are located in correspondence with the first holes (10) for the passage of water from the pressing die (6) which is directed to a second communication channel (13) defined in the drainage support (11) in which there are transverse outlet channels (14) that direct the water to the outside of the pressing punch (Pa [0038]), and above the drainage support (11) the pressing punch is linked to a drainage cap (15) that covers the communication channel (13) (Pa [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lawton with the teachings of Navarro Espinosa so as to arrange the connecting channels 21 on the top side of the compression plate 20 and provide the drainage cap above the compression plate 20 for the purpose of drainage of water, since it has been held that The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
With respect to claim 9, Lawton as applied to claim 3 above teaches that the apparatus is configured to conduct the fluid out of the pressure piece by way of the fluid connector (“The water flows through the filter material, then through the perforations of the metal plates 22 and 26, and thence out of the mould cavity via the series of holes and channels 16 and 21 formed in the lower press plate 14 and the compression plate 20.”, co 5 li 19-25), but does not explicitly teach that the apparatus is configured to suction the fluid.
Navarro Espinosa as applied in the combination regarding claim 3 above further teaches that it is envisaged that outside the drainage support and in the aforementioned conduits, vacuum ejectors will be inserted that generate an air depression which facilitates the absorption of the water extracted by the punch in order to achieve a perfect drying of the tile, also eliminating any water that may remain accumulated above the tile (Pa [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lawton with the teachings of Navarro Espinosa and provide the vacuum ejectors with the outlets of the channels 21 to facilitate the absorption of the water extracted by the compression plate in order to achieve a perfect drying of the concrete paving stones, also eliminating any water that may remain accumulated above the concrete paving stones.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawton (US 5,139,722-of record) as applied to claim 1 above. Additional Supporting evidence provided herewith by Madsen et al. (NPL-“How Pore and Fibrous Interstice Structure Influence Filter Performance”, BioProcessInternational, 2010).
With respect to claim 6, Lawton as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that wherein the fluid openings (pores in the layer of filter material not covered by adhesive) are arranged on the underside of the pressure piece, and Madsen (NPL-provided as an additional supporting evidence) teaches that the very few specific descriptions of “pores” show them as clusters of mixed, different-sized, polygonal-shaped cells connected by open walls (pg 5 16-17), but does not explicitly teach that the fluid openings (43) are configured to be rectangular.
Lawton further teaches that the rate of flow of water from the compacted concrete is regulated by preselecting the density of adhesive applied as a discontinuous coat to the side of the filter material depending on types of concrete mix (co 2 li 48-51 and co 5 li 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lawton’s filter material to have the optimum polygonal-shapes in order to extract water from the concrete mix depending on the types of concrete mix.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights