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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). 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.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
WHEN CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO MULTIPLE CATEGORIES OF INVENTIONS
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475(c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, Claims 1-10, drawn to an apparatus for the production of molded concrete blocks.
Group Il, Claims 11-17, drawn to a method for the production of a molded concrete block.
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).
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”, and “a perforated metal plate 22”, co 3 li 60 and co 4 li 1) comprising at least one pressure piece (“a compression plate 20”, and “a perforated metal plate 22”) having an underside that faces the mold cavity (“The compression plate 20 is arranged to be a close fit in the mould cavity”, co 3 li 61-62; “The perforated metal plate 22 is arranged to conform closely in shape to the shape of the mould cavity”, co 4 li 3-5), 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 (“perforations of the metal plate 22”, co 5 li 20-21) on the underside, and wherein a fluid can be 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).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between process and apparatus for its practice claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Frederick Dorchak (Reg. No. 29,298) on 03/17/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention l, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has been advised to replace “the plurality of the liquid openings” in line 5 to -- the plurality of the fluid openings --. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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).
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”, and “a perforated metal plate 22”, co 3 li 60 and co 4 li 1) comprising at least one pressure piece (“a compression plate 20”, and “a perforated metal plate 22”) having an underside that faces the mold cavity (“The compression plate 20 is arranged to be a close fit in the mould cavity”, co 3 li 61-62; “The perforated metal plate 22 is arranged to conform closely in shape to the shape of the mould cavity”, co 4 li 3-5), 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 (“perforations of the metal plate 22”, co 5 li 20-21) on the underside, and wherein a fluid can be 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 fluid openings (“the perforations of the metal plate 22”) are configured as holes in the underside.
With respect to claim 7, Lawton as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that a porous layer (“a perforated metal plate 22”) forms the plurality of the fluid openings (“the perforations of the metal plate 22”).
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 (“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 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, 5, 6 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 provided herewith).
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 liquid 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 claims 5 and 6, Lawton as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that wherein the fluid openings (“the perforations of the metal plate 22”) are arranged on the underside of the pressure piece, but is silent to a pattern of the perforations.
In the same field of endeavor, pressing punch with water extraction system for tile manufacturing, Navarro Espinosa teaches that the filter (3) is fixed on its upper face on a perforated steel plate (4) and is housed in a large receptacle (5) of a pressing die (6) (Pa [0036]), and shows the perforations in Fig. 4.
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 substitute the perforated steel plate for Lawton’s metal plate in order to draw water from the cavity, since it has been held that where the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)).
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.
Conclusion
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