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 . 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.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 9, 13, 25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US 2009/0223121 in view of Colletti US 2008/0131203.
Jones discloses a paving system comprising:
A compacted base layer (16). Fig. 1.
A sand or suitable aggregate layer (14) disposed on top of the base layer (16).
A layer of paver tiles (12) disposed on top of the sand layer (14). Fig. 2; [0018-19].
A metal edge restraint (10) stacked below and adjacent the sand layer. Fig. 6.
What Jones does not disclose is if the paver tiles (12) are ceramic.
However, Colletti teaches a paving system including ceramic paving tiles for use in forming sidewalks and driveways, the ceramic paving tiles being installed on a base of subgrade/compacted aggregate/bedding sand. See Fig. 7; [0002, 0021, 0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the paving system of Jones with ceramic tiles as taught by Colletti in order to accommodate light vehicle traffic.
With respect to claims 8, 9 Jones discloses the edge restraint includes tile supports (49) extending under adjacent ones of the tiles. Although Jones does not disclose adhering the tiles to the tile supports it would be a matter of design choice to do so. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the paving system of Jones in view of Colletti with adhesive polymer sand, as is known in the art, in order to prevent sagging and shifting of the paving stone.
With respect to claim 13 Jones discloses a method of making the paving system of
claim 1. What Jones does not disclose is if the paver tiles (12) are ceramic.
However, Colletti teaches a paving system including ceramic paving tiles for use in forming sidewalks and driveways, the ceramic paving tiles being installed on a base of subgrade/compacted aggregate/bedding sand. See Fig. 7; [0002, 0021, 0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of making a paving system of Jones with step of placing ceramic tiles on a bedding layer of sand as taught by Colletti in order to accommodate light vehicle traffic.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US 2009/0223121 in view of Colletti US 2008/0131203 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jones US 2021/0254288.
Jones in view of Colletti disclose essentially all that is claimed except for the use of a geogrid. However Jones ‘288 discloses an edge restraint system including a geogrid (70) positioned between an edge restraint (10) and a bedding layer (36) to support a plurality of paving stones (34) see Figs. 2, 9, 13; [0053-0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the paving system of Jones in view of Colletti with a geogrid as taught by Jones ‘288 in order to accommodate seasonal frost/heave cycles.
7. Claim(s) 3, 4, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US 2009/0223121 in view of Colletti US 2008/0131203 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zwier et al. US 2009/0232597.
Jones in view of Colletti disclose essentially all that is claimed except for the use of a
geogrid. However Zwier et al. teaches a paving system including a standard base,
bedding layer edge restraint (11) and geogrid (31). Wherein an edge restraining strip (17f) includes a geogrid/tile restraint surface (37, 37f) configured to prevent unwanted shifting and movement of the paving system. Figs. 8-15, 18. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the paving system of Jones in view of Colletti with a geogrid and restraint feature as taught by Zwier et al. in order to accommodate sandy soil conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 41-43 are allowed.
9. Claims 31-34, 36 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.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 571-272-0547. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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 need help 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.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 9/30/2026
Prosecution Insights