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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
IDS submitted 11/4/2024 having an NPL entry that was not considered as a copy of the webpage was not included in the application. It is suggested that the applicants submit a copy for review.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WITTKE (US 2532049 A).
Re: 1, WITTKE teaches of a concrete mold (see mold box 20) comprising:
a mold cavity (see Figs of mold box 20 with liners 28 forming the cavity) ;
a flat top surface (tamper foot 42 which encompasses the claimed flat top surface);
a plurality of tapered walls (liners 28, 29, see Figs, wherein the liners are seen as tapered and curved);
the mold cavity comprising a center portion and a plurality of extended sides (see teaching in Figs. of WITTKE particularly of the center portion formed by the surrounding liners, see also teaching of cores of WITTKE which is a part of the center portion);
each of the plurality of tapered walls comprising a curved edge (see shapes of the liners 28, 29);
the mold cavity being positioned centrally within the mold (see Figs. and of the mold box 20 having the mold cavity);
the flat top surface being positioned along the top opening of the mold cavity (tamper/top surface that is aligned along the opening formed by the liners, see Figs.);
the plurality of tapered walls forming the sides of the mold cavity (see liners 28, 29);
the center portion forming the base of the mold cavity ();
the mold cavity receiving a liquid concrete mixture (this is a process limitation step, and WITTKE teaches of forming concrete blocks via concrete 45 being poured around the cores 37,see Col. 2, lines 50-52 ); and
the mold cavity creating an interlocking wall (wherein, the blocks forms by WITTKE, see Col. 1, lines 1-4, and features 59, 60 that allows for hanging over the edge of the next block below, see Col. 3, lines 20-23, and these can be seen as being interlocking).
Regarding of concrete garden bed mold, this is a preamble, as this is an intended use of the formed concrete product. Similarly for the interlocking garden bed wall, this is an intended use of the formed interlocking wall for garden bed.
Re: 7 (upon 1), comprising: the flat top surface forming a flat base along the front of the concrete garden bed mold; and the flat top surface connecting to the front edges of the plurality of tapered walls. (see Figs. 1-6 and 11-12 with the temper foot forming the flat base along the front of the mold and connecting to the front edge of the tapered walls, see liners, of WITTKE)
Re: 8 (upon 1), comprising: each of the plurality of tapered walls forming an angled wall along the sides of the mold cavity. (see Figs. 1-6 and 11-12, particularly of the liners of WITTKE)
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WITTKE (US 2532049 A), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above.
Re: 4 (upon 1), comprising: the plurality of extended sides extending from the left and right side of the mold cavity; and the plurality of extended sides forming a rectangular section along the top left side and the bottom right side of the mold cavity.
The WITTKE reference does not provide for “a plurality” of extended sides and along the particular side locations. This is a duplication of parts of the extended sides and change in shape along the desired locations along the wall. Further, the WITTKE teaching includes an extended side along a side of the mold cavity and forming a section along, see Fig. 11 and 12 of WITTKE, see elements 59 and 60 that are located on one side formed for the product thereby one side of the mold cavity.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mold and of the extended side of WITTKE with having a plurality of extended sides at the desired locations as a change shape.
Re: 5 (upon 4), wherein the plurality of extended sides enabling the interlocking garden bed wall created by the mold cavity to have an interlocking section to form one wall of a four sided concrete garden bed.
In regards to the how the section is to form a wall of a four sided garden bed, this is seen as an intended use of the formed block in forming a particular shaped garden bed and does not provide further structural limitations to distinguish over the teachings of the prior art.
Re: 9 (upon 8), comprising: the curved edge providing a non-sharp edge wherein the flat top surface engages with the plurality of tapered walls and wherein the plurality of tapered walls engages with the center portion; and the curved edge ensuring the interlocking garden bed wall created by the mold cavity has curved edges and corners. The claimed non-sharp side and plurality of tapered walls are seen in the Figs 1-6. Further, WITTKE already teaches of teaching of curved portions being formed upon the product and further it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to further change in shape of the mold cavity of WITTKE to the desired portions for the curved edges and corners as desired.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WITTKE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MATYS (US 20160326743 A1).
Re: 2 (upon 1), comprising: the center portion being rectangular shaped; the center portion further comprising a raised area; the raised area being positioned centrally within the center portion; and the raised area protruding forwards along the center portion.
WITTKE does not specifically teach of the raised area.
This feature can be seen as a change in shape in the forming of the top portion of the formed block. Wherein, the MATYS reference teaches of a formed block 1 and having the raised areas in the center portion and can be rectangular in shape, see element 4, see Fig. 1C and Fig. 1G..
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modify the mold of WITTKE to form raised areas as taught by MATYS in forming the desired block shape, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as this is seen as combinin3g prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re: 3 (upon 2), comprising: the raised area reducing the weight of the interlocking garden bed wall created by the mold cavity; and the raised area does not inhibit the structural integrity of the interlocking garden bed wall created by the mold cavity.
The claimed features of not to inhibit structural integrity of the interlocking bed wall is broadly interpreted as there are no specific claimed structural limitation provided, and thereby features formed by the MATYS can be seen as also to not inhibit the structural integrity as the blocks are interlocked to form the wall.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WITTKE (US 2532049 A) in view of MATYS (US 20160326743 A1).
Re: 10, the claimed features of a concrete garden bed mold is a combination of the features set forth in claims 1 and 2 as shown above, and in which WITKKE teaches of the features.
Regarding of concrete garden bed mold, this is a preamble, as this is an intended use of the formed concrete product. Similarly for the interlocking garden bed wall, this is an intended use of the formed interlocking wall for garden bed.
WITTKE does not specifically teach of the raised area.
This feature can be seen as a change in shape in the forming of the top portion of the formed block. Wherein, the MATYS reference teaches of a formed block 1 and having the raised areas in the center portion and can be rectangular in shape, see element 4, see Fig. 1C and Fig. 1G..
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modify the mold of WITTKE to form raised areas as taught by MATYS in forming the desired block shape, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re: 11 (upon 10), comprising: the raised area reducing the weight of the interlocking garden bed wall created by the mold cavity; and the raised area does not inhibit the structural integrity of the interlocking garden bed wall created by the mold cavity. (this is a combination of claims 1-3)
The claimed features of not to inhibit structural integrity of the interlocking bed wall is broadly interpreted as there are no specific claimed structural limitation provided, and thereby features formed by the MATYS can be seen as also to not inhibit the structural integrity as the blocks are interlocked to form the wall.
Re: 12 (upon 10), comprising: the plurality of extended sides extending from the left and right side of the mold cavity; and the plurality of extended sides forming a rectangular section along the top left side and the bottom right side of the mold cavity.
The claimed features are a combination of claims 1-2 and 4, as shown above.
The WITTKE reference does not provide for “a plurality” of extended sides and along the particular side locations. This is a duplication of parts of the extended sides and change in shape along the desired locations along the wall. Further, the WITTKE teaching includes an extended side along a side of the mold cavity and forming a section along, see Fig. 11 and 12 of WITTKE, see elements 59 and 60 that are located on one side formed for the product thereby one side of the mold cavity.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mold and of the extended side of WITTKE with having a plurality of extended sides at the desired locations as a change shape.
Re: 13 (upon 12), wherein the plurality of extended sides enabling the interlocking garden bed wall created by the mold cavity to have an interlocking section to form one wall of a four sided concrete garden bed. The claimed feature is a combination of claims 1-2 and 4-5 as shown above.
In regards to the how the section is to form a wall of a four sided garden bed, this is seen as an intended use of the formed block in forming a particular shaped garden bed and does not provide further structural limitations to distinguish over the teachings of the prior art.
Re: 15 (upon 10), comprising: the flat top surface forming a flat base along the front of the concrete garden bed mold; and the flat top surface connecting to the front edges of the plurality of tapered walls.
The features would be a combination of claims 1-2 and 7 as shown above, and see WITTKE, Figs. 1-6 and 11-12 with the temper foot forming the flat base along the front of the mold and connecting to the front edge of the tapered walls, see liners.
Re: 16 (upon 10), comprising: each of the plurality of tapered walls forming an angled wall along the sides of the mold cavity; the curved edge providing a non-sharp edge wherein the flat top surface engages with the plurality of tapered walls and wherein the plurality of tapered walls engages with the center portion; and the curved edge ensuring the interlocking garden bed wall created by the mold cavity has curved edges and corners. (combination of claims 1-2, and 8-9)
Regarding, the curved edge, the claimed non-sharp side and plurality of tapered walls are seen in the Figs 1-6. Further, WITTKE already teaches of teaching of curved portions being formed upon the product and further it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to further change in shape of the mold cavity of WITTKE to the desired portions for the curved edges and corners as desired.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WITTKE (US 2532049 A) in view of MATYS (US 20160326743 A1).
Re: 17, the claimed features of a concrete garden bed mold is a combination of the features set forth in claims 1-3 as shown above, and in which WITKKE teaches of the features.
Regarding of concrete garden bed mold, this is a preamble, as this is an intended use of the formed concrete product. Similarly for the interlocking garden bed wall, this is an intended use of the formed interlocking wall for garden bed.
WITTKE does not specifically teach of the raised area.
This feature can be seen as a change in shape in the forming of the top portion of the formed block. Wherein, the MATYS reference teaches of a formed block 1 and having the raised areas in the center portion and can be rectangular in shape, see element 4, see Fig. 1C and Fig. 1G..
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modify the mold of WITTKE to form raised areas as taught by MATYS in forming the desired block shape, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The claimed features of not to inhibit structural integrity of the interlocking bed wall is broadly interpreted as there are no specific claimed structural limitation provided, and thereby features formed by the MATYS can be seen as also to not inhibit the structural integrity as the blocks are interlocked to form the wall.
Re: 19 (upon 17), comprising: the flat top surface forming a flat base along the front of the concrete garden bed mold; and the flat top surface connecting to the front edges of the plurality of tapered walls.
The features would be a combination of claims 1-3 and 7 as shown above, and see WITTKE, Figs. 1-6 and 11-12 with the temper foot forming the flat base along the front of the mold and connecting to the front edge of the tapered walls, see liners.
Re: 20 (upon 17), comprising: each of the plurality of tapered walls forming an angled wall along the sides of the mold cavity; the curved edge providing a non-sharp edge wherein the flat top surface engages with the plurality of tapered walls and wherein the plurality of tapered walls engages with the center portion; and the curved edge ensuring the interlocking garden bed wall created by the mold cavity has curved edges and corners. (combination of claims 1-3 and 8-9)
The features would be a combination of claims 1-3 and 8-9 as shown above, and see regarding, the curved edge, the claimed non-sharp side and plurality of tapered walls are seen in the Figs 1-6. Further, WITTKE already teaches of teaching of curved portions being formed upon the product and further it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to further change in shape of the mold cavity of WITTKE to the desired portions for the curved edges and corners as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14, and 18 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:
The prior art references including WITTKE and MATYS fail to teach of the mold with the further additional features of the plurality of the extended sides having the plurality of holes and rods, with the holes traversing through the top and bottom of the extended sides and the plurality of rods engaging the plurality of holes, and the plurality of rods traversing through the plurality of extended sides.
Re: 6 (upon 4), comprising: each of the plurality of extended sides further comprising a plurality of holes and a plurality of rods; the plurality of holes traversing through the top and bottom of the plurality of extended sides; the plurality of rods engaging with the plurality of holes; and the plurality of rods traversing through each of the plurality of extended sides.
Re: 14 (upon 12), comprising: each of the plurality of extended sides further comprising a plurality of holes and a plurality of rods; the plurality of holes traversing through the top and bottom of the plurality of extended sides; the plurality of rods engaging with the plurality of holes; and the plurality of rods traversing through each of the plurality of extended sides.
Re: 18 (upon 17), comprising: the plurality of extended sides extending from the left and right side of the mold cavity; the plurality of extended sides forming a rectangular section along the top left side and the bottom right side of the mold cavity; the plurality of extended sides enabling the interlocking garden bed wall created by the mold cavity to have an interlocking section to form one wall of a four sided concrete garden bed; each of the plurality of extended sides further comprising a plurality of holes and a plurality of rods; the plurality of holes traversing through the top and bottom of the plurality of extended sides; the plurality of rods engaging with the plurality of holes; and the plurality of rods traversing through each of the plurality of extended sides.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, of particular note:
ZAGRAY (US 3534518 A) teaches of interlocking building block construction.
KELLEY (US 5402609 A) teaches concrete building block with raised areas.
FORLINI (US 5647185 A) teaches of structural blocks with raised areas.
THEOPHILE (US 1339596 A) teaches of a formed block and having the raised areas in the center portion and can be rectangular in shape, see Figs. 5-10, and 9-11. The raised are protruding allowing for interlocking with the other blocks, see Figs. 6-8 and 12-13. The raised area of the formed can be molded.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744