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 of Group I, claims 1-13 and species A, claims 1-10, without traverse, in the response filed 16 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-23 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner.
Specification
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
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 8 and 10 are 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.
Claims 8 and 10 both recite an “additional foam block”. This limitation renders the claims indefinite, as there is no antecedent basis for the blocks comprising foam in either of claims 1 or 9.
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, 2, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0355576 A1 (Baumgartner et al.).
As concerns claim 1, Baumgartner et al. discloses a retaining wall system comprising: a vertical element 38 having a thickness; a buttress element 14 arranged at a lower end of the vertical element, the buttress element including an interior curved or angled face (figure 3A); and a tieback element (at 12, figure 2, figure 3A, figure 5 at 74) arranged at a lower end of the buttress element, the tieback element extending inwardly relative to a retaining wall face associated with a front face of the vertical element 38 and the buttress element 14.
As concerns claim 2, Baumgartner et al. discloses the retaining wall system as recited in claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the tieback element comprises or is shaped to receive a drainpipe (note the drainage cavity 34).
As concerns claim 5, Baumgartner et al. discloses the retaining wall system as recited in claim 1, wherein the interior curved or angled face of the buttress element: includes a concavely curved interior face defining an angle between an interior face of the vertical element and an upper surface of the tieback element that is from about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees; or includes an angled face defining an angle from about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees (the illustrated angle, see figure 3A, appears to be within the claimed range).
As concerns claim 8, Baumgartner et al. discloses the retaining wall system as recited in claim 1, further comprising an additional foam block positioned under the buttress element and/or the tieback element, with a front face that is aligned with the front face of the vertical element and the buttress element, so as to extend a height of the retaining wall system (note the embodiment of figure 7A and 7B).
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) 3, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner et al. in view of International Publication Number WO 2008/092237 (Aube et al.).
As concerns claim 3, Baumgartner et al. discloses the retaining wall system as recited in claim 1 but lacks to expressly disclose wherein at least one of the vertical elements, the buttress element, or the tieback element further include one or more furring strip slots formed therein, adjacent the front face of the retaining wall system, for receipt of a furring strip to facilitate attachment of a decorative veneer over the front face.
Aube et al. discloses a retaining wall system wherein at least one of the vertical elements, the buttress element, or the tieback element further include one or more furring strip slots 102 formed therein , adjacent the front face of the retaining wall system, for receipt of a furring strip 120 to facilitate attachment of a decorative veneer 112 over the front face (see figure 1).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have considered it obvious to incorporate the slots of Aube et al. with the retaining wall system of Baumgartner et al., as this provides the desirable result of another way to attach decorative veneers over the front face of the retaining wall.
As concerns claims 4 and 7, the combination lacks to disclose the specific ranges for the claimed strain associated with the retaining wall system, nevertheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the claimed strain, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-10 are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as the claimed configurations recited in these claims are not disclosed, taught or suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,568,999 (Egan et al.) discloses a retaining wall block system that is formed by plastic blocks that may be formed in two pieces, that are lightweight and are designed for ease in positioning and locating individual blocks relative to each other during erection of end consumer or civil engineering constructions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-Friday.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. 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.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/JAMES G SAYRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
