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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 12/24/25 is acknowledged. Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings received on 12/24/25 are accepted.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “precise” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “precise” is not defined by the claim; and the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term or ascertaining the requisite degree. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Regarding claim 4, the term “high-strength” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-strength” is not defined by the claim; and the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term or ascertaining the requisite degree. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Regarding claim 6, the term “stable” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stable” is not defined by the claim; and the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term or ascertaining the requisite degree. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Regarding claim 9, the term “the manufacturing process” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 2-9 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunt (20230248142) in view of Guevara (20110003904).
Regarding claim 1, Lunt teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a system of precast (par. 43) concrete components (10, 30, 50, 65) for outdoor kitchens (par. 4) and grill islands (par. 13 & Fig. 12) comprising one or more components formed from a concrete mix (par. 42) that includes composite fibers (i.e., shredded fiberglass - see par. 42), aligned with a composite (par. 42) pin and plate assembly system (17-21, 33-34, 36-39) for precise installation. Lunt fail(s) to teach EPS & FRB rebar. However, Guevara teaches the inclusion of EPS beads in concrete (par. 42, 47). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add EPS beads, as taught by Guevara, to the concrete mix of Lunt, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the strength thereof (as suggested by par. 222 of Lunt). Additionally, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that adding FRP rebar to a concrete mix is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add FRP rebar to the concrete mix of Lunt, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the tensile strength thereof.
Regarding claim 2, Lunt as modified teaches a concrete mix (par. 42 of Lunt) that includes portland cement (par. 42 of Lunt), sand (par. 42 of Lunt), EPS beads (par. 42 & 47 of Guevara), water (implied by par. 42 of Lunt, which implies that the Portland cement binds the specified aggregates to form a solid “cement-based composite”; such binding implies the presence of water which causes the cement to set and bind the aggregates together), composite fibers (i.e., fiberglass - see par. 42 of Lunt), and FRP rebar (see above) in predetermined proportions (note that such proportions would necessarily be determined prior to concrete mixing, and would therefore be “predetermined”), wherein said concrete mix is utilized to form the one or more components of said system of precast concrete components (as in par. 42 of Lunt).
Regarding claim 4, Lunt teaches a bonding system uses one or more high-strength adhesive or mortar (par. 36, 38) to secure the one or more components (10, 30, 50, 65) of said system of precast concrete components.
Regarding claim 5, Lunt teaches a bridging system (50) defined as a rabbeted (at 52-53 & 55-56) bridge (50) that is configured to reinforce one or more countertop sections (par. 34).
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that the claimed system does not depend on the process of making it; and the product-by-process limitation “wherein the manufacturing process includes custom molds for casting the components, vibrating to remove air pockets, and a curing process to ensure strength and durability” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the system. Therefore, the claimed system is not a different and unobvious system from Lunt as modified.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunt (20230248142) & Guevara (20110003904) in view of Jeong (KR102349760). Lunt as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a composite pin and plate assembly system (17-21, 33-34, 36-39); but fail(s) to teach pins & plates aligned with recesses & holes. However, Jeong teaches joining means comprising pins (22) and plates (21) that are configured for complementary alignment with at least one recess (14) and associated hole (15) defined on at least one or more components of said system of components (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add joining means, as taught by Jeong, to the assembly system of Lunt as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a stronger connection between the components. Additionally, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that making a part from composite material is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the pins & plates of the joining means of Lunt as modified from composite material, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the strength & reduce the weight thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
182
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunt (20230248142) & Guevara (20110003904) in view of Lindow (4988150). Lunt as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including at least one (10, 20) of the one or more components (10, 30, 50, 65) that are defined as a panel (Fig. 1), wherein the panel defines a bottom edge (Fig. 1). Lunt as modified fail(s) to teach a recessed bottom edge. However, Lindow teaches panel defines a recessed bottom edge (A in Fig. 2 Annotated) defined in a panel (18), said recessed bottom edge being capable of accommodating uneven floor surfaces & ensuring a level and stable installation (implied by Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a recessed bottom edge, as taught by Lindow, to the panel of Lunt as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the cost & weight thereof.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunt (20230248142) & Guevara (20110003904) in view of Gadberry (20060231468). Lunt as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a concrete mix; but fail(s) to teach decorative features. However, Gadberry teaches decorative features including gemstones that are embedded in a concrete mix for enhanced aesthetic appeal (par. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add gemstones, as taught by Gadberry, to the concrete mix of Lunt as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the aesthetic appeal thereof (as suggested by par. 3 of Gadberry).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunt (20230248142) & Guevara (20110003904) in view of Mizuno (JP2007146493). Lunt as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including at least one (10, 20) of the one or more components (10, 30, 50, 65) that are defined as a panel (Fig. 1); but fail(s) to teach mesh vents. However, Mizuno teaches the inclusion, in a panel (5), of ventilation means (1) comprising a cast-in mesh vent (8) for improved ventilation and cooling of said one or more components (par. 2). Additionally, mere duplication of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add ventilation means, as taught by Mizuno, to the panel of Lunt as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to regulate humidity within the cabinet, thereby preventing the growth of mold & corrosion (as suggested by par. 2 of Mizuno).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637