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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zampella et al., U.S. Patent 5,755,353 in view of Przytulla, U.S. Patent 4,925,049.
Regarding claim 1, Zampella discloses a tubular element comprising an inflexible tube (8) at least 16 inches in diameter (col. 2, lines 62-63), the tube open at both axial ends (see figures) and having a plurality of separate and distinct integrally formed fully encircling circumferentially continuous radially rigidifying ribs (20) axially spaced between about 10 and about 36 inches apart center-to-center along the full axial length of the tube (at about thirds, col. 2, lines 10-13), but does not disclose the element is thermoplastic and is at least 4 feet long in the axial direction whereby any 3 foot length of the tube includes at least one radially rigidifying rib. Przytulla teaches a thermoplastic tubular element (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a thermoplastic material depending on suitability of intended contents and for corrosion resistance, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to produce the element having a height of 4 foot as opposed to the 34 3/8” as taught by Zampella (col. 2, lines 58-63) depending on the intended use and required capacity, 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 As modified, the element will include at least one rib for any 3 foot section.
Regarding claim 2, Zampella discloses a tubular element wherein each radially rigidifying rib defines a circumferential groove on the outside surface of the tube and a corresponding internally projecting circumferential shoulder on the inside of the tube (see figures).
Regarding claim 4, Zampella discloses a tubular element wherein the tube is between 16 and 36 inches in diameter (col. 2, line 63).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art, as modified, discloses a tubular element wherein the tube is between 4 ft and 10 ft long (as modified).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses a tubular element but does not disclose specifically wherein the axial spacing between radially rigidifying ribs on a single tube is determined in accordance with the algorithm D = R/d wherein D is the axial spacing between radially rigidifying ribs in inches, R is a unitless numerical value between 2 and 4, and d is the diameter of the tube in inches, with endpoint limitations of a minimum axial spacing of 10 inches and a maximum axial spacing of 36 inches. As the dimensions of Zampella’s invention result in an R value of 1.8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the axial spacing to accommodate an R value of 2 as 1.8 is about 2, and 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
Regarding claim 7, Zampella discloses a tubular element wherein each circumferential groove projects a depth of between 0.2 and 1 inch inward from the outer surface of the tube and each shoulder projects an equal distance inward from the inner surface of the tube (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Zampella discloses a tubular element but does not specifically disclose wherein each circumferential radially rigidifying rib has a width in the axial direction of between 1 and 4 inches. Zampella teaches a width of ¾” (see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the ribs with a width in the given range depending on the desired rigidity of the tubular element, and 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
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses a tubular element but does not disclose wherein the tube is a blow molded tube. Przytulla teaches blow molding of a tubular element (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the tubular element via blow molding due to the design flexibility and cost-effectiveness, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 3, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zampella et al., U.S. Patent 5,755,353 in view of Przytulla, U.S. Patent 4,925,049 and in further view of Snyder et al., U.S. Patent 4,257,527.
Regarding claim 3, Zampella in view of Przytulla discloses a tubular element of thermoplastic, but does not disclose wherein the thermoplastic is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene (col. 7, line 36), polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate and polyvinyl chloride. Snyder teaches a tubular element of polyethylene (col. 7, line 36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a polyethylene for its durability and chemical resistance, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art as modified discloses a tubular element but does not specifically disclose wherein the tube has a wall thickness exclusive of the radially rigidifying ribs between 0.05 and 0.2 inches around the entire circumference of the tube and along the entire axial length of the tube. Snyder teaches the tube has a wall thickness exclusive of the radially rigidifying ribs between 0.05 and 0.2 inches around the entire circumference of the tube and along the entire axial length of the tube (col. 7, line 53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the apparatus with the given thickness for adequate strength to contain a chosen substance.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art as modified discloses a tubular element, but does not specifically disclose wherein the tube has a uniform wall thickness exclusive of the radially rigidifying ribs around the entire circumference and along the entire axial length of the tube. Snyder teaches the tube has a uniform wall thickness exclusive of the radially rigidifying ribs around the entire circumference and along the entire axial length of the tube (col. 4, lines 59-62). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the apparatus with the given thickness for adequate strength to contain a chosen substance.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zampella et al., U.S. Patent 5,755,353 in view of Przytulla, U.S. Patent 4,925,049 and in further view of DIY Chatroom (https://www.diychatroom.com/threads/help-with-concrete-forms-need-verification.509033/).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art discloses a tubular element but does not disclose a method of forming a concrete column comprising the steps of (a) excavating soil to form a hole, (b) inserting a first axial end of a concrete form tube in accordance with claim 1 into the hole, (c) backfilling the hole around the concrete form tube to create a stabilized concrete form tube, and (d) pouring concrete into the stabilized concrete form tube from a second longitudinal end of the concrete form tube. DIY Chatroom teaches excavating soil to form a hole (see original post), a tubular element first end inserted in to the hole (see photograph), and pouring concrete into the element (first line). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the tubular element in such a manner to produce a structurally sound structure footing. DIY Chatroom does not disclose backfilling the hole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to backfill any hole dug in the ground at a construction site for safety.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art, as modified, discloses installation of a tubular element into the ground, but does not disclose specifically wherein the first axial end of the concrete form tube is positioned below the frost line. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the tubular element utilized as a concrete form below the frostline to prevent frost heave, as it is notoriously well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding the claimed material have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter (material) specifically challenged in the argument. See rejection as set forth above.
Regarding the applicant’s argument toward the function of rolling hoops, the examiner maintains that the structure, integrally formed fully encircling circumferentially continuous radially rigidifying ribs, whether or not they are flattened, is disclosed or taught by the prior art as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633