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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on February 12, 2026, has been entered. Claims 10 – 12 and 15 – 20 are withdrawn. Claims 9, and 13 – 14 are cancelled. Claims 21 – 23 are new. Claims 1 – 8, 21 – 23 are pending and under examination.
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 22 – 23 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the one or more cavity inserts" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous to the recitation in line 9, there is a recitation of “one or more release inserts configured to be selectively inserted into the one or more mold cavities of the mold liner”. It seems like the recitation in claim 9 is referring back to the “one or more release inserts”. For examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as - - each insert assembly comprising: one or more cavities inserts configured to be selectively inserted into the one or more mold cavities of the mold liner; and an insert mounting structure attached to the one or more cavity inserts - -, since there is no disclosure, in the claims neither in the specification, of any “one or more release inserts.”
Claim 23 is rejected as being a dependent claim for rejected claim 22.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“one or more insert assemblies” in claim 22.
“an engagement feature in claim” 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by C. D. Willson (US Pat. No. 3,114,936; Willson).
Willson teaches a forming system (Col. 1 lines 8 – 20) comprising:
a form assembly (e.g., “multi-molder or press 1” Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 3) configured to cast a concrete block (Col. 3 lines 40 – 60 “If the charge is a mixture of fluid and solid ingredients, as in concrete”, Col. 10 lines 59 – 66 “a new kind of building block, like the molecule in Nature, to achieve an infinite variety of new structures and structural materials.” See also Col. 11 lines 49 – 54),
wherein the form assembly (1) comprises:
a rigid support member (support walls 7) having a plurality of sides and defining one or more support cavities (e.g., 28) (see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 9);
a mold liner (8)/(33) selectively inserted within the one or more support cavities (“gangmold consisting of six back-to-back pairs of molds 8 shown open faced in FIG. 1” see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 9; Col. 4, lines 8-53),
wherein the mold liner (8)/(33) defines one or more mold cavities (see FIGs. 3-4); and
one or more cavity inserts (“core member 21” see FIGs. 1 – 5) configured to be selectively inserted into the one or more mold cavities of the mold liner (Col. 3 lines 45 – 65); and
a reaction frame (“an outer framework comprising pairs of opposite columns 2 and 3 supporting between base 4 and top-member 5 a fixed press bed 6” (see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 9);
wherein the reaction frame comprises one or more extending arms (e.g., “top travel beam 24”) configured to selectively engage with the one or more inserts (21) (see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 3 lines 20 – 31 “Passing through both top closure 13 and intermediate beam 16 are ramming conduits or core members 21 having lower ends comprising taper tips 22 and having upper ends 23 fixed into top travel beam 24 actuated by cylinder 25”).
Therefore, Wilson’s anticipates the claimed forming system, as currently claimed.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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(s) 1 – 8, and 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthei et al. (US 2008/0277559 A1; of record), in view of C. D. Willson (US Pat. No. 3,114,936; Willson). Note: this is an alternative rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Manthei et al. teaches a forming system comprising:
a form assembly (20) (FIG. 3) configured to cast a concrete block [0019], wherein the form assembly comprises:
a rigid support member (22) having a plurality of sides (FIGs. 3 & 4) and defining one or more support cavities (notice on FIGs. 3 & 4, for example, that the resilient insert 23 is inserted inside the cavity form by all the sides of the rigid support 22) [0019] – [0020], [0025] – [0026];
a mold liner (resilient insert 23) selectively inserted within the one or more support cavities (FIGs. 3 & 4),
wherein the mold liner (23) defines one or more mold cavities (cavity 24, having cavity openings 26) [0019], [0025] – [0029].
Manthei et al. does not explicitly disclose, the mold liner (23) defining more than one mold cavities, one or more cavity inserts configured to be selectively inserted into the one or more mold cavities of the mold liner; and a reaction frame, wherein the reaction frame comprises one or more extending arms configured to selectively engage with the one or more inserts.
Although Manthei et al. is silent to the duplication of the mold liner cavities, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the support cavity and/or the mold cavity in either of the rigid support member and/or mold liner in the forming system of Manthei et al., since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the support cavity and/or the mold cavity for the purpose of casting a concrete block having a different shape and/or for providing a form assembly for casting more than one block at a time. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (B):
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Like Manthei et al., Willson teaches a forming system (Col. 1 lines 8 – 20) comprising a form assembly (e.g., “multi-molder or press 1” Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 3) configured to cast a concrete block (Col. 3 lines 40 – 60 “If the charge is a mixture of fluid and solid ingredients, as in concrete”, Col. 10 lines 59 – 66 “a new kind of building block, like the molecule in Nature, to achieve an infinite variety of new structures and structural materials.”), wherein the form assembly (1) comprises: a rigid support member (support walls 7) having a plurality of sides and defining one or more support cavities (e.g., 28) (see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 9); a mold liner (8) selectively inserted within the one or more support cavities (“gangmold consisting of six back-to-back pairs of molds 8 shown open faced in FIG. 1” see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 9),
wherein the mold liner (8)/(33) defines one or more mold cavities (see FIGs. 3-4); and
one or more cavity inserts (“core member 21” see FIGs. 1 – 5) configured to be selectively inserted into the one or more mold cavities of the mold liner (Col. 3 lines 45 – 65); and
a reaction frame (“an outer framework comprising pairs of opposite columns 2 and 3 supporting between base 4 and top-member 5 a fixed press bed 6” (see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 9);
wherein the reaction frame comprises one or more extending arms (e.g., “top travel beam 24”) configured to selectively engage with the one or more inserts (21) (see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 3 lines 20 – 31 “Passing through both top closure 13 and intermediate beam 16 are ramming conduits or core members 21 having lower ends comprising taper tips 22 and having upper ends 23 fixed into top travel beam 24 actuated by cylinder 25”).
Willson further discloses that “Another object of the invention is a process of forming structural components and members that combine substantial strength with minimal weight.” (Col. 1 lines 33 – 34).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the forming system of Manthei et al. with one or more cavity inserts configured to be selectively inserted into the one or more mold cavities of the mold liner, as suggested and taught by Willson, and with a reaction frame, wherein the reaction frame comprises one or more extending arms configured to selectively engage with the one or more inserts, as suggested and taught by Willson (see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 3 lines 20 – 31), for the purpose of producing hollow articles by forming structural components and members that combine substantial strength with minimal weight, as taught by Willson Col. 1 lines 33 – 34. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 2, Manthei/Wilson teaches the forming system of claim 1, wherein the mold liner is tapered in a direction protruding into the corresponding mold cavity (see Wilson’s FIG. 1 mold 8 tapering into receiving socket 29; see Willson Col. 3 lines 27 – 31 “Ramming conduits 21 are exteriorly rigid, of constant volume and above the taper of tips 22 have outer shells of constant cross section to have a snug sliding fit in sealing bushings 26 housed by top closures 13.”).
Regarding claim 3, Manthei/Wilson teaches the forming system of claim 1, wherein the form assembly includes one or more straps on the mold liner, wherein the one or more straps are configured to moveably connect the mold liner to the rigid support member (see Manthei et al. [0028 – 0033]).
Regarding claim 4. Manthei/Wilson teaches the forming system of claim 1, wherein the rigid support member (e.g., Manthei et al. 22) includes one or more slots (Manthei et al. parallel channels 30 and 31) configured to support the form assembly in a lifting or inverting operation (see Manthei et al. [0022] and FIGs. 3 – 4).+
Regarding claim 5, Manthei/Willson teaches the forming system of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more inserts (e.g., Wilson’s 21) forms a portion of an insert assembly (see Wilson FIG. 1), the insert assembly comprising: one or more first portions that are each selectively inserted within the mold cavities of the mold liner (e.g., core members 21); and a second portion (e.g., intermediate beam 16) attached to the first portion (see Willson FIG.1), wherein the second portion includes a hole adapted for receiving at least one of the extending arms (e.g., Willson’s travel beam 24) of the reaction frame (see Willson Col. 3 lines 10 – 31).
Regarding claim 6, Manthei/Willson teaches the forming system of claim 1, wherein the reaction frame further comprises a support structure that extends perpendicularly across the at least one extending arm and operably coupled to the extending arms supporting the extending arms operably connected to the corresponding insert. (See Willson’s FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 10 – 75 cont. Col. 4 lines 1 – 7).
Regarding claim 7, Manthei/Willson teaches the forming system of claim 1, wherein one or more cavity inserts comprise adjacent inserts operably connected to one of the extending arms (See Willson’s FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 10 – 75 cont. Col. 4 lines 1 – 7).
Regarding claim 8, Manthei/Willson teaches the forming system of claim 7, wherein the mold liner defines adjacent mold cavities and the adjacent inserts are selectively inserted into the adjacent mold cavities along an extension length of the corresponding extending arm of the reaction frame (See Willson’s FIGs. 1 – 5 and Col. 3 lines 10 – 75 cont. Col. 4 lines 1 – 7).
Regarding claim 21, Manthei/Willson teaches the forming system of claim 1, wherein the one or more inserts (Willson’s 21) are operably coupled to an insert mounting structure, the insert mounting structure (16) forming an opening that receives the one or more extending arms (e.g., guides 17, 18 see Willson’s FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Manthei/Willson teaches a forming system comprising (Col. 1 lines 8 – 20):
a form assembly (e.g., Manthei 20; Willson’s “multi-molder or press 1” Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 3) configured to cast a concrete block (e.g., Manthei [0019]; Willson Col. 3 lines 40 – 60 “If the charge is a mixture of fluid and solid ingredients, as in concrete”, Col. 10 lines 59 – 66 “a new kind of building block, like the molecule in Nature, to achieve an infinite variety of new structures and structural materials.”),
wherein the form assembly (e.g., Manthei 20, Willson’s 1) comprises:
a rigid support member (Manthei 22, Willson’s support walls 7) having a plurality of sides and defining one or more support cavities (e.g., Willson’s 28, see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 9);
a mold liner (Manthei 23, Willson 8) selectively inserted within the one or more support cavities (Willson “gangmold consisting of six back-to-back pairs of molds 8 shown open faced in FIG. 1” see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 9),
wherein the mold liner (Willson 8) defines one or more mold cavities (see FIGs. 3-4); and
one or more insert assemblies (see Willson’s FIGs. 1 – 5), each insert assembly comprising:
one or more cavity inserts (e.g., Willson’s 21) configured to be selectively inserted into the one or more mold cavities of the mold liner (see Willson’s FIGs. 1 – 5); and
an insert mounting structure attached to the one or more cavity inserts, wherein the insert mounting structure includes an engagement feature (See Willson’s FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 10 – 75 cont. Col. 4 lines 1 – 7); and
a reaction frame comprising one or more extending arms (“an outer framework comprising pairs of opposite columns 2 and 3 supporting between base 4 and top-member 5 a fixed press bed 6” (see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 2 lines 59 – 71 cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 9),
wherein the one or more extending arms are configured to selectively engage with the engagement feature of the insert mounting structure to selectively couple with the one or more insert assemblies (see FIGs. 1 – 5, Col. 3 lines 20 – 31 “Passing through both top closure 13 and intermediate beam 16 are ramming conduits or core members 21 having lower ends comprising taper tips 22 and having upper ends 23 fixed into top travel beam 24 actuated by cylinder 25”).
Regarding claim 23, Manthei/Willson teaches the forming system according to claim 22, wherein the one or more cavity inserts are selectively withdrawn from the one or more mold cavities by drawing the cavity inserts out of the mold cavities (e.g., see Willson’s FIG. 1, Col. 3 lines 32 – 75 cont. Col. 4 lines 1 – 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to Claims 1 - 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Manthei et al. (US 2008/0277559 A1; of record), in view of C. D. Willson (US Pat. No. 3,114,936; Willson).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (e.g. disclosure of analogous structures/reaction frames/core bar assemblies for engaging with analogous inserts).
US 2012/0192522 Figure 5 (45 )138) (140); paragraph [0045];
US 2010/0007051 Figure 16; paragraph [0059];
US 2008/0174049 Figures 15-18;
US 5,108,282 Figure 11;
US 7,309,226 (Figures 1-6);
US 3,768,769 (Figures 1, 2, 4 (42) (40) (28));
US 3,218,774 (Figures 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights