DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/25 has been entered.
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 1-5 and 7 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.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “said waler table” in line 2 and in line 3. There is insufficient antecede basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “said concrete slab formwork waler table” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 5, claim 5 recites, “said waler table” in line 2. There is insufficient antecede basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “said concrete slab formwork waler table” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2-4 and 7 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gostling (US 3,239,188) in view of Gostling (“Gostling 2”) (US 4,147,321).
Re claim 1, Gostling discloses a prop head (12-18) for connecting a formwork prop (10) to a concrete slab formwork waler table (22); said waler table (22) having a plurality of support beams (22) having a cavity or gap space (proximate 18) adapted to receive (Fig. 3) an upper part (18) of said prop head (12-18), said waler table (22) being adapted to receive a bolt across said cavity of gap space (22 is capable of receiving a bolt across the gap or cavity); wherein said prop head (12-18) comprises:
a central plate (14) having a front end (front end of 14), a rear end (rear end of 14) and two sides (sides of 14), said sides (sides of 14) having downwardly projecting lower brackets (16) therefrom (Fig. 3), said downwardly projecting lower brackets (16) being adapted to receive the top of said prop (15 are capable of receiving 10) in a horizontally sliding manner (Fig. 3) from said front end (front end of 14) of said central plate (14);
a downwardly projecting stop bar (12) that extends downward (Fig. 3, as the thickness direction extends downward) from the rear end (rear end of 14) of said central plate (14), adapted to abut (Fig. 3) the upper part (top of 10, at 11) of said prop head (10);
an upper turret (13, 19), rising from said central plate (14), adapted to fit in said cavity or gap space (proximate 18); and having one or more laterally located slots or holes (see Fig. 5, where 21 has dotted lines indicating insertion into a hole in 20) adapted to correspond with (Fig. 3) the position of complementary holes or slots (which accept 21) in said plurality of support beams (22); and
a hole or slot (at 15) in said central plate (14) adjacent said front end (front end of 14) and adapted to receive a locking element (15) thereby to prevent said prop head (12-18) being removed from said downwardly projecting lower brackets (16),
but fails to disclose discloses the hole or slot adapted to receive a locking wedge.
However, Gostling 2 discloses the hole or slot (Gostling: at 15) adapted to receive a locking wedge (instead of the locking element per the above) (Gostling 2: 21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prop head of Gostling with the hole or slot adapted to receive a locking wedge as disclosed by Gostling 2 in order to provide secure alignment and connection in a manner that does not require additional tools. In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (bolt of Gostling) for another (wedge of Gostling 2) to obtain predictable results (connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
It is noted that, “for,” and “adapted to” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Moreover, the claims are drawn solely to a prop head. Thus, any features claimed regarding a waler table (or the proper itself) are considered to be directed to the intended use of the prop head.
Re claim 2, Gostling discloses the prop head of claim 1, wherein there are located two spaced apart vertical guide plates (21) or the like above said hole of slot (at 15) in said central plate (14) adapted to receive a locking wedge therebetween (a locking wedge is capable of being fitted between elements 21).
In the event the Examiner over broadly construed the phrase, “adapted to receive a locking wedge,” see alternative rejection below.
Re claim 4, Gostling discloses the prop head of claim 1, wherein said turret (13, 19) is constructed from two lengths of hollow section (RHS) steel tube (13, 19) arranged adjacent one another (Fig. 5, above and below) and stood vertically (Fig. 5) on said central plate (14), each said (RHS) steel tube (13, 19) having at least one cross drilled bolt hole (at 30) through said (RHS) steel tube (13, 19), but fails to disclose the two lengths are rectangular, steel
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prop head of Gostling such that the tubes are steel in order to utilize a simple, easy to manufacture, inexpensive, durable material.
In addition, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tubes of Gostling to be rectangular in shape in order to fit squarely within a slot in a beam, or to match the structural arrangement of the plates of Fig. 6. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 6, Gostling discloses an apparatus (Fig. 3) for connecting a formwork prop (12-18) to a concrete slab (Col 2 lines 5-14) formwork waler table (22); said concrete slab formwork waler table (22) having a plurality of support beams (22) having a cavity or gap space (proximate 18) adapted to receive (Fig. 3) the upper part (18) of the prop head (12-18), said concrete slab formwork waler table (22) being adapted to receive a bolt across said cavity of gap space (22 is capable of receiving a bolt across the gap or cavity); said prop head (12-18); wherein said apparatus (Fig. 3) has a prop (10) and a prop head (12-18), said prop head (12-18) comprising:
a central plate (14) having a front end (front end of 14), a rear end (rear end of 14) and two sides (sides of 14), said two sides (sides of 14) having downwardly projecting lower brackets (16) therefrom (Fig. 3), said downwardly projecting lower brackets (16) being adapted to receive the top of said prop (15 are capable of receiving 10) in a horizontally sliding manner (Fig. 3) from said front end (front end of 14);
a downwardly projecting stop bar (12) extending downward (Fig. 3, as the thickness direction extends downward) from the rear end (rear end of 14) of said central plate (14), adapted to abut (Fig. 3) the upper part (top of 10, at 11) of said prop head (10);
an upper turret (13, 19), rising from said central plate (14), adapted to fit in said cavity or gap space (proximate 18); and having one or more laterally located slots or holes (see Fig. 5, where 21 has dotted lines indicating insertion into a hole in 20) adapted to correspond with (Fig. 3) a position of complementary holes or slots (which accept 21) in said plurality of support beams (22); and
a hole or slot (at 15) in said central plate (14) adjacent said front end (front end of 14) and adapted to receive a locking element (15) thereby to prevent said prop head (12-18) being removed from said downwardly projecting lower brackets (16),
but fails to disclose discloses the hole or slot adapted to receive a locking wedge.
However, Gostling 2 discloses the hole or slot (Gostling: at 15) adapted to receive a locking wedge (instead of the locking element per the above) (Gostling 2: 21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prop head of Gostling with the hole or slot adapted to receive a locking wedge as disclosed by Gostling 2 in order to provide secure alignment and connection in a manner that does not require additional tools. In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (bolt of Gostling) for another (wedge of Gostling 2) to obtain predictable results (connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
It is noted that, “for,” and “adapted to” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Moreover, the claims are drawn solely to a prop head. Thus, any features claimed regarding a waler table (or the prop itself) are considered to be directed to the intended use of the prop head.
Re claim 7, Gostling discloses a concrete slab formwork table (Fig. 1), said concrete slab formwork table (Fig. 1) being supported by a waler beam system (22), said waler beam system (22) including a plurality of waler beams (22) arranged with gaps or spaces therebetween (Fig. 1); said waler beams (22) being supported by a plurality of props (10); wherein said plurality of props (10) are connected to said waler beams (22) via a plurality of prop heads (12-18) as defined in claim 1 (see above).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gostling (US 3,239,188) in view of Gostling (“Gostling 2”) (US 4,147,321) and Malone (US 5,643,487).
Re claim 2 in the alternative, Gostling discloses the prop head of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein there are located two spaced apart vertical guide plates or the like above said hole or slot in said central plate adapted to receive a locking wedge therebetween.
However, Malone discloses wherein there are located two spaced apart vertical guide plates or the like (at 38) above said hole or slot in said central plate (per the above) adapted to receive a locking wedge (72) therebetween (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prop head of Gostling wherein there are located two spaced apart vertical guide plates or the like above said hole or slot in said central plate adapted to receive a locking wedge therebetween as disclosed by Malone in order to secure components in a simple, removable manner, that does not require tools for installation.
Re claim 3, Gostling discloses the prop head of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein said locking wedge is formed from steel plate and has a wider and narrower end; and wherein there is a stop piece attached to said wider end; and wherein said stop piece is wider than a space between said guide plates.
However, Malone discloses a locking wedge (72), wherein said locking wedge (72) has a wider (right end of 72) and narrower end (left end of 72); and wherein there is a stop piece (head of 72) attached to said wider end (right end of 72); and wherein said stop piece (72) is wider than a space between (between 40) said guide plates.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prop head of Gostling with a locking wedge, wherein said locking wedge is formed from steel plate and has a wider and narrower end; and wherein there is a stop piece attached to said wider end; and wherein said stop piece is wider than a space between said guide plates as disclosed by Malone in order to secure components in a simple, removable manner, that does not require tools for installation.
In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prop head of Gostling such that the locking wedge is formed of a steel plate in order to utilize a simple, easy to manufacture, inexpensive, durable material.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gostling (US 3,239,188) in view of Gostling (“Gostling 2”) (US 4,147,321) and Vigil et al (“Vigil”) (US 7,971,395).
Re claim 5, Gostling discloses a method of connecting a said formwork prop (10) to a said concrete slab formwork waler table or the like (22); said concrete slab formwork waler table (22) having a plurality of support beams (22) having a cavity or gap space (proximate 18) adapted to receive (Fig. 3) the upper part (18) of the prop head (12-18), said concrete slab formwork waler table (22) being adapted to receive a bolt across said gap or cavity (22 is capable of receiving a bolt across the gap or cavity); said method including in any order the steps of:
inserting (Fig. 3) the upper turret (18) of a prop head (12-18) according to claim 1 (see above) into said gap or cavity (at 18);
sliding (Fig. 3 showing telescopic sliding) a top (18) of said prop (10) into said prop head (12-18) below said central plate (14);
inserting a locking bolt (15), wedge or pin into said hole (at 15) thereby to secure said prop (10) in said prop head (12-18),
but fails to disclose securing said prop head by inserting bolts through said bolt holes in said support beams and said upper turret.
However, Vigil discloses securing (Fig. 10) said prop head (42, 44) by inserting bolts (70), through said bolt holes (at 70) in said support beams (12a) and said upper turret (139, 118).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prop head of Gostling with securing said prop head by inserting suitable bolts through said bolt holes in said beams and said turret as disclosed by Vigil in order to securely, removably couple the turret and beam together in a more secure manner.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn (for those reasons stated in the previous rejection)
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the interpretation of Gostling is misapplied. Applicant contends that the system of Gostling requires plates to slide under arms, and then gets bolted. Applicant contends this system is fundamentally different from the system claimed which requires a locking wedge without the complex action of undoing bolts. First and foremost, Gostling is not relied upon as disclosing any locking wedge. Gostling 2 is relied upon disclosing such. Second, the claim language to which Applicant refers recites, “a hole or slot….adapted to receive a locking wedge.” As was noted in each previous office action and again in the above, the language, “adapted to” is a statement of intended use. The prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed function. Although Gostling does not disclose a locking wedge, it clearly discloses holes or slots which are capable of receiving a locking wedge (instead of bolt 15). Gostling 2 clearly discloses such wedges. No locking wedge is positively recited.
Next, Applicant argues that the office’s interpretation of a stop bar 12 in Gostling is an incorrect analogy. Applicant states that Gostling has no stop bar and none is required, as bolts 15 perform this function. The claim language to which Applicant refers states, “a downwardly projecting stop bar that extends downward from the rear end of said central plate, adapted to abut the upper part of said prop head.” The language makes no mention of any function of a “stop bar” other than being capable of abutting the upper part of the prop head. The only structural features claimed with respect thereto requires a downwardly projecting bar that extends downward from the rear end of said central plate. As 12 reads on this structural feature, and as 12 is at the very least capable of abutting the upper part of the prop head, 12 constitutes the claimed “stop bar.”
Applicant’s arguments concerning the dependent claims and the new claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Mattei can be reached on (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635