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 .
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.
Drawings
This drawing objection is being repeated. The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 9 shows three dowels on one arm of the dowel support, which is not supported by the Specification. Applicant's specification, paragraph [0033] discusses "Each of the cradles 34 is positioned at a different height relative to the foot 22 for interchangeably supporting the dowel 10 at a different height relative to the casting bed." Applicant’s original specification discloses that the different cradles allow a user to choose a height to support one dowel. Therefore, Figure 9 is supposed to show an arm with three cradles as potential positions for a dowel. As a suggestion, two of the dowels could be drawn with dashed lines to convey what Applicant is disclosing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 1/13/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendments to paragraphs [0023] and [0029] are confusing because they are not in accordance with Applicant’s original specification, and introduce new matter. Applicant’s original specification makes clear that the apparatus 14, which includes a pair of dowel supports 12, supports a plurality of dowels (Figure 2; [0009]; and “each of the cradles being positioned at a different height relative to the foot for interchangeably supporting the dowel at a different height relative to the casting bed” [0012]), not that each arm supports a plurality of dowels. The amendments to the specification are even more confusing because the claims as amended are correctly in accordance with Applicant’s original specification, so it is unclear why Applicant amended the claims one way and the specification a different way. If it is simply to not have to provide a replacement drawing, it is improper.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0026] states “a pair of dowel cradles 12”. This appears to contain a typographical error since the remainder of the specification discloses “dowel support 12”. It appears that that portion of paragraph [0026] should read “a pair of dowel supports 12”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perry et al., US 8,863,468 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Perry teaches an apparatus for supporting a level of a concrete element relative to an adjacent concrete element (one side wall of a concrete structure and an adjacent side wall of the concrete structure), the apparatus comprising:
a dowel (42) configured to transfer a load from the concrete element to the adjacent concrete element; and
a dowel support (20) configured to support the dowels relative to a casting bed prior to pouring of the concrete element and the adjacent concrete element (it must be positioned prior to pouring the concrete because they are supposed to be embedded in the poured concrete; column 2 lines 7-13), wherein the dowel support is formed of corrosion free material (high-strength polymer or carbon fiber polymer; column 5 lines 39-41) and includes:
a foot (28; Figure 1),
an arm (26; Figure 1) extending upward from the foot,
a plurality of fingers (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) extending from the arm, and
a plurality of cradles (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations), wherein each of the plurality of cradles is respectively connected to one of the plurality of fingers and respectively configured to receive the dowel, each of the plurality of cradles being positioned at a different height relative to the foot to interchangeably support the dowel at a different height (“at any one of multiple different heights”; Abstract) relative to the casting bed.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, since the dowel support is disclosed to be formed of a high-strength polymer or carbon fiber polymer (column 5 lines 39-41), it is formed of plastic material.
Regarding claim 5, as shown in Figure 5, the foot is configured to extend along a surface of the casting bed.
Regarding claim 6, the dowel support includes a series of spaced arms (four arms) at spaced intervals along a longitudinal axis (it could either be down the center bisecting the foot, or from the bottom center to the top center) of the foot.
Regarding claim 7, as shown in Figure 5, there are a pair of like dowel supports, the dowel configured to extend between the pair of dowel supports.
Regarding claim 8, as shown in Figure 5, the dowel is supportable by the dowel supports in an orientation substantially parallel to the casting bed (the casting bed is underneath the feet of the dowel supports).
Regarding claim 12, Perry teaches an apparatus for supporting a level of a concrete element relative to an adjacent concrete element (one side wall of a concrete structure and an adjacent side wall of the concrete structure), the apparatus comprising:
a dowel (42) configured to transfer a load from the concrete element to the adjacent concrete element; and
a dowel support (20) configured to support the dowels relative to a casting bed prior to pouring of the concrete element and the adjacent concrete element (it must be positioned prior to pouring the concrete because they are supposed to be embedded in the poured concrete; column 2 lines 7-13), wherein the dowel support includes:
a foot (28; Figure 1),
an arm (26; Figure 1) extending upward from the foot,
a plurality of fingers (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) extending from the arm, and
a plurality of cradles (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations), wherein each of the plurality of cradles is respectively connected to one of the plurality of fingers and respectively configured to support the dowel, each of the plurality of cradles being positioned at a different height relative to the foot to interchangeably support the dowel at a different height (“at any one of multiple different heights”; Abstract) relative to the casting bed.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, as shown in Figure 1, the plurality of cradles includes a first cradle at a first height relative to the foot, a second cradle at a second height relative to the foot, and a third cradle at a third height relative to the foot.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yee, US 8,312,687 B2.
Regarding claim 9, Yee teaches an assembly for supporting a level of concrete element relative to an adjacent concrete element (one side wall of a concrete structure and an adjacent side wall of the concrete structure), the assembly comprising:
a dowel (which is placed on cradle 10) capable of transferring a load from the concrete element to the adjacent concrete element;
a first dowel support (looking at Figure 1, the left side along the length) configured to support the dowel relative to a casting bed prior to pouring of the concrete element and the adjacent concrete element (“a subsequent concrete pour”; Abstract), wherein the first dowel support includes:
a first foot (20),
a first arm (12) extending upward from the foot,
a first finger (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) extending from the first arm and having a first cradle connected to the first finger, wherein the first cradle is positioned at a first height (the height of the first cradle) relative to the foot and configured to receive the dowel,
a second finger (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) extending from the first arm (via the connected horizontal member) and having a second cradle connected to the second finger, wherein the second cradle is positioned at a second height (the height of the second cradle) relative to the foot and configured to receive the dowel, and
a third finger (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) extending from the first arm (via the connected horizontal member) and having a third cradle connected to the third finger, wherein the third cradle is positioned at a third height (the height of the third cradle) relative to the foot and configured to receive the dowel; and
a second dowel support (looking at Figures 1, the right side along the length, unitarily formed with the first dowel support) configured to support the dowel relative to the casting bed prior to pouring of the concrete element and the adjacent concrete element, wherein the second dowel support includes:
a second foot (20 on right side),
a second arm (12 on right side) extending upward from the foot,
a fourth finger (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) extending from the second arm and having a fourth cradle connected to the fourth finger, wherein the fourth cradle is positioned at the first height (see Figure 1) relative to the foot and configured to receive the dowel,
a fifth finger (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) extending from the second arm (via the connected horizontal member on the right side) and having a fifth cradle connected to the fifth finger, wherein the fifth cradle is positioned at the second height (see Figure 1) relative to the foot and configured to receive the dowel, and
a sixth finger (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) extending from the second arm (via the connected horizontal member on the right side) and having a sixth cradle connected to the sixth finger, wherein the sixth finger is positioned at the third height (see Figure 1) relative to the foot and configured to receive the dowel.
PNG
media_image2.png
597
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the first dowel support is configured to support a first end portion of the dowel and the second dowel support is configured to support a second end portion of the dowel (the dowel would be placed on each pair of opposing cradles, such as third and sixth).
Regarding claim 11, the assembly includes one of the first cradle, the second cradle, or the third cradle is configured to receive the first end of the dowel and one of the fourth cradle, the fifth cradle, or the sixth cradle is configured to receive the second end of the dowel ((the dowel would be placed on each pair of opposing cradles, such as third and sixth).
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 3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry as applied above to claims 2 and 12, alone.
Regarding claim 3, while Perry fails to disclose that the dowel support is formed by plastic injection molding, this is a matter of product by process, which is not germane in an apparatus claim. Additionally, the Examiner took Official Notice in the rejection dated 10/27/2025 that plastic injection molding is old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant’s traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dowel support to form it by plastic injection molding since that is a common way to form plastic articles.
Regarding claim 14, while Perry fails to disclose that the first height is about 100 mm (which is about 3.9 inches), the second height is about 125 mm (which is about 4.9 inches), and a third height is about 155 mm (which is about 6.1 inches) relative to the casting bed, Perry discloses chairs having heights in the range from two inches to six inches, and discloses that the chair can have any size without departing from the scope (column 7 lines 47-49 and lines 55-61). It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Additionally, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Since both the Perry apparatus and the apparatus of the claimed invention are for use on a casting bed of a cast concrete structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first height at about 100 mm, the second height at about 125 mm, and a third height at about 155 mm relative to the casting bed based on engineering design choice to support the concrete structure based on the height of the concrete structure.
Regarding claim 15, the resulting combination from claim 14 includes the first cradle being longitudinally offset to the left of the third cradle and the second cradle is longitudinally offset to the right of the third cradle (the third cradle would be the middle one of the annotated cradles in the figure provided above for claim 12).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry as applied above to claim 1, in view of Sorkin, US 7,506,482.
Regarding claim 4, while Perry fails to disclose the plurality of cradles to be made of material of suitable elasticity to deform when resiliently receiving the dowel and return to its original shape once the dowel is received, Sorkin teaches a similar apparatus for supporting a dowel in a cast concrete structure and discloses a dowel support having a bar support that can be easily snap-fitted around a dowel (column 3 lines 20-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perry’s cradles have each of the plurality of cradles be made of material of suitable elasticity to deform when resiliently receiving the dowel and return to its original shape once the dowel is received in view of Sorkin’s disclosure of snap-fitting, which would ensure the dowel is securely held.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant disagreed with the Drawing objection but did not provide arguments, only consequently amending the Specification “for clarity”. However, as detailed above in the specification objection, the amendment to the specification actually provides more confusion and is now an issue of new matter.
Applicant merely asserts disagreement with the rejections using Sorkin and Alfonso, but does not provide arguments, therefore is not persuasive. Nonetheless, the argument against Alfonso is moot since that reference is no longer relied on in the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671