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
This specification objection is being repeated:
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.
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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the fifth to last line recites “dowl” which appears to be a typographical error and should be “dowel”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-12 (and claims 13-15 through dependency) 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.
Claim 9 requires the first dowel support being configured to receive the first dowel, the second dowel support being configured to receive the second dowel, the first dowel and the second dowel are parallel to one another. Given this arrangement, one of the dowel supports would be to the left and the other of the dowel supports would be to the right. Claim 10, which is written to depend from claim 9, requires the first dowel support to support a first end portion of the dowel while the second dowel support is configured to support a second end portion of the dowel. In this arrangement, both of the first and second dowel supports are supporting one dowel, so the one of the dowel supports would be in front and the other of the dowel supports would be in the back. Claim 10 is claiming a different arrangement, and therefore does not further limit the arrangement claimed in claim 9. Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and also does not further limit the arrangement claimed in claim 9. Since it is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim, claims 10-11 will not be further treated on the merits until correction is provided.
Claim 10 recites “the dowel” in the second line and the last line. It is unclear to which dowel Applicant is referring since claim 9 requires a first dowel and a second dowel.
Claim 11 recites “the dowel” in the second to last line and the last line. It is unclear to which dowel Applicant is referring since claim 9 requires a first dowel and a second dowel.
Claim 12 recites “along the same parallel axis”. This limitation is indefinite because it is not in accordance with Applicant’s specification and drawings. Based on Applicant’s drawings, such as Figure 6, the axes of the cradles are parallel to each other but they are not the same axes. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Applicant intended “along axes parallel to each other”.
Correction is required for each rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 requires the first dowel support being configured to receive the first dowel, the second dowel support being configured to receive the second dowel, the first dowel and the second dowel are parallel to one another. Given this arrangement, one of the dowel supports would be to the left and the other of the dowel supports would be to the right. Claim 10, which is written to depend from claim 9, requires the first dowel support to support a first end portion of the dowel while the second dowel support is configured to support a second end portion of the dowel. In this arrangement, both of the first and second dowel supports are supporting one dowel, so the one of the dowel supports would be in front and the other of the dowel supports would be in the back. Claim 10 is claiming a different arrangement, and therefore does not further limit the arrangement claimed in claim 9. Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and also does not further limit the arrangement claimed in claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leonardis, US 5,107,654.
Regarding claim 1, Leonardis teaches an apparatus capable of being used for supporting a level of a concrete element relative to an adjacent concrete element, the apparatus comprising:
a dowel (13) capable of transferring a load from the concrete element to the adjacent concrete element; and
a dowel support (1) capable of supporting the dowel 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 4 lines 40-41), wherein the dowel support is formed of corrosion free material (comprised of a resilient plastics material; claim 3) and includes:
a foot (2; Figure 1),
an arm (5; 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 (a) at a different height relative to the foot to interchangeably support the dowel at a different height (Figure 1) relative to the casting bed, and (b) at a different location along the length of the foot (one cradle as annotated is closer to the left, the other cradle is closer to the right side of the foot looking at Figure 1), wherein each of the plurality of cradles comprises a resilient (the entire chair/dowel support is made of resilient plastics material; claim 3) clip with an opening less than the diameter of the clip (clearly shown in Figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
481
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, since the dowel support is formed of a resilient plastics material (claim 3), it is formed of plastic material.
Regarding claim 3, the dowel support is formed by plastic injection molding (column 4 lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 4, each of the plurality of cradles is made of material of suitable elasticity to deform when resiliently receiving the dowel and return to its original shape once the dowel is received, which is the definition of resilient, since the dowel support is made of a resilient plastics material (claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, as shown in Figure 13 which illustrates one way the chairs/dowel supports are used, 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 13, 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 13, 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Juedes et al., US 6,883,289 B2.
Regarding claim 12, Juedes teaches an apparatus capable of supporting a level of a concrete element relative to an adjacent concrete element, the apparatus comprising:
a dowel (210) capable of transferring a load from the concrete element to the adjacent concrete element; and
a dowel support (100+530 such as shown in Figure 5) capable of supporting the dowel relative to a casting bed prior to pouring of the concrete element and the adjacent concrete element, wherein the dowel support includes:
a foot (152+530),
an arm (150+120 in Figure 1) extending 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 (a) at a different height relative to the foot to interchangeably support the dowel at a different height relative to the casting bed, (b) at a different location along the length of the foot, and (c) along axes parallel to each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
542
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorkin, US 7,810,298 B1 in view of Alfonso, US 2011/0214381.
Regarding claim 9, Sorkin teaches an assembly capable of supporting a level of concrete element relative to an adjacent concrete element, the assembly comprising:
a dowel (100) capable of transferring a load from the concrete element to the adjacent concrete element;
a first dowel support (Figure 1 plus another 14: “suitable for allowing a snap-fit engagement with another second body 14 placed thereabove, if desired”; column 5 lines 38-40) capable of supporting the dowel relative to a casting bed prior to pouring of the concrete element and the adjacent concrete element, wherein the first dowel support includes:
a first foot (16),
a first arm (vertical wall connected to 34 and 36) extending upward from the foot,
a first finger (diagonal wall connected to the first arm) extending from the first arm and having a first cradle (22) 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 capable of receiving the dowel,
a second finger (diagonal wall connected to 34 and 36) extending from the first arm (via the connected horizontal member) and having a second cradle (32) 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 capable of receiving the dowel, and
a third finger (another diagonal wall of the additional 14, connected to the first arm) extending from the first arm (via the connected horizontal member) and having a third cradle (another 32) 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 capable of receiving the dowel.
While Sorkin fails to show a second dowel and a second dowel support, Alfonso teaches a similar dowel support structure and shows in Figure 7 a plurality of dowels and dowel support structures, the dowels and dowel support structures arranged in a grid-like formation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sorkin’s assembly to include a second dowel and a second dowel support in view of Alfonso’s disclosure that a plurality of dowels and dowel supports are required for a concrete-pouring job site. The resulting combination yields a second dowel capable of transferring a load from the concrete element to the adjacent concrete element and a second dowel support (another Figure 1 plus another 14, duplicate of the first dowel support) capable of supporting 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 (another 16),
a second arm (another vertical wall connected to 34 and 36) extending upward from the foot,
a fourth finger (diagonal wall connected to the second arm) extending from the second arm and having a fourth cradle (another 22) connected to the fourth finger, wherein the fourth cradle is positioned at the first height (the second dowel support is a duplicate of the first dowel support so the heights should align) relative to the foot and capable of receiving the dowel,
a fifth finger (another diagonal wall connected to 34 and 36) extending from the second arm (via the connected horizontal member) and having a fifth cradle (another 32) connected to the fifth finger, wherein the fifth cradle is positioned at the second height (the second dowel support is a duplicate of the first dowel support so the heights should align) relative to the foot and capable of receiving the dowel, and
a sixth finger (another diagonal wall of the additional 14, connected to the second arm) extending from the second arm (via the connected horizontal member) and having a sixth cradle (32 from additional 14) connected to the sixth finger, wherein the sixth finger is positioned at the third height (the second dowel support is a duplicate of the first dowel support so the heights should align) relative to the foot and capable of receiving the dowel
wherein the first dowel support is capable of receiving the first dowel in the first cradle, the second cradle, or the third cradle, the second dowel support is capable of receiving the second dowel in the fourth cradle, the fifth cradle, or the sixth cradle, each cradle comprising a resilient clip with an opening less than the diameter of the clip (clamping structure, formed of polymeric material; column 7 lines 11-12; and Figure 3). The resulting combination makes obvious that when received, the first dowel and the second dowel are parallel to one another based on the grid-like formation disclosed by Alfonso, the first dowel support would be next to the second dowel support so the first and second dowels would be parallel to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant disagreed with the Drawing and new matter objections: “disagrees with any position that Applicant’s invention is limited to the embodiment where a single dowel is received by a single dowel support for several reasons” but then relies on Yee supposedly as evidence because Yee shows a dowel support with intersecting dowels. However, Yee is not relevant to Applicant’s new matter issue because a new matter objection is based on what Applicant originally disclosed in the specification. Applicant then argues that “the dowel” should not be construed as a single dowel. This argument does not align with Applicant’s original disclosure in paragraph [0033] of the different heights “for interchangeably supporting the dowel 10 at a different height”. If the dowel support was intended to hold three dowels as shown in Figure 9, where is the interchangeability? The new matter objections are proper because the new matter actually conflicts with the invention as disclosed in the original specification. Applicant cites case law, Bell Semiconductor LLC v. Advanced Semiconductor Eng’g, Inc., however this case is not relevant to this argument because Applicant is arguing for a definition that is internally inconsistent with Applicant’s specification.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 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 specifically challenged in the argument. Neither Perry nor Yee are relied on in the current rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
If Applicant amends the claims in a way that changes the scope of the claims, allowability will be reconsidered.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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/
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights