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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 1-11, 13-21 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, it is unclear what comprises a first segment, a second segment, a third segment, and a fourth segment, as wall segments have not been discussed in the disclosure, and it is not clear where a second/fourth wall portion is connected at a bottom/top wall portion of the same wall. The examiner will examine as best understood with the wall segments comprising corrugations of the wall. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, it is unclear what the second segment and fourth segment extend diagonally from and where on the wall(s) the extension takes place. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, it is unclear what is claimed as a slot. Further, it is unclear how each slot is defined by a wall segment. The examiner will examine as best understood with the space within the corrugation being a slot. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear what comprises a protrusion and a receptacle at ends of the walls and separation barrier as these components are not described in the disclosure nor shown in any of the figures. Figure 25 of the 10/27/2025 filed drawing set appears to show a form of connecting component between joint formers, but it is unclear what the drawing is showing or where a protrusion meets a receptacle. The examiner will examiner as best understood with a form of connecting component at the ends of the joint former apparatus which allow adjacent apparatus components to connect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11, 13-20 rejected under 35 USC 112 as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 1-8, 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuwissen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0023725 in view of Keen, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0081805.
Regarding claim 1, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former comprising: an upper wall (6) having a wavelike configuration and including a first segment having a bottom edge and a second segment connected to the bottom edge (in the same manner as the present invention, see Fig. 1; as best understood in light of the specification), wherein the second segment extends longitudinally and defines a first slot (channel space within the corrugation; as best understood in light of the specification); a lower wall (5) below the upper wall having a wavelike configuration and including a third segment having a top edge and a fourth segment connected to the top edge (in the same manner as the present invention, see Fig. 1; as best understood in light of the specification), wherein the fourth segment extends longitudinally and defines a second slot (channel space within the corrugation; as best understood in light of the specification), wherein the wavelike configuration of the lower wall is laterally offset relative to the wavelike configuration of the upper wall (see Fig. 5); and a horizontal separation barrier (8) having a top surface (adjacent 6) and a bottom surface (opposite the top surface), wherein the top surface connects to the second segment (the top surface connects to the lower edge of all upper wall components); and a body formed by the upper and lower walls (as shown in Fig. 5), but does not disclose the bottom surface of the horizontal barrier connects to the fourth segment, a plurality of spaced apart brackets extending vertically along the body and each positioned to receive a support such that the support extends vertically along the body, nor components of the wall being attached at angles to one another. Meuwissen does teach in an embodiment a second horizontal separation barrier that is connected to the bottom edge of the lower wall, the second barrier adjacent and in a same plane as the first barrier (see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to produce the two plates/barriers as a single piece depending on the method of production and to simplify the assembly of the joint former, and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). The horizontal separation barrier will then be connected to both the bottom edge of the upper wall and the upper edge of the bottom wall. Keen teaches a plurality of spaced apart brackets (41) extending vertically (the bracket extends both vertically and horizontally) along the body and each configured to receive a support such that the support extends vertically along the body (as shown in Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such brackets for additional securing means. Keen also teaches wall portions extending diagonally from each other (see figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to produce the wavelike corrugations as trapezoidal shapes depending on method of production, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. The phrase “positioned to receive a support” is a statement 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.
Regarding claim 2, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former wherein the wavelike configuration of the lower wall is out of phase with the wavelike configuration of the upper wall (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former wherein the first segment of the upper wall is vertical (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former wherein the third segment of the lower wall is vertical (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former wherein the wavelike configuration of the lower wall is at a same frequency as the wavelike configuration of the upper wall (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former wherein the wavelike configuration of the lower wall is at a same amplitude as the wavelike configuration of the upper wall (paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 7, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former wherein the wavelike configuration of the lower wall is shifted by one half cycle relative to the wavelike configuration of the upper wall (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former wherein the wavelike configuration of the lower wall has a plurality of same lateral extremities as the wavelike configuration of the upper wall (se Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former wherein lateral offsets between the upper wall and the lower wall are arranged such that each lateral offset is configured to form a dowel protrusion on one concrete element which is slideable laterally with vertical support from the other concrete element (the lateral offsets between the walls are in a same configuration as the present invention). The phrase “configured to form a dowel protrusion on one concrete element which is slideable laterally with vertical support from the other concrete element” is a statement 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.
Regarding claim 17, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former which is part of an intersection apparatus (if placed in such a manner) configured to form an intersection between three or more concrete elements. The phrase “configured to form an intersection between three or more concrete elements” is a statement 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. If a second former is placed perpendicular to the first in an abutting manner, the apparatus is capable of forming the intersection.
Regarding claim 18, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former which is part of an intersection apparatus (if placed in such a manner) configured to form the intersection between four concrete elements. The phrase “configured to form an intersection between four concrete elements” is a statement 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. If a third former is placed perpendicular to the first in an abutting manner, the apparatus is capable of forming the intersection.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art, as modified, discloses a structural joint former wherein when the supports are received by the stake brackets each of the supports is rotatable (via threads; Keen paragraph 88) through a partial rotation about a longitudinal axis of the support between an unlocked condition and a locked condition. The phrase “when the supports are received by the stake brackets each of the supports is rotatable through a partial rotation about a longitudinal axis of the support between an unlocked condition and a locked condition” is a statement 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.
Regarding claim 20, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former wherein each support (141) is height adjustable (in some manner, either by bending or tightening of the bolt) relative to the body in the unlocked condition and wherein each support is locked against height adjustment relative to the body in the locked condition (when fully tightened).
Regarding claim 21, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former comprising: an upper wall (6) having a wavelike configuration and including a first segment having a bottom edge and a second segment connected to the bottom edge (in the same manner as the present invention, see Fig. 1; as best understood in light of the specification), wherein the second segment extends longitudinally and defines a first slot (channel space within the corrugation; as best understood in light of the specification); a lower wall (5) below the upper wall having a wavelike configuration and including a third segment having a top edge and a fourth segment connected to the top edge (in the same manner as the present invention, see Fig. 1; as best understood in light of the specification), wherein the fourth segment extends longitudinally and defines a second slot (channel space within the corrugation; as best understood in light of the specification), wherein the wavelike configuration of the lower wall is laterally offset relative to the wavelike configuration of the upper wall (see Fig. 5); a horizontal separation barrier (8) having a top surface (adjacent 6) and a bottom surface (opposite the top wall), wherein the top surface connects to the second segment (the top surface connects to the lower edge of all portions of 6), but does not disclose and the bottom surface connects to the fourth segment, nor a first protrusion extending along a portion of a first end of the upper wall, a portion of a first end of the of the lower wall, and a portion of a first end of the horizontal separation barrier; a first receptacle extending along a portion of a second end of the upper wall, a portion of a second end of the of the lower wall, and a portion of a second end of the horizontal separation barrier, wherein the first receptacle is positioned to receive a second protrusion of a second joint former apparatus and wherein the first protrusion is positioned to be received by a second receptacle of a third joint former apparatus. Meuwissen does teach in an embodiment a second horizontal separation barrier that is connected to the bottom edge of the lower wall, the second barrier adjacent and in a same plane as the first barrier (see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to produce the two plates/barriers as a single piece depending on the method of production and to simplify the assembly of the joint former, and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). The horizontal separation barrier will then be connected to both the bottom edge of the upper wall and the upper edge of the bottom wall. Keen teaches connecting elements (151, 152) at ends of a joint former apparatus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize connecting elements at the ends of the walls for a secure connection between adjacent apparatus when the joint is longer than a single apparatus. Keen also teaches wall portions extending diagonally from each other (see figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to produce the wavelike corrugations as trapezoidal shapes depending on method of production, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuwissen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0023725 in view of Keen, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0081805 and Keen, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0366472 (‘472).
Regarding claim 9, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former but does not disclose wherein the wavelike configuration of the lower wall and the wavelike configuration of the upper wall are each formed by a series of planar sections. Keen (‘472) teaches a wavelike configuration formed by a series of planar sections (see Fig. 3). 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 former in such a configuration depending on the method of production, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art, as modified, discloses a structural joint former wherein the wavelike configuration of the lower wall and the wavelike configuration of the upper wall are each formed alternating between respective ones of the plurality of planar sections longitudinal to the joint and the planar sections at an angle to the joint (see Keen (‘472) Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art, as modified, discloses a structural joint former wherein the wavelike configuration of the lower wall and the wavelike configuration of the upper wall are each formed alternating between respective ones of the plurality of planar sections longitudinal to the joint and the planar sections at a 45 degree angle to the joint (Keen (‘472), paragraph 46).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuwissen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0023725 in view of Keen, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0081805 and Laiho et al., U.S. Patent 8,539,726.
Regarding claim 13, Meuwissen discloses a structural joint former but does not disclose it is formed from a plastic material. Laiho teaches use of a plastic in a joint former (col. 3, lines 51-52). 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 plastic for the joint former for a durable joint former and depending on material availability, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See rejections to newly added limitations and claims as set forth above.
Conclusion
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 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