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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 10-11 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-3 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 1 recites the limitation "said paver" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the terminology “said paver” is referencing the claimed “slipform paving machine”. The terminology should be made consistent throughout the claim to avoid indefiniteness.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said frames" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 6, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wise (4,319,859).
Regarding claim 6, Wise teaches a concrete trench drain channel (Column 5, Lines 47-48) formed in situ by a process of continuous slip forming (50; Column 3, Lines 45-55; concrete fed from the hopper to the mold while the apparatus moves).
Regarding claim 12, Wise teaches a concrete slip forming mould (50) adapted to facilitate the continuous slip forming of a trench drain channel (Column 5, Lines 47-48; Column 3, Lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 13, Wise teaches a method for forming a concrete trench drain channel (Column 5, Lines 47-48), said method including the step of continuously slip forming the trench drain channel in situ (Column 3, Lines 45-55).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunter (5,653,553) in view of Wise (4,319,859).
Regarding claim 7, Gunter teaches a frame (24,25) for a trench drain channel (10), said frame defining an upper opening of said channel and adapted to receive a grate (17). Gunter fails to teach slip forming the trench drain channel. Wise teaches a method for forming a concrete trench drain channel (Column 5, Lines 47-48), said method including the step of continuously slip forming the trench drain channel (Column 3, Lines 45-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slip form the trench drain channel of Gunter as taught by Wise as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further as slip forming is more cost effective and less time consuming than other methods (Column 1, Lines 28-45).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise (4,319,859) in view of Gunter (5,653,553).
Regarding claim 8, Wise teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach frames connected by a fastener. Hanson teaches a slip formed concrete trench with frames that are connected to one another by an adjustable fastener (53) such as a turnbuckle. It is noted that a turnbuckle is not positively recited and the cylinder assemblies of Hanson are adjustable that meets the limitation of the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include adjustable frames in the slipform trench of Wise as taught by Hanson as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the frames between 1.5 meters and 2.5 meters long, since such a modification would have involved a mere chance in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise (4,319,859) in view of Gunter (5,653,553) and in further view of Cullen (2018/0274239).
Regarding claim 9, Wise as modified by Gunter teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach levelling lugs. Cullen teaches a trench drain with frames (10), wherein the ends of the frame are provided with one or more levelling lugs (42) located at the abutting ends of said frames that contact the underside of the abutting frame to assist in levelling of said frames (paragraph [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include leveling lugs on the trench of Wise as taught by Cullen to provide continuous structural stability.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunter (5,653,553) in view of Wise (4,319,859) and in further view of Cullen (2018/0274239).
Regarding claim 9, Gunter as modified by Wise teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach levelling lugs. Cullen teaches a trench drain with frames (10), wherein the ends of the frame are provided with one or more levelling lugs (42) located at the abutting ends of said frames that contact the underside of the abutting frame to assist in levelling of said frames (paragraph [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include leveling lugs on the trench of Gunter as taught by Cullen to provide continuous structural stability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 would be allowed if the 112 rejection as outlined above is overcome. The prior art does not teach installing frames on a trestle in an abutting manner and actuating the paver to continuously slipform the channel between interior and exterior moulds and around the frames. These limitations in combination with the remaining limitations in the independent claim read over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Scattergood teaches a slip forming assembly for forming a trench drain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 November 28, 2025