DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 09/02/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 2, 11, 13, and 14 has/have been amended, claim(s) 36-62 has/have been cancelled, claim(s) 33-37 has/have been withdrawn, and claim(s) 63-65 has/have been added. Therefore, claims 1-37 and 63-65 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, the limitation “the one or more reinforcing ridges comprise a lattice of structural members” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this lattice configuration and such a modification to include it would require modifying the modifier reference which would involve hindsight reconstruction. Claim(s) 20 and 21 depend from claim 19 and are therefore objected to as well.
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 of this title, 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) 1-15, 22-25, 27-29, 31, and 32, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebregts (WO 9516835 A1) in view of Baader (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0167295).
Regarding claim 1, Liebregts teaches an apparatus comprising: a concrete form skeleton frame module (52), having: a ladder (figure 5), formed of opposed side beams (78-rear, 78-front; figure 5) laterally spaced from one another by a plurality of bridge beams (60); and a plurality of studs (72/74), arrayed and spaced from one another along a longitudinal length of exterior sides of the opposed side beams of the ladder (figure 5); in which the opposed side beams define first and second ladder ends of the ladder (left and right ends; figure 5); in which the plurality of studs each define first and second stud ends (top and bottom ends of 72/74), with each of the first and second stud ends having a stud connector (80, 82), with the stud connectors of the first and second stud ends being adapted to mechanically connect to stud connectors of second and first stud ends, respectively (col. 6, lines 18-21), of a plurality of studs of a third concrete form skeleton frame module, which is identical to the concrete form skeleton frame module, if the third concrete form skeleton frame module is positioned in use adjacent the concrete form skeleton frame module such that the first or second stud ends of the concrete form skeleton frame module abut the second or first stud ends, respectively, of the third concrete form skeleton frame module (col. 6, lines 22-26); and in which the concrete form skeleton frame module is integrally formed as a monolithic unit (figures 4 and 5).
Liebregts does not specifically disclose each of the first and second ladder ends having a ladder connector, with the ladder connectors of the first and second ladder ends being adapted to mechanically connect to ladder connectors of second and first ladder ends, respectively, of a ladder of a second concrete form skeleton frame module, which is identical to the concrete form skeleton frame module, if the second concrete form skeleton frame module is positioned in use adjacent the concrete form skeleton frame module such that the first or second ladder ends of the concrete form skeleton frame module abut the second or first ladder ends, respectively, of the second concrete form skeleton frame module.
Baader discloses a concrete form panel system (abstract) whereby each of the first and second ladder ends having a ladder connector (20a, 20b), with the ladder connectors of the first and second ladder ends being adapted to mechanically connect to ladder connectors of second and first ladder ends, respectively, of a ladder of a second concrete form skeleton frame module, which is identical to the concrete form skeleton frame module, if the second concrete form skeleton frame module is positioned in use adjacent the concrete form skeleton frame module such that the first or second ladder ends of the concrete form skeleton frame module abut the second or first ladder ends, respectively, of the second concrete form skeleton frame module (paragraph 38).
Therefore, from the teaching of Baader, 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 construction form element of Liebregts such that each of the first and second ladder ends having a ladder connector, with the ladder connectors of the first and second ladder ends being adapted to mechanically connect to ladder connectors of second and first ladder ends, respectively, of a ladder of a second concrete form skeleton frame module, which is identical to the concrete form skeleton frame module, if the second concrete form skeleton frame module is positioned in use adjacent the concrete form skeleton frame module such that the first or second ladder ends of the concrete form skeleton frame module abut the second or first ladder ends, respectively, of the second concrete form skeleton frame module, as taught by Baader, in order to quicken the connection of laterally adjacent modules without requiring additional tooling to facilitate assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Liebregts teaches the concrete form skeleton frame module is integrally formed as the monolithic unit (figures 4 and 5).
With regards to the limitation that the product is formed by “molded”, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Liebregts teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 3, Liebregts teaches the ladder connectors are male-female connectors (it is understood that detents / recesses are male-female connectors) and Baader in the combination teaches the stud connectors are male-female connectors (paragraph 38 of Baader).
Regarding claim 4, Liebregts teaches the ladder connectors comprise female grooves (recesses 82) and male tongues (detents 80).
Regarding claim 5, Liebregts teaches the female groove opens in a direction parallel to an axis of the opposed side beams (as illustrated, the recess at 82 is open in a direction parallel to an axis of the opposed side beams; figure 5); the male tongue comprises a lateral shelf (detent 80); and one or both of the female groove and male tongue are tapered in width in a direction toward the other of the female groove and male tongue when connected (as illustrated, the male tongue or detent would taper in a width direction toward the female groove, when connected; as best seen in figure 7).
Regarding claim 6, Baader in the combination discloses the first, second, or first and second ladder ends comprise apertures (23a) to permit a fastener to pass through to secure the concrete form skeleton frame module and the second concrete form skeleton frame module together (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 7, Liebregts does not specifically disclose the stud connectors are irreleasable connectors.
Baader discloses a concrete form panel system (abstract) including connectors that are irreleasable (paragraph 41).
Therefore, from the teaching of Baader, 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 construction form element of Liebregts such that the stud connectors are irreleasable connectors, as taught by Baader, in order to prevent the connection of adjacent modules from unintentionally disconnecting, to facilitate assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Liebregts teaches the plurality of studs comprises three or more studs along each of the opposed side beams of the ladder (figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Liebregts teaches the ladder is oriented horizontally and the plurality of studs are oriented vertically (figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Liebregts teaches each stud comprises one or more reinforcing ridges (76/84).
Regarding claim 11, Liebregts teaches the one or more reinforcing ridges are on an exterior face of the stud (figure 6).
Regarding claim 12, Liebregts teaches the one or more reinforcing ridges project from a stud body of the stud (figure 6); the one or more reinforcing ridges and stud body define foam cavities (volume between 76 and 84; figure 6); the foam cavities are bounded by the one or more reinforcing ridges (figure 6); and a base of each foam cavity is defined by the stud body (figure 6).
Regarding claim 13, Liebregts teaches the one or more reinforcing ridges comprise a plurality of axial ridges (as illustrated, the ridge 84 is located along an axial part of the stud; figure 6).
Regarding claim 14, Liebregts teaches the one or more reinforcing ridges comprise a plurality of cross ridges (as illustrated, the ridge 84 extends cross-wise along part of the stud; figure 6).
Regarding claim 15, Liebregts teaches the stud connectors comprise buckles (as illustrated, the connectors 80 and 82 are configured to buckle together; figure 5).
Regarding claim 22, Liebregts teaches each stud mounts to an opposed side beam via a lateral stem (73).
Regarding claim 23, Liebregts teaches the lateral stem comprises a gusset plate (figure 6).
Regarding claim 24, Liebregts teaches the lateral stem is oriented such that an apex of the lateral stem is adjacent to the opposed side beam (figure 6) and a long edge of the lateral stem is adjacent an interior face of the stud (figure 6).
Regarding claim 25, Liebregts teaches the plurality of bridge beams each comprise a plurality of one-way rebar connectors (valley portions at the top of 62; figure 5; it is understood these portions are capable of functioning as a plurality of one-way rebar connectors).
Regarding claim 27, Liebregts teaches a plurality of concrete form skeleton frame modules connected together to form a concrete form skeleton frame via connections between the ladder connectors or stud connectors of adjacent concrete form skeleton frame modules of the concrete form skeleton frame (figure 1).
Regarding claim 28, Liebregts teaches a plurality of lateral stems (73) extend from the exterior sides of the opposed side beams to interior sides of the plurality of studs (figure 6) to separate the interior sides of the plurality of studs from the opposed side beams of the ladder to define opposed insulated form panel gaps therebetween (figure 6).
Regarding claim 29, Liebregts teaches opposed insulated form panels (20), each having exterior and interior faces (figure 5), with the interior faces mounted to the ladder and spaced apart from one another to form an insulated concrete form (figure 5).
Regarding claim 31, Liebregts teaches the plurality of studs and the opposed side beams are embedded within the opposed insulated form panels (figure 5).
Regarding claim 32, Liebregts does not specifically disclose each stud of the plurality of studs is fifteen inches tall or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein each stud of the plurality of studs is fifteen inches tall or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein each stud of the plurality of studs is fifteen inches tall or less, in order to enhance the maneuverability of the structural element to be handled by a single worker, to facilitate assembly.
Claim(s) 16-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebregts (WO 9516835 A1), in view of Baader (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0167295), and further in view of Watson (U.S. Patent No. 1,622,072).
Regarding claim 16, Liebregts does not specifically disclose each opposed side beam comprises one or more reinforcing ridges.
Watson discloses a form holder for concrete walls (title) wherein each opposed side beam comprises one or more reinforcing ridges (18).
Therefore, from the teaching of Watson, 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 construction form element of Liebregts such that each opposed side beam comprises one or more reinforcing ridges, as taught by Watson, in order to provide a removable connection between the side beam and the stud, to provide a more compact shipping for the assembly to reduce costs.
Regarding claim 17, Watson in the combination discloses the one or more reinforcing ridges comprise a plurality of axial ridges (as illustrated, the ridges extend axially; figure 7).
Regarding claim 18, Watson in the combination discloses the axial ridges extend a longitudinal length of the opposed side beam ridges (as illustrated, the ridges extend a longitudinal length of the opposed side beam ridges; figure 7).
Claim(s) 26 and 30, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebregts (WO 9516835 A1), in view of Baader (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0167295), and further in view of Marshall et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,037,652).
Regarding claim 26, Liebregts does not specifically disclose the one-way rebar connectors comprise tapered spring tabs that are able to flex outwardly to receive the rebar, and close thereafter in order to enclose the rebar within a rebar slot.
Marshall et al. discloses a concrete form (abstract) wherein the one-way rebar connectors comprise tapered spring tabs (37) that are able to flex outwardly to receive the rebar, and close thereafter in order to enclose the rebar within a rebar slot (col. 6, lines 1-5).
Therefore, from the teaching of Marshall et al., 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 construction form element of Liebregts such that the one-way rebar connectors comprise tapered spring tabs that are able to flex outwardly to receive the rebar, and close thereafter in order to enclose the rebar within a rebar slot, as taught by Marshall et al., in order to further provide a secure locking fit for rebar into the form to prevent unintentionally dislodging the rebar, to facilitate assembly.
Regarding claim 30, Liebregts does not specifically disclose the opposed insulated form panels comprise expandable polymer material.
Marshall et al. discloses a concrete form (abstract) wherein the opposed insulated form panels comprise expandable polymer material (EPS; col. 4, lines 40-45).
Therefore, from the teaching of Marshall et al., 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 construction form element of Liebregts such that the opposed insulated form panels comprise expandable polymer material, as taught by Marshall et al., in order to further provide lightness for ease of handling, to facilitate assembly.
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)(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) 1, 16, and 63-65, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baader (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0167295).
Regarding claim 1, Baader teaches an apparatus comprising: a concrete form skeleton frame module (concrete form panel; abstract), having: a ladder (20), formed of opposed side beams (see annotated figure 2A below) laterally spaced from one another (annotated figure 2A) by a plurality of bridge beams (annotated figure 2A); and a plurality of studs (22), arrayed and spaced from one another along a longitudinal length of exterior sides of the opposed side beams of the ladder (the studs are to be attached at coupling members 24; paragraph 39; making them arrayed and spaced from one another along a longitudinal length of exterior sides of the opposed side beams of the ladder); in which the opposed side beams define first and second ladder ends of the ladder (figure 2A), with each of the first and second ladder ends having a ladder connector (20a, 20b / 23a, 23b), with the ladder connectors of the first and second ladder ends being adapted to mechanically connect to ladder connectors of second and first ladder ends, respectively, of a ladder of a second concrete form skeleton frame module, which is identical to the concrete form skeleton frame module (paragraph 38), if the second concrete form skeleton frame module is positioned in use adjacent the concrete form skeleton frame module such that the first or second ladder ends of the concrete form skeleton frame module abut the second or first ladder ends, respectively, of the second concrete form skeleton frame module (figure 1); in which the plurality of studs each define first and second stud ends (opposing ends of 22; figure 3A), with each of the first and second stud ends having a stud connector (22a, 22b), with the stud connectors of the first and second stud ends being adapted to mechanically connect to stud connectors of second and first stud ends, respectively, of a plurality of studs of a third concrete form skeleton frame module, which is identical to the concrete form skeleton frame module, if the third concrete form skeleton frame module is positioned in use adjacent the concrete form skeleton frame module such that the first or second stud ends of the concrete form skeleton frame module abut the second or first stud ends, respectively, of the third concrete form skeleton frame module (paragraph 40); and in which the concrete form skeleton frame module is integrally formed as a monolithic unit (figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Baader teaches each opposed side beam comprises one or more reinforcing ridges (24).
Regarding claim 63, Baader teaches each stud is mounted to and spaced laterally outward from the opposed side beam via the one or more reinforcing ridges (the studs are to be attached at coupling members 24; paragraph 39; making them mounted to and spaced laterally outward from the opposed side beam via the one or more reinforcing ridges).
Regarding claim 64, Baader teaches opposed insulated form panels (12, 14), each integrally formed (figure 1) and having exterior and interior faces (figure 1), with the interior faces mounted to the ladders of the plurality of concrete form skeleton frame modules (paragraph 39) and spaced apart from one another to form an insulated concrete form (figure 1).
Regarding claim 65, Baader teaches the plurality of studs are mounted to the exterior sides of the opposed side beams to separate interior sides of the plurality of studs from the exterior sides of the opposed side beams of the ladder (the studs are to be attached at coupling members 24; paragraph 39; placing them mounted to the exterior sides of the opposed side beams to separate interior sides of the plurality of studs from the exterior sides of the opposed side beams of the ladder).
PNG
media_image1.png
457
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The newly added claims 63-65 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action and are hereby rejected as being anticipated by Baader (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0167295).
In addition, the examiner has carefully considered the arguments with regards to Liebregts in view of Baader, but they were not found persuasive. Applicant argues that Liebregts teaches away from connecting his strips 78 laterally end to end, as it incorporates sealing formations 40 that have sinusoidal profiles that would prevent two blocks from being slid laterally to connect adjacent strips 78…[since] the form itself is provided by a plurality of blocks, each with its own distinct panels. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Liebregts teaches away and that there would be no motivation to combine Liebregts with Baader. When taken as a whole, the panel assembly, for example as shown in figure 1, requires attachment to further assembled panel sections, such as room extension additions or corner wall connections. Such connections would not be hindered by sliding or movements that disrupt the sinusoidal profiles since the wall section as a whole would already be stacked together, and would just be lacking the lateral connection means to adjacent panel sections, such as wall additions or corner sections. For such cases, which Liebregts alludes to (for example corner sections; page 7, lines 10-15), one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Baader, which also discloses a concrete formwork assembly, and has the lacking lateral connection means between adjacent panel sections.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633