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 were received on 7/25/25. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: sealing element in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Line 5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the plurality of edge profiles” should be --the plurality of, four, edge profiles—for consistency of the claim language. Lines 8-9 of the claim, it appears “the fastening corrugation” should be --the groove-forming fastening corrugation-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 9 of the claim, it appears “the reinforcing corrugation” should be --the groove-forming reinforcing corrugation-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 4: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “at least one groove-forming reinforcing corrugation” should –the groove-forming reinforcing corrugation—for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 8: Line 5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the frame formwork element” should be --the at least one framework element-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the batten” should be --the at least one batten-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 10: Lines 2 and 5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the batten” should be --the at least one batten-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the projecting geometry” should be --the at least one projecting geometry-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 11: Lines 2 and 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the batten” should be --the at least one batten-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 12: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the batten” should be --the at least one batten-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the frame formwork element” should be --the at least one framework element-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 14: Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the batten” should be --the least one batten--.
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.
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 5, 10 and 12-17 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.
With regard to claim 5: Lines 3-4 of the claim, the limitation “the at least one reinforcing corrugation” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed --the groove-forming receiving corrugation--.
With regard to claim 10: Claim limitation “the sealing element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not describe what the sealing element is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
With regard to claim 12: Line 2-3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “at least one edge profile” is referencing the previously at least one edge profile. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the at least one edge profile--.
With regard to claim 13: Line 3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a frame formwork element” is referencing the previously recited at least one frame formwork element. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the at least one frame formwork element--.
With regard to claim 14: Line 5 of the claim, the limitation “the two battens” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the at least one batten and the parallel batten--.
With regard to claim 15: The claim references the at least one batten of claim 8, which renders the claim indefinite as claim 8 is directed to a frame formwork system. Note that the claim appears to reference elements of the frame formwork system including the at least one frame formwork element and the at least one edge profile. It appears the method should be referencing --a frame formwork system as claimed in claim 8--.
With regard to claim 17: Line 3 of the claim, the limitation “the batten” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --each batten--.
Claims 5, 10, and 12-17 are examined as best understood.
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) 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tatsuo (EP 0 595 470 A2).
With regard to claim 1: Tatsuo discloses a frame formwork element (1) for a frame formwork system for producing a wall section in concrete construction (figs. 1-2, 5-6 and 8), comprising:
a plurality of, four, edge profiles (4) which form a frame having a frame inner side (abutting adjacent frames) and a frame outer side (figs. 1-2 and 6),
wherein at least one edge profile (4) of said plurality of, four, edge profiles (4) is a hollow profile and in a cross-section has a profile section on the frame inner side having a groove-forming fastening corrugation (14) and a profile section on the frame outer side with a groove-forming reinforcing corrugation (15), wherein in the cross-section of the at least one edge profile (4) the groove-forming fastening corrugation (14) and the groove-forming reinforcing corrugation (15) lie opposite one another and have the same shape (figs. 2 and 6).
Tatsuo discloses in the profile section on the frame outer side the at least one edge profile (4) comprises at least one further groove-forming reinforcing corrugation (B) which extends parallel to the groove-forming reinforcing corrugation (15) in the longitudinal direction of the at least one edge profile (4) (fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6: Tatsuo (EP 0 595 470 A2)
With regard to claim 2: Tatsuo discloses that the groove-forming fastening corrugation (14) and the groove-forming reinforcing corrugation (15) each extend in the longitudinal direction of the at least one edge profile over the entire length of the at least one edge profile (4) (figs. 1-2 and 5-6).
With regard to claim 4: Tatsuo discloses that the groove-forming reinforcing corrugation (15) has a V, U or trapezoidal shape in the cross-section of the at least one edge profile (4) (figs. 2 and 6).
With regard to claim 7: Tatsuo discloses a formwork skin (2) which rests on the edge profiles (4.
With regard to claim 8: Tatsuo discloses a frame formwork system for producing a wall section in concrete construction (figs. 1-2, 5-6 and 8), comprising:
at least one frame formwork element as claimed in claim 1 (figs. 1-2, 5-6 and 8), and
at least one batten (30 and 39) capable of arranging on the frame outer side on the at least one edge profile (4) of the frame of the frame formwork element, wherein the at least one batten (30 and 29) has at least one projecting geometry (A) which can be brought into engagement with the at least one groove-forming reinforcing corrugation (15) of the that at least one edge profile (4) (fig. 6).
With regard to claim 9: Tatsuo discloses that the at least one projecting geometry (A) of the batten (30 and 39) extends in the longitudinal direction of the batten and/or in the cross-section of the batten (30 and 39) has an outer contour which is adapted to an inner contour of the at least one groove-forming reinforcing corrugation of the at least one edge profile (4) (fig. 6).
With regard to claim 11: Tatsuo discloses that the at least one batten (30 and 39) comprises two oppositely profiled side faces and two end faces (B) which connect the side faces, wherein the end faces (B) are of the different length in a cross-section of the at least one batten (30 and 39) (fig. 6).
With regard to claim 13: Tatsuo discloses that the at least one batten (30 and 39) capable of positioning the at least one frame formwork element, wherein the batten (30 and 39) comprises at least one opening (receiving hinge pin) for receiving a fastening means (fig. 6). Note that the limitation “a fastening means” is interpreted under 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous objections to claims 1-2 and 4-17 not addressed remain.
The previous rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 7/25/25. However, with respect to the sealing element interpreted under 112(f), Applicant statement that the limitation shouldn’t be interpreted in such a manner does not overcome the 112(b) rejection. As stated in the rejection, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view the new grounds of rejection.
However, Applicant arguments directed to the Tatsuo reference are addressed below. Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to clarify that the two groove-reinforcing corrugations are on the same side.
Examiner respectfully submits that the two groove-reinforcing corrugations are considered to be functionally to elements B and 15 of Tatsuo located on the same side (see annotated fig. 6). Note that the frame inner side is considered to be the side configured to abut adjacent frames. Examiner suggests further clarifying the orientation of the frame inner side and the frame outer side.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Claims 5, 10, 12 and 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of all the elements of the claimed frame formwork system including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record. Examiner notes that should the scope of the claims, allowability of the claims are subject to reconsideration.
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 JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633