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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species election in the reply filed on January 5, 2026 is acknowledged. The examiner would like to point out that claim 11 depends from non-elected claim 10. Therefore, claim 11 is also withdrawn. Claims 10, 11, 15, and 20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 1, “wherein shoulder” should read “wherein a shoulder”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 5, should read “the bottom walls are breakable from the leg portions with the screws when the formboard is removed” because the bottom walls were defined at lines 2 and 3 as being located on the leg portions and not the center post. Further, there are multiple bottom walls because the claim claimed that each leg portion included a bottom wall with an opening for receiving a screw.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "the first upper opening" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second upper opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 will be examined as reading “the first and second openings” until further clarification is provided because claim 16 introduced a first and second opening.
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) 1, 3-8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Espinosa (10,577,816).
In regard to claim 1, Espinosa discloses a rod holder for being embedded in concrete,
comprising:
a) a body including a first opening 12 for holding an end portion of a threaded rod 88, the first opening including an upper portion 4 and a lower portion 16, the upper portion including threads 22 (figure 2) for threaded connection with the threaded rod; and
b) the body including a vertical slot 17 (figures 3 and 5) in a sidewall of the lower portion 16 of the first opening, the slot for making visible an end portion of the threaded rod to ensure minimum threaded connection of the threaded rod in the upper portion while the threaded rod is adjusted vertically.
In regard to claim 3, Espinsoa discloses the claimed invention, wherein the body includes leg portions 10 to elevate the body above a formboard 92.
In regard to claim 4, Espinsoa discloses the claimed invention, wherein the threads 22 are segmented (column 3, lines 1-3).
In regard to claim 5, Espinsoa discloses the claimed invention, wherein a shoulder portion (top portion of 17) extends into the first opening to provide a stop for a bottom of the threaded rod (column 2, lines 59-62).
In regard to claim 6, Espinsoa discloses the claimed invention, wherein the body includes a center post 16 with a second opening (second opening is defined above flange 31 and below threaded rod 88, see figure 11A), the center post extends to the formboard (figures 12A and 13A).
In regard to claim 7, Espinsoa discloses the claimed invention, wherein
a) the second opening includes a bottom wall 31 with a third opening 30 for receiving a screw 94 for attaching the holder to the formboard; and
b) the bottom wall is breakable (column 3, lines 16-17) from the center post with the screw when the formboard is removed.
In regard to claim 8, Espinsoa discloses the claimed invention, wherein:
a) the leg portions 10 each includes a second opening (portion of 34 above flange 100) with a bottom wall 100 with a third opening (opening that shaft of screw or nail passes through in flange 100) for attaching the holder to the formboard with a screw; and
b) the bottom wall is breakable from the leg portion with the screw when the formboard is removed (column 5, lines 18-31).
In regard to claim 13, Espinsoa discloses the claimed invention, wherein the body includes openings 34 for nails for attaching the body to the formboard.
In regard to claim 14, Espinsoa discloses the claimed invention, wherein the leg portions 10 include openings 34 for screws for attaching the body to the formboard.
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) 2, 12, 16-19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espinosa (10577816) in view of Magargee (10450740).
In regard to claims 2, 12, and 16, Espinosa discloses the rod holder as in claim 1, except for specifically disclosing that the first opening is offset from a central vertical axis of the body and that the body includes a second opening for holding an end portion of another threaded rod; and the second opening includes a diameter different from the first opening. Magargee teaches that it is known to provide a rod holder having a body 10 with more than one opening that is offset from a central vertical axis, wherein the openings are for holding end portions of more than one threaded rod, wherein the openings have different diameters (column 3, lines 46-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate more than one threaded opening of a different diameter in offset positions into Espinosa’s invention, because, as taught by Magargee, the different size openings could accommodate different diameter rods. This would allow for one rod holder to be used with multiple different sized rods. It would provide adjustability to the device.
In regard to claim 17, Espinsoa in view of Magargee disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein:
a) the first opening includes a first upper portion 4 and a first lower portion 16, the first lower portion includes a vertical first slot 17 (figures 3 and 5) in a sidewall of the first lower portion 16 to make visible an end portion of the first threaded rod 88 to ensure minimum threaded connection of the threaded rod in the first upper portion while the first threaded rod is adjusted vertically;
b) the second opening includes a second upper portion 4 and a second lower portion 16, the second lower portion includes a vertical second slot 17 in a sidewall of the second lower portion to make visible an end portion of the second threaded rod 88 to ensure minimum threaded connection of the second threaded rod in the second upper portion while the second threaded rod is adjusted vertically. The examiner would like to point out that the second opening would be a duplicate of the first opening as taught by Margargee. The only difference would be the diameter of the opening.
In regard to claim 18, Espinsoa in view of Magargee disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the body includes leg portions 10 to elevate the body above a formboard 92.
In regard to claim 19, Espinsoa in view of Magargee disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the first opening the second opening are threaded. The openings have threads 22.
In regard to claim 22, Espinsoa in view of Margargee disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the body includes a center post 16 with a third opening (third opening is defined above flange 31 and below threaded rod 88, see figure 11A), the center post extends to the formboard (figures 12A and 13A).
In regard to claim 23, Espinsoa in view of Margargee disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein:
a) the third opening includes a bottom wall 31 with a fourth opening 30 for receiving a screw 94 for attaching the holder to the formboard; and
b) the bottom wall is breakable (column 3, lines 16-17) from the center post with the screw when the formboard is removed.
In regard to claim 24, Espinsoa in view of Margargee disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein:
a) the leg portions 10 each includes a third opening (portion of 34 above flange 100) with a bottom wall 100 with a fourth opening (opening that shaft of screw or nail passes through in flange 100) for attaching the holder to the formboard with a screw; and
b) the bottom wall is breakable from the leg portion with the screw when the formboard is removed (column 5, lines 18-31).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 21 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the prior art references of record show some similar features of applicant’s claimed invention, they fail to show or teach the combination of limitations set forth in claims 1 or 16 and 17 and further including a plurality of vertical ribs disposed inside the lower portion to engage the threaded rod(s). The examiner does not believe that it would be obvious to add vertical ribs because the rods are already engaged by the threads 22 of Espinosa’s device. Thus, if vertical ribs were added, they would possibly interfere with the threaded connection and would serve no purpose. Thus, the examiner can find no proper motivation to add ribs to Espinosa’s invention without having to rely on improper hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights