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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on , has been entered. Claims 1, 3 – 4, 7 and 11 are amended. Claims 2, 6 and 13 – 18 are cancelled. Claim 19 is new. Claims 1, 3 – 5, 7 – 12 and 19 are pending and under examination. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 – 5 and 7 – 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims preamble should be amended to add a comma “,” e.g., after the phrase “The method of claim XX, further”. Appropriate correction is required.
New Grounds of Rejection
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 – 5 and 7 – 12 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 "providing a powered conveyor" in line 3, and further in line 7 recites “moving the movable cart to a powered conveyor.” It is not clear whether the limitation in line 7 is referring back to the previously provided powered conveyor, or whether the Applicant envisions the powered conveyor recited in line 7 as a separate and/or different powered conveyor from the previously provided one recited in line 3 of claim 1, which might differentiate structurally from each other. Consequently, the scope of the claim limitation is not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, making the claim vague and indefinite. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to either, amend the limitation in line 7 to e.g., “moving the movable cart to the powered conveyor,” if there is no structural differences between the powered conveyors, and/or to clearly identify the powered conveyor cited in line 7 as a different structure/apparatus, such as e.g., “moving the movable cart to a second powered conveyor.” For examination purposes, the claim line 7 is being interpreted as - - moving the movable cart to the powered conveyor - -.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claim 1 recites the limitation “using the powered conveyor to transfer the pallet and the mold to a first station” in line 9. However, claim 1 line 18 recites “using the powered conveyor to move the closed mold to a concrete pouring station,” and in lines 25 – 26 recites “using the powered conveyor and/or the movable cart to move the closed mold including the concrete located in the annular cavity to a curing station.”
In this case, since claim 1 line 9 discloses using the powered conveyor to transfer both, the pallet and the mold, it seems as the structural cooperative relationship of the pallet and the mold is later on omitted, since claim 1 line 18, as well as lines 25 – 26 recites using the powered conveyor to move only the closed mold to a concrete pouring station, and there is no disclosure of a step of separating the mold from the pallet (either in the claim itself, or in the specification/figures). Furthermore, these structural cooperative relationship seems not to be trivial based on e.g., Applicant’s specification in paragraph [0012 – 0013] which discloses “[0012] The method may also include providing a movable cart that receives the mold thereon, and dimensioning the pallet for receipt on the cart. [0013] The method may include providing a sensor on one of the pallet, cart, or mold to monitor a location of the mold,” as well as paragraph [0060] which discloses, “The closed mold 110 is then transported via the powered conveyor 116 (Figure 17) to the next workstation (Figure 18). This workstation is the filling or pouring workstation where concrete is directed into the cavity of the mold 110. This workstation may also include an oscillation table that supports the pallet surface of the transfer cart and the mold 110.” Furthermore, dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of providing a sensor “on one of the pallet, cart, or mold.” Hence, it is understood that if a sensor is to be provided on the pallet, the pallet would need to be transported together with the mold to any station for the sensor to indicate said position. Consequently, said omission creating a gap between the necessary structural connections (i.e., the pallet and the mold), and making the omitted structural cooperative relationships of elements (i.e., the pallet in claim 1 lines 18 and 25 – 26) critical or essential.
Claims 3 – 5 and 7 – 12 are rejected as being in dependent form from the rejected independent claim 1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staskiewicz et al. (US 2002/0109068 A1, of record), in view of Martin, Sr. (US Pat. No. 4,279,583), as evidenced by McMillin (WO 2007/147051 A2, of record).
Regarding claim 1. Staskiewicz teaches discloses a method of forming a cast concrete manhole product (see Abstract, [0002 – 0003]) comprising:
providing a movable wheeled cart (e.g., a fork lift) that includes a pallet ([0035] “the form 100 can be transported, on the pallet 118, for example, by a fork lift, to the pump where it is filled with the liquefied concrete”);
providing a mold for concrete (10, 110, 200; FIGs. 1 – 7), said mold comprising a mold outer wall (e.g., 101; FIG. 5, [0042]) and a mold inner wall (e.g., 102; FIG. 5, [0040-0042]);
positioning the mold on the pallet (see e.g., FIG. 5) of the movable cart (see [0035]);
transfer the pallet and the mold to a first station (see [0035] and [0047] “Additional steps aimed at increasing production using the forms 100, 200 include (1) serially transporting each form 100, 200 via the pallets 118, 218 to the pump for filling with concrete”);
opening the mold outer wall to access the mold inner wall, said opening step including unlatching mating outer mold members (e.g., each side of the mold shown split vertically at 106 FIG. 4) and separating the outer mold members to access the mold inner wall (e.g., see FIGs 1 – 7 and [0027] “clamps 15 are released to allow the expandable jacket 11 to be opened,” hence, having access to the mold inner wall 123, see FIG. 5 and [0030]);
cleaning an external surface of the mold inner wall (the Examiner takes official notice that cleaning molding surfaces between molding cycles is well known and customary in the art, as evidenced by McMillin below:
(McMillin, as evidentiary reference, discloses that “Following these processes, the empty molds are then preferably cleaned with brushes and a mold release agent is then applied to the molds, so as to help aid removal of the counterweight from the mold during the next demolding cycle.” McMillin page 16, lines 1923, cont. page 17, lines 1-11. For example, such step would be concurrent with Staskiewicz disclosure that “the core member 12 (comprising mold inner wall 123) is typically sprayed with a release agent prior to filling the mold so that it can be easily removed,” see [0027]);
closing the mold outer wall (e.g., 11, 101, 201; FIGs. 1 – 7) around the cleaned mold inner wall (i.e., 123) to provide a closed mold (see FIGs. 1 – 7), said closing step including moving the outer mold members together around the mold inner wall and latching (e.g., see 15, 105, 205 in FIGs. 1 – 7) mating the outer mold members together to form an annular cavity (20, 120, FIGs. 1, 5 – 6) between the mold inner wall and the mold outer wall (see FIGs. 1 – 7);
move the closed mold to a concrete pouring station (“the form 100 is positioned for easily transporting the form 100 to various locations in the shop, such as, for example, a concrete pump to fill the cavity” [0029], “the form 100 can be transported, on the pallet 118, for example, by a fork lift, to the pump where it is filled with the liquefied concrete” [0035], see also [0042]),
after locating the closed mold within the concrete pouring station (“the form 100 can be transported, on the pallet 118, for example, by a fork lift, to the pump where it is filled with the liquefied concrete” [0035]), introducing concrete into the annular cavity of the mold between the mold outer wall and the mold inner wall [0032]-[0035], [0042];
the movable cart (e.g., fork lift) to move the closed mold including the concrete located in the annular cavity to a curing station (“the filled form 100 can be transported by a forklift, again on the pallet 118, to a kiln area where the concrete is cured.” [0035], [0042]);
curing the molded manhole product at the curing station [0035], [0042]; and
separating the cured manhole product from the mold [0035], [0038], [0042].
Staskiewicz does not explicitly disclose,
providing a powered conveyor
moving the movable cart to a powered conveyor
using the powered conveyor to transfer the pallet and the mold to a first station, using the powered conveyor to move the pallet and the closed mold to a concrete pouring station,
wherein said step of using the powered conveyor to move the closed mold includes sensing a position of the closed mold in the concrete pouring station and locating the closed mold within the concrete pouring station based upon said step of sensing the position of the closed mold.
Staskiewicz, however, discloses that additional modifications could be made aimed at increasing production by serially transporting the forms via pallets to different stations, e.g., [0047] “Additional steps aimed at increasing production using the forms 100, 200 include (1) serially transporting each form 100, 200 via the pallets 118, 218 to the pump for filling with concrete.”
Like Staskiewicz, Martin teaches methods and a manufacturing apparatus for the automated manufacturing of cast concrete objects such as concrete pipe, manholes and similar objects (Col. 1 lines 7 – 11), whereby an assembly-line type manufacturing operation is carried out combining live and slave rollers conveyor system pathway (Col. 2 lines 16 – 25) – analogous to the claimed “providing a powered conveyor” (see Col. 7 lines 27 – 46), a plurality of molds may be used and secured to a pallet, which pallet may be size to fit upon the conveyor system (Col. 2 lines 26 – 29; Col. 5 lines 39 – 47), wherein a pouring station, a curing station (curing chamber), and a stripping station may be position along the conveyor system pathway (Col. 2 lines 30 – 44).
Martin discloses a limit switch 115 that “may be positioned almost anywhere along that support 101”, a second or indicator switch 117 positioned near the discharge side of the right angle roller turn box; and discloses that the limit switch 115 and indicator switch 117 sense when a pallet 27 has entered upon the turn box and when it has been discharged from the turn box, respectively, which sensing controls the operation of a carriage (Col. 7 lines 63 – 68 cont. Col. 8 lines 1 – 11) – analogous to the claimed “sensing a position of the closed mold in the concrete pouring station and locating the closed mold within the concrete pouring station based upon said step of sensing the position of the closed mold.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify in the same way, and with good expectation of successfully modify the base method of forming a cast concrete manhole product of Staskiewicz with a powered conveyor (such as Martin’s live and slave roller conveyor system), wherein Staskiewicz’ movable cart could be moved to the powered conveyor and serially transferring the pallet and mold from the movable cart (e.g., the forklift) to the powered conveyor, for the purpose of improving production, as suggested by Staskiewicz [0047], so as to use the powered conveyor to transfer the pallet and the mold to any number of different stations (e.g., Martin teaches pouring, curing and stripping stations) and to provide limit switches and indicator switches, as taught and suggested by Martin, for the purpose of sensing when a pallet has entered upon any of the different stations, as suggested by Martin, and the modification would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method of forming a cast concrete manhole product, e.g., a method wherein a step of using the powered conveyor to move the closed mold includes sensing a position of the closed mold in and locating the closed mold within a station e.g., a concrete pouring station based upon said step of sensing the position of the closed mold. See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale D).
Regarding claim 3. Staskiewicz/Martin teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising applying a release layer to the mold (see Staskiewicz [0027]).
Regarding claim 4. Staskiewicz/Martin teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising positioning an insert (e.g., “alignment members 260”, “inserts 262”) in the mold to facilitate contour and passage formation of the manhole product (see Staskiewicz [0040]), except for explicitly disclosing before said step of closing the mold outer wall around the cleaned mold inner wall.
However, the transposition of the step of positioning the insert to be before the step of closing the mold outer wall would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and said transposition would have not change the final cast concrete manhole product resulting from the method, since “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes” (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 12. Staskiewicz/Martin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the curing step includes using dry heat to accelerate the curing step (Staskiewicz “. Once filled, the form 100 is transported on the pallet 118 to a drying area, or kiln, where it can be cured at an accelerated rate, in contrast to the conventional practice of allowing the concrete to cure overnight.” [0037]).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staskiewicz et al. (US 2002/0109068 A1, of record), in view of Martin, Sr. (US Pat. No. 4,279,583), as evidenced by McMillin (WO 2007/147051 A2, of record), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Eilola (EP 2942171 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 5. Staskiewicz/Martin teaches the method of claim 4, except for specifically disclosing, further comprising securing the insert to the mold with a magnet.
Eilola [0028]-[0029] teaches mold and mold tables for casting concrete products, and further teaches the use of fixing magnets units 35 to detachably secured mold sidewall units.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the method of Staskiewicz/Martin so that the inserts are secure with a fixing magnet unit, as suggested and taught by Eilola, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, for the purpose of e.g., detachably secured the inserts. MPEP § 2144.07.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 7, Staskiewicz/Martin/Eilola teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a sensor on one of the pallet, cart, or mold to monitor a location of the mold (Martin Col. 7 lines 63 – 68 cont. Col. 8 lines 1 – 11 discloses that the limit switch 115 and indicator switch 117 sense when a pallet 27 has entered upon the turn box and when it has been discharged from the turn box, respectively, which sensing controls the operation of a carriage, see the discussion of Martin above).
Regarding claim 8, Staskiewicz/Martin/Eilola teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising installing forming members on the mold to define pin openings for subsequently mounting steps in the manhole product (see Staskiewicz [0040]-[0046], FIGs. 6, 8).
Regarding claim 9, Staskiewicz/Martin/Eilola teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising inserting a reinforcement member (Staskiewicz 13) in the mold between the walls of the outer mold and the inner mold (see Staskiewicz FIGs. 3, 6).
Regarding claim 10, Staskiewicz/Martin/Eilola teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the reinforcement member inserting step includes forming the reinforcement member as an annular strengthening member cage (Staskiewicz 13), and positioning the annular cage between the outer mold wall and the inner mold wall (see Staskiewicz FIGs. 3, 6, [0025], [0036]).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staskiewicz et al. (US 2002/0109068 A1, of record), in view of Martin, Sr. (US Pat. No. 4,279,583), as evidenced by McMillin (WO 2007/147051 A2, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 113427619 B, of record).
Regarding claim 11. Staskiewicz/Zhao/Eilola teaches the method of claim 1, except for disclosing, further comprising installing an RFID tag in at least one of the mold and the cart, wherein said method further comprises tracking a location of said at least one of the mold and the cart using said RFID tag.
Zhao et al. teaches an intelligent production line of shield tunnel duct piece a and using method (Abstract, and lines 28-29, lines 69-98). The production line comprising, inter alia, locating sensors, such as RFID electronic labels on the bottom of the molds, RFID reader-writer at each station on a roller type transmission line to identify e.g., type of mold, locating the mold, mounting proximity sensing (lines 216-222, lines 295-310, lines 323-329).
Zhao et al. discloses that “under the control of the control system, the duct piece mould on the corresponding station of the roller type transmission operation line using the corresponding matched intelligent device for related process operation, the production work of the shield duct piece comprises the following steps: S31, S31 the pipe sheet mould enters the mould cleaning station and release agent spraying station for automatic mould cleaning and spraying release agent operation, after finishing the operation, the roller type transmission operation line is rotated to the next station; S32, S32 the duct piece mould sequentially step S31 enters into the mould feeding station [analogous to the claimed “sensing a position of the mold in the concrete pouring station”], the embedded part station and checking”, “so as to identify the type of the duct piece mould, and a proximity sensor is installed on the corresponding station on one side of the roller transmission operation line and the outer side of the roller transmission operation line, so as to identify the position of the duct piece mould in place.” (Zhao et al. lines 145-170).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify in the same way, and with good expectations of successfully modify the locating sensors (e.g., Martin indicator switch) in the method of forming a cast concrete manhole product of Staskiewicz/Martin, such as RFID reader-writer at each station, and RFID electronic labels, as suggested and taught by Zhao et al., on a desired location e.g., at least one of the mold, the cart and/or near a discharge side a roller turn box, as suggested by Martin, and tracking a location of said at least one of the mold and the cart using said RFID tag (e.g., Zhao et al. discloses using the RFID tags and sensor to identify e.g., type of mold, locating the mold, mounting proximity sensing, see Zhao et al. lines 216-222, lines 295-310, lines 323-329), and the modification would have yielded no more than predictable result of an improved method of forming a cast concrete manhole product with an intelligent production line, as taught by Zhao et al. See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale D).
One of ordinary skill would have pursue the modification in view of Zhao et al. intelligent production line for the purpose of e.g., so as to identify the type of the mold, as well as to identify the position of the mold in place, as taught by Zhao et al. lines 145-170. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staskiewicz et al. (US 2002/0109068 A1, of record), in view of Martin, Sr. (US Pat. No. 4,279,583), as evidenced by McMillin (WO 2007/147051 A2, of record), and further in view of Umezawa et al. (JP H08309723 A).
Regarding claim 19, Staskiewicz teaches a method of forming a cast concrete manhole product comprising:
providing a mold for concrete (10, 110, 200; FIGs. 1 – 7), said mold comprising a mold outer wall (e.g., 101; FIG. 5, [0042]) and a mold inner wall (e.g., 102; FIG. 5, [0040-0042]);
using a wheeled cart (e.g., fork lift) to move the mold between a plurality of different stations [0035], wherein the following operations are performed at the plurality of stations (e.g., [0029] “a pallet 118, such as by welding, on which the form 100 is positioned for easily transporting the form 100 to various locations in the shop, such as, for example, a concrete pump to fill the cavity and a kiln area where the concrete is cured”):
- opening the mold outer wall to access the mold inner wall, said opening step including disconnecting mating outer mold members and separating the outer mold members to access the mold inner wall (e.g., see FIGs 1 – 7 and [0027] “clamps 15 are released to allow the expandable jacket 11 to be opened,” hence, having access to the mold inner wall 123, see FIG. 5 and [0030]);
- cleaning an external surface of the mold inner wall (the Examiner takes official notice that cleaning molding surfaces between molding cycles is well known and customary in the art, as evidenced by McMillin (see claim 1 above). For example, such step would be concurrent with Staskiewicz disclosure that “the core member 12 [comprising mold inner wall 123] is typically sprayed with a release agent prior to filling the mold so that it can be easily removed,” see [0027]);
- closing the mold outer wall (e.g., 11, 101, 201; FIGs. 1 – 7) around the cleaned mold inner wall (i.e., 123), said closing step including moving the outer mold members together around the mold inner wall and connecting the outer mold members together (e.g., see 15, 105, 205 in FIGs. 1 – 7);
- positioning the closed mold in a concrete pouring station (“the form 100 can be transported, on the pallet 118, for example, by a fork lift, to the pump where it is filled with the liquefied concrete” [0035]);
- introducing concrete into a cavity of the closed mold between the mold outer wall and the mold inner wall (“the form 100 can be transported, on the pallet 118, for example, by a fork lift, to the pump where it is filled with the liquefied concrete” [0035]);
- curing the concrete in the cavity to form the cast concrete manhole product [0035], [0042],
- separating the cast concrete manhole product from the mold [0035], [0038], [0042].
Staskiewicz does not disclose:
using both a powered conveyor and a wheeled cart to move the mold between a plurality of different stations;
magnetically attaching an insert to the mold, wherein said insert is configured to define contours and/or passages in the cast concrete manhole product;
the closing of the mold outer wall around the cleaned mold inner wall happening after said step of magnetically attaching the insert to provide a closed mold;
using output of a sensor to sense a position of the closed mold in the concrete pouring station and locating the closed mold within the concrete pouring station based upon said step of sensing the position of the closed mold;
the step of introducing concrete into a cavity of the closed mold between the mold outer wall and the mold inner wall happening after locating the closed mold within the concrete pouring station and in contact with the magnetically attached insert that is magnetically attached to the mold;
wherein said insert magnetically attached to the mold forms contours and/or passages in the cast concrete manhole product when said concrete is cured.
As to the limitation “using both a powered conveyor and a wheeled cart to move the mold between a plurality of different stations,” and “using output of a sensor to sense a position of the closed mold in the concrete pouring station and locating the closed mold within the concrete pouring station based upon said step of sensing the position of the closed mold.”
Martin teaches methods and a manufacturing apparatus for the automated manufacturing of cast concrete objects such as concrete pipe, manholes and similar objects (Col. 1 lines 7 – 11, Col. 2 lines 16 – 44, Col. 5 lines 39 – 47, Col. 7 lines 27 – 46, Col. 7 lines 63 – 68 cont. Col. 8 lines 1 – 11). See the discussion of Martin in claim one above.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify in the same way, and with good expectation of successfully modify the base method of forming a cast concrete manhole product of Staskiewicz with a powered conveyor (such as Martin’s live and slave roller conveyor system), wherein Staskiewicz’ movable cart (e.g., the forklift) and the powered conveyor are used both to move the mold between a plurality of different stations, for the purpose of improving production, as suggested by Staskiewicz [0047], so as to use the powered conveyor to transfer the pallet and the mold to any number of different stations (e.g., Martin teaches pouring, curing and stripping stations) and to provide limit switches and indicator switches, as taught and suggested by Martin, so as to use the output of Martin’s limit switches and indicator switches to sense a position of the closed mold in the concrete pouring station and locating the closed mold within a station, e.g., the concrete pouring station, as suggested by Martin, and the modification would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method of forming a cast concrete manhole product, e.g., a method wherein a step of using the powered conveyor to move the closed mold includes sensing a position of the closed mold in and locating the closed mold within a station e.g., a concrete pouring station based upon said step of sensing the position of the closed mold. See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale D).
As to the limitation “magnetically attaching an insert to the mold, wherein said insert is configured to define contours and/or passages in the cast concrete manhole product,” and “wherein said insert magnetically attached to the mold forms contours and/or passages in the cast concrete manhole product when said concrete is cured.”
Umezawa et al. teaches a method and apparatus for setting a precast concrete product (e.g., a manhole, see lines 26 – 39, lines 142 – 153) at a predetermined position in a mold at the time of molding, and a spacer (e.g., an insert, spacer 11) for forming casting holes in products (see lines 22 – 24), and discloses fitting an iron concrete formwork with the core member by a magnetic force of a permanent magnet fastener fitted in the hollow portion of the spacer body (see lines 82 – 92).
Umezawa et al. discloses that since the fastener has the permanent magnet having an attracting force of 10 to 40 kg/piece, the attracting force of the permanent magnet causes the core member to be a formwork, and is firmly attached. “Therefore, due to both the frictional resistance force when the core member is firmly fixed to the formwork and the frictional resistance force when the spacer body is sandwiched by the formwork, movement due to buoyancy can be prevented.” (lines 132 – 140, see lines 328 – 386).
Umezawa et al. discloses that a configuration for making contours and/or passages (e.g., recess 16, 16a-d; FIGs. 5 and 7, and lines 282 – 342) the design may be appropriately changed according to the shape of the product to be molded. “Therefore, the formed is made by the arrangement of the spacer main body 12, the core member 15, and the fastener 2 to be set in the mold. The contact surfaces of the second mold inner surface are formed into curved surfaces having curvatures corresponding to the curved surfaces of the inner surface of the mold, respectively.” (see lines 439 – 444; analogous to the claimed “wherein said insert is configured to define contours and/or passages in the cast concrete manhole product”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the base method of forming a cast concrete manhole product of Staskiewicz/Martin with a magnetic insert, as suggested and taught by Umezawa et al., and magnetically attaching an insert to the mold, wherein said insert is configured to define contours and/or passages in the cast concrete manhole product, as taught and suggested by Umezawa et al. (lines 282 -342, lines 439 – 444), and wherein said insert magnetically attached to the mold forms contours and/or passages in the cast concrete manhole product when said concrete is cured, as taught and suggested by Umezawa et al. (lines 282 -342, lines 439 – 444), for the purpose of e.g., providing a reconfigurable magnetically attached insert capable of preventing movement due to buoyancy, as taught by Umezawa et al. (lines 132 – 140, see lines 328 – 386). See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
As to the limitation, “the closing of the mold outer wall around the cleaned mold inner wall happening after said step of magnetically attaching the insert to provide a closed mold,” and the step of introducing concrete into a cavity of the closed mold between the mold outer wall and the mold inner wall happening “after locating the closed mold within the concrete pouring station and in contact with the magnetically attached insert that is magnetically attached to the mold.”
The transposition of the step of closing the mold outer wall to be after the step of magnetically attaching the insert and introducing concrete into the cavity after locating the closed mold within the concrete pouring station (e.g., Staskiewicz [0029] discloses “the form 100 is positioned for easily transporting the form 100 to various locations in the shop, such as, for example, a concrete pump to fill the cavity,” see [0042]) and in contact with the magnetically attached insert that is magnetically attached to the mold, would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and said transposition would have not change the final cast concrete manhole product resulting from the method, since “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes” (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 200386868 Y1: outer mold to form the outer surface of the manhole, is provided with a concrete area to the outer mold of the manhole die having an inner die for forming the inner wall of the manhole, and the outer mold the inner mold is formed by the mutual coupling of at least a pair of mold panels with coupling flanges respectively formed in the circumferential end portion; The formwork panels are adjacent to each die and pivoting latch is provided pivotably to the formwork panels on one side of the panel, and the engaging latch interposed between the flange provided on the formwork panels on the other side on which the pivoting latch is engaging receiving clamping members, wherein and latch to secure the pivoting latch and the latch engaging convenience jammed, it characterized in that the coupling detachably by a separate coupling member having a congestion; FIGs. 1-12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights