DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Restriction election received on 09/15/2025 has been acknowledged. Claim(s) 14-19 have been cancelled. Claims 1-13 are now pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 09/15/2025 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention Groups II and III. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 09/15/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 09/15/2025is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and/or examination burden without restriction would not be excessive to warrant restriction. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious examination burden since the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 8, at lines 5, 2, and 5, respectively, the recitation “suitable” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In particular, the limitation is a relative or subjective term that does not provide a clear boundary as to what type of concrete would qualify as ultra-high. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation will be examined under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 9, at line 8, the recitation “the front and rear members” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but 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 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, the limitation “the coupler extends horizontally over the forming space, the formwork system further comprising: an anchoring member extending horizontally over the forming space and vertically spaced apart from the coupler, the anchoring member being selectively engageable with the frame to selectively hold the anchoring member in-place relative to the frame and to allow the anchoring member to move relative to the frame; and a hoist connecting the coupler to the anchoring member to support the coupler and to allow lifting of the coupler relative to the anchoring member while the anchoring member is engaged with the frame to be held in-place relative to the frame and the coupler is disengaged with the frame to allow movement of the coupler relative to the frame” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this configuration and such a modification to include the combined structure would require modifying the modifier reference which would involve hindsight reconstruction. Claim(s) 11 depends from claim 10 and is therefore objected to as well.
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, 3, and 6-8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (U.S. Patent No. 1,447,283).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a formwork system (concrete mold; title) capable of casting of material for construction, comprising: a front panel (9); a rear panel (10) disposed opposite to the front panel (figure 1) to define a forming space between the front and rear panels (figure 1) capable of receiving the material for casting, the front and rear panels being suitable to sheath the material so as to retain the material in the forming space (as illustrated, the panels are capable of being suitable to sheath the material so as to retain the material in the forming space; figure 1); a coupler (15) that extends across the forming space between the front and rear panels (figure 1) and is pivotably coupled to the front panel and to the rear panel (at pivot bolts 26, 27) to allow rotation of the front and rear panels about the coupler towards and away from each other (it is understood that the pivot bolts 26, 27 allow rotation of the front and rear panels about the coupler towards and away from each other); and a tie (24) that extends across the forming space between the front and rear panels (figure 1) and that is spaced apart from the coupler (figure 1), the tie being selectively contractible such that contracting the tie causes rotation of the front and rear panels away from each other to move the formwork system from a forming position (as illustrated, the tie is selectively contractible from a closed forming position, as indicated by the solid lines to dotted lines which denote the position change that causes rotation of the front and rear panels away from each other to move the formwork system from a forming position; figure 1), in which the front and rear panels are engaged with the material to retain the material in the forming space (figure 1), to a release position, in which the front and rear panels are disengaged from the material to prevent the material from impeding movement of the front and rear panels (as illustrated, the tie has an open release position, as indicated by the dotted lines which denote the position of the the front and rear panels disengaged from the material to prevent the material from impeding movement of the front and rear panels; figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Davis teaches the tie defines a front end (at 22) and a rear end (at 23) connected to each other via an intermediate connector (at 24) threadably engaged with the front end and threadably engaged with the rear end to allow lengthening of the tie so as to support the material in the forming space (col. 2, lines 67-70) and apply pressure onto the material in the forming space (it is understood that adjusting the screws of the turnbuckle is capable of applying pressure onto the material in the forming space).
Regarding claim 6, Davis teaches the front panel is pivotably coupled to the coupler (at pivot bolt 26) via a front member (5) that is attached to the front panel (figure 1) and is pivotably coupled to the coupler to rotate around a front pivot axis (as indicated by the dotted lines, the front member rotates about an invisible axis; figure 1), and the rear panel is pivotably coupled (at pivot bolt 27) to the coupler via a rear member (6) that is attached to the rear panel (figure 1) and is pivotably coupled to the coupler to rotate around a rear pivot axis (as indicated by the dotted lines, the rear member rotates about an invisible axis; figure 1), the front member extending across the front panel opposite to the forming space lateral to the front pivot axis to support the front panel (figures 1 and 2), the rear member extending across the rear panel opposite to the forming space lateral to the rear pivot axis to support the rear panel (figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7, Davis teaches the front panel is pivotably coupled to the coupler (at pivot bolt 26) via a front member (5) that is attached to the front panel (figure 1), and the rear panel is pivotably coupled (at pivot bolt 27) to the coupler via a rear member (6) that is attached to the rear panel (figure 1), the front member being received through a front slot of the coupler (at 28) and being revolutely joined to the front slot to facilitate uniaxial rotation of the front member about the coupler (it is understood that the pivotal connection is capable of being revolutely joined to the front slot to facilitate uniaxial rotation of the front member about the coupler), the rear member being received through a rear slot of the coupler (at 27) and being revolutely joined to the rear slot to facilitate uniaxial rotation of the rear member about the coupler (it is understood that the pivotal connection is capable of being revolutely joined to the rear slot to facilitate uniaxial rotation of the rear member about the coupler).
Regarding claim 8, Davis teaches the front panel is pivotably coupled to the coupler (at pivot bolt 26) via a front member (5) that is attached to the front panel (figure 1) and is pivotably coupled to the coupler (as indicated by the dotted lines, the front member is pivotably coupled to the coupler; figure 1), and the rear panel is pivotably coupled (at pivot bolt 27) to the coupler via a rear member (6) that is attached to the rear panel (figure 1) and is pivotably coupled to the coupler (as indicated by the dotted lines, the rear member is pivotably coupled to the coupler; figure 1), the tie defining a U-shaped front end (at 37-left; it is understood that the opposing members of 37 form a U-shape with the tie) suitable to receive (figure 1 and 2) and to frictionally engage with the front member (it is understood that the U-shape would inherently incur friction with engagement with the front member), the tie further defining a U-shaped rear end (at 37-right; it is understood that the opposing members of 37 form a U-shape with the tie) opposite to the front end (figure 1) suitable to receive (figure 1 and 2) and frictionally engage with the rear member (it is understood that the U-shape would inherently incur friction with engagement with the rear member).
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) 2, 9, and 12, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. 1,447,283) in view of Novotny (U.S. Patent No. 5,021,202).
Regarding claim 2, Davis does not specifically disclose the material is earth that is cast by ramming into the forming space, the tie being suitable to be lengthened so as to support the material in the forming space and to apply pressure onto the material to facilitate ramming while the formwork system is in the forming position.
Davis as modified in view of Novotny discloses rammed building walls (abstract) wherein the material is earth (abstract) that is cast by ramming into the forming space (col. 1, lines 20-25), the tie being suitable to be lengthened (it is understood that the tie is capable of being lengthened via the threaded turn buckle assembly of Davis) so as to support the material in the forming space and to apply pressure onto the material to facilitate ramming while the formwork system is in the forming position (in the combination, it is understood that lengthening the tie of Davis would apply pressure onto the material to facilitate ramming while the formwork system is in the forming position).
Therefore, from the teaching of Novotny, 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 formwork of Davis such that the material is earth that is cast by ramming into the forming space, the tie being suitable to be lengthened so as to support the material in the forming space and to apply pressure onto the material to facilitate ramming while the formwork system is in the forming position, as taught by Novotny, in order to provide a formwork capable of assembling a lower cost material such as soil or earth in order to reduce material and transport costs when extreme strength is not necessary for a given structural design.
Regarding claim 9, Davis teaches a front member (5) attached to the front panel (figure 1 and 2) and pivotably coupled to the coupler (as indicated by the dotted lines, the front member is pivotably coupled to the coupler; figure 1); a rear member (6) attached to the rear panel (figure 1 and 2) and pivotably coupled to the coupler (as indicated by the dotted lines, the rear member is pivotably coupled to the coupler; figure 1);
Davis does not specifically disclose a frame resting on a stationary base, the coupler being selectively engageable with the frame to selectively hold the coupler in-place relative to the frame to hold the front and rear panels, the front and rear members, and the tie in-place relative to the frame while the formwork system is in the forming position and to allow the coupler to move relative to the frame to move the front and rear panels, the front and rear members, and the tie relative to the frame while the formwork system is in the release position.
Novotny discloses rammed building walls (abstract) including a frame (57) resting on a stationary base (64), the coupler being selectively engageable with the frame to selectively hold the coupler in-place relative to the frame to hold the front and rear panels, the front and rear members, and the tie in-place relative to the frame while the formwork system is in the forming position and to allow the coupler to move relative to the frame to move the front and rear panels, the front and rear members, and the tie relative to the frame while the formwork system is in the release position (in the combination, it is understood that the coupler of Davis would be selectively engageable with the frame of Novotny to selectively hold the coupler in-place relative to the frame to hold the front and rear panels, the front and rear members, and the tie in-place relative to the frame while the formwork system is in the forming position and to allow the coupler to move relative to the frame to move the front and rear panels, the front and rear members, and the tie relative to the frame while the formwork system is in the release position).
Therefore, from the teaching of Novotny, 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 formwork of Davis to include a frame resting on a stationary base, the coupler being selectively engageable with the frame to selectively hold the coupler in-place relative to the frame to hold the front and rear panels, the front and rear members, and the tie in-place relative to the frame while the formwork system is in the forming position and to allow the coupler to move relative to the frame to move the front and rear panels, the front and rear members, and the tie relative to the frame while the formwork system is in the release position, as taught by Novotny, in order to streamline the construction of a length of wall to facilitate and more rapidly deploy a designed structure.
Regarding claim 12, Davis does not specifically disclose the formwork system is aerially suspended by hoisting of the coupler.
Novotny discloses rammed building walls (abstract) whereby the formwork system is aerially suspended (figure 6) by hoisting (at 55) of the coupler (in the combination, it is understood that the installation of Novotny would hoist the coupler of Davis).
Therefore, from the teaching of Novotny, 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 formwork of Davis such that the formwork system is aerially suspended by hoisting of the coupler, as taught by Novotny, in order to reduce manual lifting injuries while providing safer access for taller wall structures.
Claim(s) 4 and 5, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. 1,447,283) in view of Schmidt (U.S. Patent No. 3,973,885).
Regarding claim 4, Davis does not specifically disclose the front panel is wheeled to facilitate, while the formwork system is in the release position, wheeled movement of the front panel along a structure formed by casting of the material in the forming space.
Schmidt discloses a formwork assembly (abstract) whereby the front panel is wheeled (at 63) to facilitate, while the formwork system is in the release position, wheeled movement of the front panel along a structure formed by casting of the material in the forming space (in the combination, it is understood that the wheeled support structures of Schmidt would facilitate, while the formwork system is in the release position, wheeled movement of the front panel along a structure formed by casting of the material in the forming space, of Davis).
Therefore, from the teaching of Schmidt, 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 formwork of Davis such that the front panel is wheeled to facilitate, while the formwork system is in the release position, wheeled movement of the front panel along a structure formed by casting of the material in the forming space, as taught by Schmidt, in order to prevent damage to the wall structure while the formwork is being removed therefrom.
Regarding claim 5, Davis does not specifically disclose the formwork system is aerially suspended and is translatable along the structure by wheeled movement of the front panel while the formwork system is in the release position.
Schmidt discloses a formwork assembly (abstract) whereby the formwork system is aerially suspended (col. 3, lines 5-10) and is translatable along the structure by wheeled movement of the front panel while the formwork system is in the release position (in the combination, it is understood that including the wheeled supports of Schmidt into the panels of Davis would make the system translatable along the structure by wheeled movement of the front panel while the formwork system is in the release position).
Therefore, from the teaching of Schmidt, 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 formwork of Davis such that the formwork system is aerially suspended and is translatable along the structure by wheeled movement of the front panel while the formwork system is in the release position, as taught by Schmidt, in order to prevent damage to the wall structure while the formwork is being removed therefrom.
Claim(s) 13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. 1,447,283) in view of Dielenberg (U.S. Patent No. 4,439,967).
Regarding claim 13, Davis does not specifically disclose the front and rear panels extend between a pair of torsion boxes defining opposing ends of the forming space lateral to the front and rear panels.
Dielenberg discloses a formwork assembly (abstract) wherein the front and rear panels (101, 102) extend between a pair of torsion boxes (109, 110) defining opposing ends of the forming space lateral to the front and rear panels (figure 5).
Therefore, from the teaching of Dielenberg, 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 formwork of Davis such that the front and rear panels extend between a pair of torsion boxes defining opposing ends of the forming space lateral to the front and rear panels, as taught by Dielenberg, in order to confine the space between the formwork members while pouring material therein to form the desired shape, while simultaneously optimizing the stability of the formwork.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to wall formworks in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR 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