DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 1, 5, 6, 12-14 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 102 Rejection of Claim 20 by US Patent Application Publication # 2011/0158752 to Hitchin have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of Claim 20 by Hitchin has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
The first argument is that pocketformers and grout pugs are different. The Examiner agrees in that conventional pocketformers are different than grout plugs. However, the invention of Hayes is not a conventional pocketformer due to the addition of the grout ring which makes it a grout plug.
The next argument is that the Office Action mixes the disclosure regarding the pocketformer and grout ring structures in the rejection and this is improper. However, the Examiner disagrees in the characterization that pocketformer and grout ring structures were mixed in the Office Action. Furthermore, the Application has not specifically cited how and where the Office Action did this.
The next argument is that the grout ring of Hayes is not a gasket. The Examiner disagrees because the grout ring performs the task of a gasket [retention of grout (Abstract)] just without using the word “gasket”.
The next argument is that Hayes does not disclose an exterior tube. Once again, Hayes does not use the specific language of “exterior tube” but rather “first taper angle section” (Column 2, Line 38). Figure 4 shows that this is an exterior tube.
The next argument is that “given that Hayes fails to disclose the elements of independent claim 10, it necessarily fails to disclose the elements of the dependent claims”. However, as the Examiner has shown, Hayes anticipates Claim 10 and its dependents claims each have their own unique rejections.
The final argument is that the Watson reference fails to disclose the invention of Claim 1. However, as the Examiner has shown, Hayes teaches the invention of Claim 1 except for the claimed dividers and that the combination with Watson teaches the claimed grout plug with dividers.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 12-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 9,931,764 to Hayes.
Regarding claim 10, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, a grout plug (10A) [pocketformer body (Column 2, Line 32) with grout ring (Column 2, Line 48)] comprising: a cylindrical body (Column 2, Line 43); an interior tube (16A) (Column 2, Line 34); an exterior tube (12B) [first taper angle section (Column 2, Line 38)]; and a gasket (13) [grout ring (Column 2, Line 48)] extending radially from the exterior tube (12B).
Regarding claim 12, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, the grout plug and pocketformer (10A) is designed to accommodate different configurations of post-tensioning tendons [cut to selected length (Column 1, Line 46)].
Regarding claim 13, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, the grout plug and pocket former (10A) are integrated as a single unit as Hayes teaches (10A) is a pocket former (Column 2, Line 32) and the grout ring (13) lets it plug for grout.
Regarding claim 17, Hayes teaches the grout plug is made from plastic (Column 2, Line 45).
Regarding claim 18, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, the grout plug (10A) further comprises a locking mechanism (18A) that engages with a corresponding feature in a pocket former.
Regarding claim 19, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, the exterior tube (12B) has a textured surface (12C).
Regarding claim 20, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, a grout plug (10A) [pocketformer body (Column 2, Line 32) with grout ring (Column 2, Line 48)] comprising: a cylindrical body (Column 2, Line 43) having a narrow end and a wide end [as seen]; an interior tube (16A) (Column 2, Line 34) extending between the narrow end and the wide end, the interior tube (16A) being of a uniform size and shape [tube (Column 2, Line 34)]; an exterior tube (12B) [first taper angle section (Column 2, Line 38)] surrounding the interior tube (16A), the exterior tube (12B) having a greater diameter at the wide end than at the narrow end [as seen], and sloping from the narrow end to the wide end [as seen]; and a gasket (13) [grout ring (Column 2, Line 48)] extending radially from the exterior tube (12B).
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, 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.
Claims 1-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 9,931,764 to Hayes in view of US Patent # 7,216,842 to Watson.
Regarding claim 1, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, a grout plug (10A) [pocketformer body (Column 2, Line 32) with grout ring (Column 2, Line 48)] for use with a pocket former (Column1, Line 17) in a post-tensioning system (Column 1, Lines 15-16), the grout plug (10A) comprising: a cylindrical body (Column 2, Line 43) having a narrow end and a wide end [as seen]; an interior tube (16A) (Column 2, Line 34) extending between the narrow end and the wide end, the interior tube (16A) being of uniform size and shape [as seen in the cross-section]; an exterior tube (12B) [first taper angle section (Column 2, Line 38)] surrounding the interior tube (12B), the exterior tube (16B) having a greater diameter at the wide end than at the narrow end [as seen], and sloping continuously [without any flat spots] from the narrow end to the wide end; and a gasket (13) [grout ring (Column 2, Line 48)] extending radially from the exterior tube (12B) between the narrow end and the wide end; a lip [having the diameter of 1.740] extending axially from the narrow end of the grout plug (10A); and a cavity [between exterior tube and interior tube] at the wide end. Hayes does not teach one or more dividers. However, Watson teaches in Figures 4-6, one or more dividers (54) cross ribs (Column 2, Line 63) extending radially from an interior tube (48) [tubular body portion (Column 2, Line 52)] to an exterior tube (32) [outer barrel (Column 2, Line 44)] to create one or more cavities of equal size and shape at the wide end [as seen in the cross-section of Figure 5], wherein a depth of the cavities terminates halfway through [see Figure 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine device of Hayes with the device of Watson with a reasonable expectation of success because Watson teaches the cross ribs (54) that create the cavities reduce the work required to remove the pocket former (Column 3, Lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 2, Hayes in view of Watson teach a grout plug but they do not teach it is made from a flexible material like rubber, silicone or elastomeric material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such flexible materials since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 3, Hayes in view of Watson teach a grout plug. Furthermore, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, the exterior tube (12B) has a textured surface [for grout ring 13].
Regarding claim 4, Hayes in view of Watson teach a grout plug. Furthermore, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, the lip has a beveled edge (Column 2, Lines 65-66).
Regarding claim 5, Hayes in view of Watson teach a grout plug. Furthermore, Watson teaches in Figure 4, the four dividers (54, Fig 6) are evenly spaced around a circumference of the wide end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine device of Hayes with the device of Watson with a reasonable expectation of success because Watson teaches the cross ribs are that, ribs that are across from each other. This would evenly distribute a load imparted to the device around the body from the concrete.
Regarding claim 6, Hayes in view of Watson teach a grout plug. Furthermore, Watson teaches in Figure 5, the cavities at the wide end are tapered, with a larger opening at an exterior surface and a smaller opening at the interior tube (32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine device of Hayes with the device of Watson with a reasonable expectation of success because Watson teaches the cavities must be tapered in order to have a tapered body which reduces the work required to remove the pocket former (Column 3, Lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 7, Hayes in view of Watson teach a grout plug. Furthermore, Hayes teaches the grout plug is made from plastic (Column 2, Lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 8, Hayes in view of Watson teach a grout plug. Furthermore, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, the narrow end of the grout plug (10A) is configured to securely fit within a corresponding recess of the pocket former (Column 2, Lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 9, Hayes in view of Watson teach a grout plug. Furthermore, Hayes teaches in Figure 4, a locking mechanism (18A) [tube end (Column 2, Line 32)] that engaged with a corresponding feature in the pocket former [see Figure 1].
Regarding claim 14, Hayes teaches a grout plug but does not teach it comprises one or more cavities in a wide end. However, Watson teaches in Figure 4, a grout plug (30) [pocket former (Column 2, Line 42)] that comprises one or more cavities [see Figure 5] in a wide end of the grout plug (30) and are shaped to accommodate anchor assemblies or other components associated with post-tensioning tendons (Column 4, Lines 11-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine device of Hayes with the device of Watson with a reasonable expectation of success because Watson teaches the cross ribs (54) that create the cavities that reduce the work required to remove the pocket former (Column 3, Lines 37-39).
Claims 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 9,931,764 to Hayes.
Regarding claim 11, Hayes teaches a grout plug but does not teach it has alignment indicators that align with corresponding marks on a pocket former. However, the courts have found that matters relating to ornamentation only [the alignment indicators] which have no mechanical function [for the grout plug itself], cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention [a grout plug] from the prior art. In re Seid , 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding claim 15, Hayes teaches a grout plug but does not teach it is color-coded. However, the courts have found that matters relating to ornamentation only [its color] which have no mechanical function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid , 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding claim 16, Hayes teaches a grout plug but does not teach it is made from a flexible material like rubber, silicone or elastomeric material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such flexible materials since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
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 Mattei can be reached at (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 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635