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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 20, 2026 has been entered. Currently claims 1-4, 7-15, 24-34 are pending in the application.
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 8-10 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.
Regarding claim 8: It is unclear how the planar metallic plate subdivided by two parallel fold lines can now be separate first an second planar metallic plates. These appear to be two different embodiments not capable of combining.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first and second planar metallic plates" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additional claims rejected under 35 USC 112 but not addressed are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and failing to further remedy the issue(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-15, 24-26, 28-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallochar (WO 2013/117892) in view of Saldana (US PGPub No 2003/0093969).
Referring to claim 1: Gallochar teaches a construction element formed from: a planar metallic plate (item 10) subdivided by two parallel fold lines to define three panels, each of the three panels having equal dimensions to the other panels; wherein the panels are deformed out of an initial common plane by bending along their respective fold lines such that the construction element comprises a base panel and two substantially perpendicular sidewall panels which together define a U-shaped channel having an internal cavity (page 9, line 31-Page 10, line 5), wherein at least one of the panels includes at least one panel opening (14a) dimensioned to allow the passage of a reinforcement or stabilising material into the internal cavity. Gallochar does not teach the construction element further comprising: at least one support plate contained within the U-shaped channel, the at least one support plate having first and second ends fixed to respective sidewall panels and extending substantially perpendicular to both the base panel and the sidewall panels across the channel so as to provide support to the sidewall panels. However, Saldana teaches the construction element further comprising: at least one support plate (item 90, figure 60) contained within the U-shaped channel, the at least one support plate having first and second ends fixed to respective sidewall panels and extending substantially perpendicular to both the base panel and the sidewall panels across the channel so as to provide support to the sidewall panels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Gallochar with the support plate taught by Saldana in order to provide a reinforcement between the walls as well as an anchor plate to anchor the element. Using the support plate of Saldana allows for maneuverability and a smaller packaging of the construction element that allows for easier transportation and locating in smaller footprints.
Referring to claim 2: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Saldana teaches wherein the at least one support plate includes at least one support plate opening (item 32) dimensioned to allow the passage of a reinforcement or stabilising material through the support plate. Openings allow for easy placement of fasteners in an optimized location.
Referring to claim 3: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches wherein at least one of the sidewall panels includes a vent (figure 9a, item 16a) adapted to allow air to pass from inside the element to outside the element.
Referring to claim 7: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not specifically teach formed from a steel plate having a thickness of between 6mm and 25mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose any specific thickness of the material to enable strength with minimal weight.
Referring to claim 8: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches wherein the element is formed from the first and second planar metallic plates into two separate L-shaped sections that are joined together to form the U-shaped channel (page 10, lines 11-22). Additionally, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Referring to claim 9: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches the two L-shaped sections are shaped such that when they are joined together they define the at least one panel opening (2b and 2a, page 10, lines 11-22).
Referring to claim 10: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches wherein the two L-shaped sections are joined to one another by welding, bonding or mechanical fastening (page 10, line 17). Additionally, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Referring to claim 11: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches wherein an internal surface of at least one of the base and sidewall panels includes a plurality of shear studs (item 20) projecting into the internal cavity.
Referring to claim 12: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches a modular assembly of a plurality of construction elements according to any preceding claim, wherein the base panel of one construction element is fastened along distal edges of both sidewall panels of an adjacent construction element so as to form the construction component (figure 3a).
Referring to claim 13: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches at least one duct (page 16, line 5) extending along the length of the component through the at least one panel opening in each construction element. They do not specifically teach the duct is adapted to receive a tensioning tendon. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the duct of Gallochar could be configured to receive a tensioning tendon. It is well known to include ducts in formwork that would receive a post tensioned tendon in order to add compressive strength to the panel.
Referring to claim 14: Gallochar and Saldana teach the structure of claim 1. They do not specifically teach the method comprising: determining first and second abutment locations where ends of the two sidewall panels of the first construction component will abut a sidewall panel of the second construction element when the L- or T- shaped joint is formed; fixing a pair of support plates across the channel of the second construction element at the first and second abutment locations; bringing the first and second construction elements together such that the two sidewall panels of the first construction element are substantially co-planar with the respective support plates of the second construction element; and fixing the first and second construction elements together. However, figure 3c of Gallochar shows an assembled joint between first and second construction elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that in order to complete the joint one of skill would go through the steps of determining the joint location, bringing the two elements together, and fastening them together. These are common steps when installing two components together.
Referring to claim 15: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches the fixing steps comprise welding, bonding or mechanically fastening the relevant components to one another (page 5, lines 16-17).
Referring to claim 24: Gallochar teaches a construction element formed from: first and second planar metallic plates (item 16), each plate subdivided by a fold line to define two panels, wherein the panels are deformed out of an initial common plane by bending along their respective fold lines such that the construction element comprises a base panel and two substantially perpendicular sidewall panels which together define a U-shaped channel having an internal cavity (page 10, lines 11-22), wherein at least one of the panels includes at least one panel opening (item 14a) dimensioned to allow the passage of a reinforcement or stabilising material into the internal cavity. Gallochar does not teach the construction element further comprising: at least one support plate contained within the U-shaped channel, the at least one support plate having first and second ends fixed to respective sidewall panels and extending substantially perpendicular to both the base panel and the sidewall panels across the channel so as to provide support to the sidewall panels. However, Saldana teaches the construction element further comprising: at least one support plate (item 90, figure 60) contained within the U-shaped channel, the at least one support plate having first and second ends fixed to respective sidewall panels and extending substantially perpendicular to both the base panel and the sidewall panels across the channel so as to provide support to the sidewall panels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Gallochar with the support plate taught by Saldana in order to provide a reinforcement between the walls as well as an anchor plate to anchor the element. Using the support plate of Saldana allows for maneuverability and a smaller packaging of the construction element that allows for easier transportation and locating in smaller footprints.
Referring to claim 25: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 24 as noted above. Additionally, Saldana teaches wherein the at least one support plate includes at least one support plate opening (item 32) dimensioned to allow the passage of a reinforcement or stabilising material through the support plate. Openings allow for easy placement of fasteners in an optimized location.
Referring to claim 26: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 24 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches wherein at least one of the sidewall panels includes a vent (figure 9a, item 16a) adapted to allow air to pass from inside the element to outside the element.
Referring to claim 28: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 24 as noted above. They do not specifically teach formed from a steel plate having a thickness of between 6mm and 25mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose any specific thickness of the material to enable strength with minimal weight.
Referring to claim 29: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 24 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches wherein the element is formed from the first and second planar metallic plates into two separate L-shaped sections that are joined together to form the U-shaped channel (page 10, lines 11-22). Additionally, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Referring to claim 30: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 29 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches the two L-shaped sections are shaped such that when they are joined together they define the at least one panel opening (2b and 2a, page 10, lines 11-22).
Referring to claim 31: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 29 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches wherein the two L-shaped sections are joined to one another by welding, bonding or mechanical fastening (page 10, line 17). Additionally, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Referring to claim 32: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 24 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches wherein an internal surface of at least one of the base and sidewall panels includes a plurality of shear studs (item 20) projecting into the internal cavity.
Referring to claim 33: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 24 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches a modular assembly of a plurality of construction elements according to any preceding claim, wherein the base panel of one construction element is fastened along distal edges of both sidewall panels of an adjacent construction element so as to form the construction component (figure 3a).
Referring to claim 34: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claim 33 as noted above. Additionally, Gallochar teaches at least one duct (page 16, line 5) extending along the length of the component through the at least one panel opening in each construction element. They do not specifically teach the duct is adapted to receive a tensioning tendon. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the duct of Gallochar could be configured to receive a tensioning tendon. It is well known to include ducts in formwork that would receive a post tensioned tendon in order to add compressive strength to the panel.
Claim(s) 4, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallochar in view of Saldana and Nippon (JP 2014088658).
Referring to claims 4 and 17: Gallochar and Saldana teach all the limitations of claims 3 and 26 as noted above. They do not teach the vent is tapered such that it has a larger diameter on an outside surface of the sidewall panel than on an inside surface of the sidewall panel. However, Nippon teaches the vent is tapered such that it has a larger diameter on an outside surface of the sidewall panel than on an inside surface of the sidewall panel (item 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Gallochar and Saldana with the specific shape of the vent taught by Nippon in order to reduce sharp edges along the outer surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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. The newly amended claims are rejected using a new combination of Gallochar and Saldana as noted above. The arguments indicating Gallochar does not teach the new limitations is moot as Saldana is relied upon to teach the new limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635