DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 as filed on 02/02/2024 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
Drawings
2. Figs. 7-9 are objected to because they including photographs and/or shading. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications unless the photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The use of shading may be used if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but NOT for cross sections. See MPEP § 608.02. In the instant case, legibility is reduced.
3. The drawings are objected to because the international search report is attached to the drawing file (pg. 5-21). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8, Line 3 discloses “according to any one of the preceding claims” however, it appears to recite “according to Claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim is missing a period at the end. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
4. Claims 1-14 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-16 of Application No. 18/681,270. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
6. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
7. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
8. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
9. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-16 of copending Application U.S. Patent No. 18/681270 (herein ‘270) in view of Jang Yun Gun (KR 20210023098 A)(Herein with Gun). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications name the same inventive entity.
In regards to Claim 1 of the pending application and Claim 1 of ‘270, both disclose
A formwork system for a wall element, comprising at least one formwork panel, at least one connection component, and at least one frame section
wherein the frame section comprises a plurality of vertical posts and a plurality of horizontal bars and the frame section extends in three spatial directions ,
wherein the formwork panel comprises a framework and a formwork skin, wherein the framework has a plurality of longitudinal struts and a plurality of cross struts, wherein the longitudinal struts and the cross struts are arranged substantially perpendicular to one another, and the formwork skin can be releasably fastened to the framework, wherein, in a connected state, the formwork skin rests on at least a portion of the longitudinal struts and the cross struts, wherein at least a part of the longitudinal struts and/or cross struts has an undercut which is oriented in the longitudinal direction of the longitudinal struts and/or cross struts, wherein the undercut is provided for the form-fitting and frictionally engaged connection to the formwork interface of a connection component,
wherein the connection component comprises at least one frame interface which is provided for releasable connection to the frame section and comprises at least one formwork interface which is provided for releasable connection to the formwork panel, wherein the formwork interface comprises at least one clamping element and the clamping element comprises at least two gripping arms, wherein at least one of the gripping arms is designed to be movable relative to another gripping arm, wherein the distance between the at least two gripping arms is designed to be adjustable,
wherein the at least one connection component is connected with its frame interface to the frame section and the connection component is connected with its formwork interface to the at least one formwork panel,
wherein the gripping arms of the clamping element engage in the undercut [on the framework of the formwork panel at least in regions, as a result of which at least one connection between the formwork interface and the formwork panel is present,
wherein this connection can be arbitrarily positioned along the undercut, whereby the relative position between the connection component and the formwork panel is designed be adjustable in a direction parallel the running direction of the undercut. However, ‘270 fails to disclose wherein, when the system is constructed, the frame section supports and positions the formwork panel and the system can be used in a free-standing manner.
Furthermore, Gun discloses the frame section (10) [Fig 1] supports and positions the formwork panel (2, Immediate Application) and the system [100, Immediate Application] can be used in a free-standing manner [Fig 2, showing free standing].
Additionally, the language “when and can be” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system as disclosed by the immediate application to include the frame section supports and positions the formwork panel and the system can be used in a free-standing manner disclosed by Gun. When modified, the framework would connect to the formwork system by clamping element sporadically placed for connection (as modified above) with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide access to complete the formwork for the wall element.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected independent claim.
10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
11. Claims 1-14 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.
In regards to Claims 1-13, “The system” as used throughout (including preambles) lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the system is intended to recite “the formwork system”.
In regards to Claims 1 and 5, “The longitudinal direction” as used in lines 13 and 3, respectively, lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears the longitudinal direction is intended to recite “direction”.
In regards to Claim 1, “The form-fitting” in line 14 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the form-fitting is intended to recite “form-fitting”
In regards to Claim 1 “The formwork interface” as used in line 15 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the formwork interface is intended to recite “formwork connection”
In regards to Claims 1-3, 6, and 13 “at least one formwork interface” as used throughout lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the formwork interface is intended to recite “formwork connection”
In regards to Claims 1 and 6, “The distance” in as used in line 23 and 6, respectively, and lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the distance is intended to recite “a distance”
In regards to Claim 1, “its” in line 23 is indefinite due to numerous elements previously introduced , it appears its is intended to recite “a frame interface ”
In regards to Claim 1, “its” in line 24 is indefinite due to numerous elements previously introduced , it appears its is intended to recite “a formwork interface ”
In regards to Claim 1, “this connection” in line 30 is indefinite due to numerous elements previously introduced , it appears this is intended to recite “the formwork and the formwork panel connection”
The term “arbitrarily positioned ” in claim 1 line 30, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “arbitrarily positioned” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language is being interpreted as positioned.
In regards to Claim 1 , “The relative position” in line 31 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the relative position is intended to recite “a relative position”
In regards to Claim 1, “The running direction” in line 33 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the running direction is intended to recite “the direction”
In regards to Claim 2, “the surface” as used in line 8 twice, lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears the surface is intended to recite “a surface”.
The term “simple linear or rotational movement” in claim 3, line 4-5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “simple linear or rotational movement” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language is being interpreted as movement.
In regards to Claim 3, “the form fit” in line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the form fit is intended to recite “form-fitting”
In regards to Claim 4, “the direction of movement” in lines 2 and 5 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the direction of movement is intended to recite “a direction of movement”.
In regards to Claim 4, “the connecting direction” in lines 3-4 and 6 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the connecting direction is intended to recite “a connecting direction”.
In regards to Claim 4, “the surface” in lines 4 and 7 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the surface is intended to recite “a surface”.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “Integer Multiple” in Claim 6 is used by the claim to mean “a set distance based on size,” while the accepted meaning is “numbers.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In regards to Claim 6, “the distance” as used in line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears the distance is intended to recite “a distance”.
In regards to Claim 8, “the spatial region” in method step D lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the spatial region is intended to recite “a spatial region”
In regards to Claim 8, “the attached adjustable formwork” in method step C lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the attached adjustable formwork is intended to recite “a attached adjustable formwork”
In regards to Claim 8, “the formwork” in method step D lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the formwork is intended to recite “a formwork”
In regards to Claim 8, “the filling” in method step E lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the filling is intended to recite “filling”
In regards to Claim 8, “the closing formwork” in method step E lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the closing formwork is intended to recite “a closing formwork”
In regards to Claims 8 and 10, “the side” as used in lines 10 and 3, respectively, lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the side is intended to recite “a side”
In regards to Claim 8, “the material” in step G lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the material is intended to recite “liquid material”
In regards to Claim 8, “it” in step G lacks is infinite due to numerous elements previously introduced , it appears it is intended to recite “the liquid material”
In regards to Claim 9, “the underlying surface” in line 2-3 and 3-4 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the underlying surface is intended to recite “an underlying surface”
In regards to Claim 9, “the application” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the application is intended to recite “as intended for ground surface”
In regards to Claim 14, “the closing formwork” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis, it appears the material is intended to recite “a closing formwork”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewka et al (US 20080173788 A1) (Herein with Brewka) in view of Jang Yun Gun (KR 20210023098 A)(Herein with Gun) and Hagerich et al. (US 20220195741 A1)(Herein with Hagerich).
In regards to Claim 1, Brewka discloses
A formwork system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments)for a wall element [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Abstract](see examiners comments), comprising at least one formwork panel (10) [Fig 1] , at least one connection component (128) [Fig 1]
wherein the formwork panel (10) [Fig 1] comprises a framework (14) [Fig 1] and a formwork skin (12) [Fig 3], wherein the framework (14) [Fig 1] has a plurality of longitudinal struts (28) [Fig 1] and a plurality of cross struts (30) [Fig 1], wherein the longitudinal struts (28) [Fig 1] and the cross struts (30) [Fig 1] are arranged substantially perpendicular to one another [Fig 1], wherein the undercut [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) is provided for the form-fitting and frictionally engaged connection (128) to the formwork interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) of a connection component (128) [Fig 1],
wherein the connection component (128) [Fig 1] comprises at least one frame interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) which is provided for releasable connection (132, bolts are known to be removeable) [Fig 4] to the frame section [Abstract] and comprises at least one formwork interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) which is provided for releasable connection (132, 134) to the formwork panel (10) [Fig 1], wherein the formwork interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) comprises at least one clamping element [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiners comments) and the clamping element [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiners comments) comprises at least two gripping arms (144, 166) [0045], wherein at least one of the gripping arms (144, 166) [0045] is designed to be movable [Fig 4] relative to another gripping arm (144, 166) [0045], wherein the distance between the at least two gripping arms (144, 166) [0045] is designed to be adjustable [0045, “Slides downwardly along the pins”] [Fig 7],
wherein the at least one connection component (128) [Fig 1] is connected with its frame interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) to the frame section [Abstract] and the connection component (128) [Fig 1] is connected with its formwork interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) to the at least one formwork panel (10) [Fig 1],
However, Brewka fails to disclose at least one frame section
wherein the frame section comprises a plurality of vertical posts and a plurality of horizontal bars and the frame section extends in three spatial directions.
wherein the gripping arms of the clamping element engage in the undercut on the framework of the formwork panel at least in regions, as a result of which at least one connection between the formwork interface and the formwork panel is present,
and the formwork skin can be releasably fastened to the framework, wherein, in a connected state, the formwork skin rests on at least a portion of the longitudinal struts and the cross struts wherein at least a part of the longitudinal struts and/or cross struts has an undercut which is oriented in the longitudinal direction of the longitudinal struts and/or cross struts.
wherein this connection can be arbitrarily positioned along the undercut, whereby the relative position between the connection component and the formwork panel is designed be adjustable in a direction parallel the running direction of the undercut,
wherein, when the system is constructed, the frame section supports and positions the formwork panel and the system can be used in a free-standing manner.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamping element and connection of Brewka to rearrange the gripping arms of the clamping element and the connection component in order to use the gripping arms of the clamping element as part of the formwork interface and the connection element as park of the framework interface. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019. When modified, the gripping arms of the clamping element engage in the undercut on the framework of the formwork panel at least in regions, as a result of which at least one connection between the formwork interface and the formwork panel is present, wherein this connection can be arbitrarily positioned along the undercut, whereby the relative position between the connection component and the formwork panel is designed be adjustable in a direction parallel the running direction of the undercut. Furthermore, allowing for the gripping arms to be set and engage in the undercuts, allowing for movement if necessary.
Furthermore, Gun discloses at least one frame section (10) [Fig 1]
wherein the frame section (10) [Fig 1] comprises a plurality of vertical posts (40,41) [Fig 2] and a plurality of horizontal bars [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) and the frame section (10) [Fig 1] extends in three spatial directions [Fig 2] ,
wherein, when the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Brewka] (see examiners comments) is constructed, the frame section (10) [Fig 1] supports and positions the formwork panel (10, Brewka) [Fig 1] and the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Brewka] (see examiners comments) can be used in a free-standing manner [Fig 2, showing free standing]. Additionally, the language “when and can be” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system as disclosed by Brewka to include the frame section; wherein the frame section comprises a plurality of vertical posts and a plurality of horizontal and the frame section extends in three spatial directions, wherein the frame section can be used as a free-standing frame section after being separated from the formwork panel as disclosed by Gun. When modified, the framework would connect to the formwork system by clamping element sporadically placed for connection (as modified above) with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide access to complete the formwork for the wall element.
Furthermore, Hagerich discloses
and the formwork skin (12, Brewka) [Fig 3] can be releasably fastened (15) to the framework (14, Brewka) [Fig 1], wherein, in a connected state, the formwork skin (12, Brewka) [Fig 3] rests on at least a portion [Fig 1, Brewka] of the longitudinal struts (28, Brewka) [Fig 1] and the cross struts (30, Brewka) [Fig 1], wherein at least a part of the longitudinal struts (28, Brewka) [Fig 1] and/or cross struts (30, Brewka) [Fig 1] has an undercut [Unnumbered, Fig 2, Brewka] (see examiners comments) which is oriented in the longitudinal direction [Fig 2, Brewka] of the longitudinal struts (28, Brewka) [Fig 1] and/or cross struts (30, Brewka) [Fig 1],
In regards to Claim 2, Brewka as modified discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) according to claim 1, wherein a support element (152,154) [Fig 7] is provided which is connected to the formwork interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) and the frame interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) , wherein the formwork interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) and the frame interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) are arranged at a distance from one another on the support element (152,154) [Fig 7], and the support element (152,154) [Fig 7] has a longitudinal axis and the formwork interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) and the frame interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) are arranged at a distance from one another along the longitudinal axis [Fig 3], and wherein the longitudinal axis is oriented substantially parallel [Fig 3] to the surface of the formwork skin (12) [Fig 3] or substantially perpendicular to the surface of the formwork skin (12) [Fig 3].
In regards to Claim 3, Brewka as modified discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) according to claim 2, wherein two frame interfaces [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) and two formwork interfaces [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) are provided, which are each arranged at a distance [Fig 4] from one another on a common support element (152,154) [Fig 7] and the clamping element [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiners comments) has an unlocking mechanism [0045, “Self-Locking”] [Fig 6] which can be actuated by a simple linear or rotational movement [0045] , wherein the form fit between the formwork interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) and the formwork panel (10) [Fig 1] can be canceled by actuating the unlocking mechanism [0045, “Self-Locking”] [Fig 6].
Additionally, the language “can be” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
In regards to Claim 4, Brewka discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) according to claim 1, wherein the direction of movement [Fig 5, Showing two separate variants] of at least one of the gripping arms (144, 166) [0045] of the clamping element [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiners comments) is oriented substantially parallel [Fig 5, Right Connection Parallel to frame interface as modified] to the connection direction of the frame interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) and/or substantially parallel to the surface of the formwork skin (12) [Fig 3], and/or the direction of movement of at least one of the gripping arms (144, 166) [0045] of the clamping element [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiners comments) is oriented substantially perpendicular to the connection direction of the frame interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) and/or perpendicular to the surface of the formwork skin (12) [Fig 3].
In regards to Claim 5, Brewka discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) according to claim 1, wherein the undercut [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) on the framework (14) [Fig 1] of the formwork panel (10) [Fig 1] is designed as a groove [Fig 2] which is oriented in the longitudinal direction [Fig 2] of the longitudinal struts (28) [Fig 1] and/or cross structs (30) [Fig 1], wherein the groove [Fig 2] has a U-shaped, rectangular [Fig 2] or curved cross-section.
In regards to Claim 6, Brewka discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) according to claim 1, wherein at least two connection components (128) [Fig 1] are provided and each connection component (128) [Fig 1] has at least two formwork interfaces [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments), and the formwork panel (10) [Fig 1] has a plurality of cross struts (30) [Fig 1] with an undercut [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) arranged thereon at least in regions [Fig 6], wherein the distance between the at least two formwork interfaces [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) on the connection component (128) [Fig 1] corresponds to an integer multiple of the distance between two adjacent cross struts (30) [Fig 1] of the formwork panel (10) [Fig 1].
In regards to Claim 7, Brewka as modified discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) according to claim 1. wherein the connection component (128) [Fig 1] forms a vertical post [Fig 7, Showing Vertical Configuration] of the frame section (10, Gun) [Fig 1] in functional combination [When modified] , and the frame interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) is formed by at least one interface [Connection Component as modified] which corresponds to a connection interface [As modified] within the frame section (10, Gun) [Fig 1] in terms of shape and size.
Furthermore, the language “corresponds to” is not interpreted to mean matches or is the same. Merriam Webster defines corresponds to as “to compare closely” or “to be equivalent”.
In regards to Claim 8, Brewka discloses a method [Claims 15-16] for producing a wall element [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Abstract](see examiners comments), comprising the steps of
A) setting up [Fig 1, showing an adjustable form work set up] an adjustable formwork (10) which comprises at least one formwork panel (10) [Fig 1],
B) constructing [Fig 1, Showing a constructed system] a system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) according to any one of the preceding claims parallel to the adjustable formwork (10), wherein the frame section (10, Gun) [Fig 1] points [As modified] toward the adjustable formwork (10),
C) fastening [Fig 2, Showing Fastening] a reinforcement [0009] (15) to the attached adjustable formwork (10) [Fig 1], wherein the reinforcement (15) is fastened from the frame section (10, Gun) [Fig 1],
D) rotating the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments)until the formwork panel (10) [Fig 1] and the adjustable formwork (10) delimit the spatial region in which the wall element [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Abstract](see examiners comments) is provided, and wherein the reinforcement [0009] (15) is arranged between the adjustable formwork (10) [Fig 1] and formwork skin (12) [Fig 3], and wherein the frame section (10) [Fig 1] is arranged on the side of the formwork panel (10) [Fig 1] opposite the adjustable formwork (10) [Fig 1],
E) preparing [Fig 10, paragraph 0058, showing the formwork prepared] the formwork (10) [Fig 10] for the filling of a liquid material (116) [0043 and 0058] between the adjustable formwork (10) and the closing formwork (10) [Fig 10],
F) filling [Fig 10, paragraph 0058, showing and detailing formwork filled with liquid material] the formwork (10) with a liquid material (116) [0043],
G) curing [Fig 10, paragraph 0058, showing and detailing the formwork cured with liquid material] the material (116) [0043], whereby it forms the wall element [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Abstract](see examiners comments) together with the reinforcement [0009, Hagerich] (15),
H) removing (not shown, paragraph 0012 and 0058 detailing removal) adjustable formwork (10) and system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments).
In regards to Claim 9, Brewka as modified discloses the method [Claims 15-16] according to claim 8. Gun discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Brewka] (see examiners comments) is constructed on the underlying surface [Fig 1 showing underlaying surface] as in the application or the is placed on the underlying surface [Fig 1 showing underlaying surface] for construction.
In regards to Claim 11, Brewka as modified discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) according to claim 1. Gun discloses wherein the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Brewka] (see examiners comments) can be used in a free-standing manner [Fig 2, showing free standing] without additional support elements (152,154, Brewka) [Fig 7].
Additionally, the language “can be” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
In regards to Claim 12, Brewka as modified discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) according to claim 2, and the support element (152,154) [Fig 7]. However, fails to disclose wherein the support element is rod-shaped.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support element of Brewka to have rod in shape in order to provide a simple, easy to manufacture shape. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In regards to Claim 13, Brewka as modified discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) according to claim l, wherein the gripping arms (144, 166) [0045] of the clamping element [Unnumbered, Fig 4] (see examiners comments) engage in the undercut [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) on the framework (14) [Fig 1] of the formwork panel (10) [Fig 1] at least in regions [Fig 6] , as a result of which the at least one form-fitting and also a frictionally engaged connection between the formwork interface [Unnumbered, Fig 6] (see examiners comments) and the formwork panel (10) [Fig 1] is present.
In regards to Claim 14, Brewka as modified discloses the method [Claims 15-16] according to claim 8, wherein in method step E), anchors (62) are introduced which connect the adjustable formwork (10) and the closing formwork (10) [Fig 10] to one another.
15. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewka et al (US 20080173788 A1) (Herein with Brewka) in view of Jang Yun Gun (KR 20210023098 A)(Herein with Gun) and Hagerich et al. (US 20220195741 A1)(Herein with Hagerich) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Philippe (US 20020003061 A1).
In regards to Claim 10, Brewka as modified discloses the method [Claims 15-16] according to claim 8, in method step B). However, fails to disclose the system is anchored in the ground or a support is attached to the system and points from the formwork panel into the side opposite the frame section.
Furthermore, Philippe discloses the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Brewka] (see examiners comments) is anchored in the ground or a support [Multiple elements combined] (see Fig 1, See examiners comments) is attached to the system [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Brewka] (see examiners comments) and points from the formwork panel into the side opposite [Fig 1, Showing back side] the frame section (10, Gun) [Fig 1].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system in the method step B as disclosed by Brewka to include a support attached to the system and points from the formwork panel into the side opposite the frame section as disclosed by Philippe. When modified, the support system allows for an additional redundancy support mechanism during installation, allowing for support on both the frame side as well as the side opposite the frame.
Examiners Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
358
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gun, Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
376
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 2, Berwka
PNG
media_image3.png
503
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Brewka, Fig 1
PNG
media_image4.png
482
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Brewka, Figure 6
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 5PM.
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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635