DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Anagnostopoulos and Kroskey fail to teach the elements of the invention as set forth in claim 1 and that Kroskey would not be considered relevant. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Kroskey is utilized as a teaching of providing a production system i.e. multiple tools/devices onto a mobile vehicle/trailer to allow for a ease of transporting [paragraph 0040]. The combination of Anagnostopoulos and Kroskey provides for a system to be on a vehicle/trailer. Therefore the rejection is respectfully maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anagnostopoulos (US 2008/0078226) in view of Kroskey et al. (hereafter “Kroskey”) (US 2011/0174128).
With regards to claim 1, Anagnostopoulos discloses a system for providing supply of reinforcing bar materials to a jobsite, comprising:
a coil handler (2)configured to rotatably support a coil of reinforcing bar material (rebar, paragraph 0025) in a manner which allows the reinforcing bar materials to be unwound and fed from the coil;
a straightener (4) positioned adjacent to the coil handler, the outfeed device configured to receive the reinforcing bar materials and to perform a straightening operation which will provide a straightened rebar material at an output of the outfeed device[ as seen in Figure 2 and paragraph 0026]; and
a cutter (13) positioned adjacent the outfeed device to cut reinforcing bar materials to a desired length when that length has been provided through the output [ as seen in Figure 2 and paragraph 0030].
Anagnostopoulos discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the coil handler, outfeed device and cutter are supported by a vehicle having a support frame and a support surface. Kroskey is relied upon to teach providing a deforming system (10) mounted on a vehicle having a support frame and a support surface for transporting to the installation site [paragraph 0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Anagnostopoulos’s system with a vehicle/trailer as taught by Kroskey in order to allow for ease of transporting and because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
With regards to claim 3, Anagnostopoulos discloses further comprising a bending device (10/12) positioned adjacent the cutter and configured to bend the desired length of reinforcing bar materials into a predetermined configuration [paragraph 0030].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-11 are allowed.
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 TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights