DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2026 has been entered.
This communication is a Non-Final rejection Office Action on the merits. Claim(s) 1 has been amended, claim(s) 2-4 and 8-20 have been cancelled, and claim(s) 21-27 have been added. Claims 1, 5-7, and 21-27 are now pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 is 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. In particular, the limitation “the first member, the second member, the first support member, and the second support member generally form a triangular prism with an opening” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this particular shape and such a modification to include the specific configuration would require modifying the modifier reference in a manner that would involve hindsight reconstruction.
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) 1, 5, 6, 21-25, and 27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (U.S. Patent No. 1028590 A) in view of Graves (U.S. Patent No. 0576110 A).
Regarding claim 1, Morgan teaches a form bracket (bracket; title) capable of supporting a concrete panel form at a casting slab, the form bracket comprising: a first member (see annotated figure 7 below) having a first surface (annotated figure 7) capable of engaging one of a casting slab or a concrete panel form; a second member (annotated figure 7) coupled with the first member (annotated figure 7) and having a second surface (annotated figure 7) that meets the first surface at a corner (annotated figure 7), the second surface capable of engaging the other of the casting slab or the concrete panel form; and a pair of support walls (e) integrally extending between the first member and the second member (annotated figure 7) to support the first surface at a fixed angle relative the second surface (annotated figure 7), wherein the pair of support walls are spaced apart to define a void that is completely hollow throughout the space between the pair of support members (hollow space between e; see annotated figure 10 below), wherein a first support wall of the pair of support walls extends along a first outer lateral edge (annotated figure 10) of the first member and extends along a first outer lateral edge of the second member (annotated figures 7 and 10) and a second support wall (annotated figure 10) of the pair of support walls extends along a second outer lateral edge of the first member (annotated figure 10) and extends along a second outer lateral edge of the second member (annotated figures 7 and 10), and wherein the first and second members each include planar sections (annotated figures 7 and 10) that extend laterally from opposing sides of the pair of support walls (annotated figures 7 and 10) and that are laterally separated from each other by the void (annotated figures 7 and 10), the planar sections capable of receiving adhesive for engaging the casting slab or the concrete panel form with a desired connection strength.
Morgan does not specifically the support walls configured to matably receive a second form bracket with a substantially identical shape to the form bracket in a stacked arrangement.
Graves discloses a bracket (title) configured to matably receive a second form bracket with a substantially identical shape to the form bracket in a stacked arrangement (nested; col. 1, lines 24-27).
Therefore, from the teaching of Graves, 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 bracket of Morgan such that the support walls configured to matably receive a second form bracket with a substantially identical shape to the form bracket in a stacked arrangement, as taught by Graves, in order to facilitate the packing of a large number thereof into a small and compact mass, to reduce shipping costs.
Regarding claim 5, Morgan teaches a length between the corner and a distal end of the first member (annotated figure 7), the length of the first member being less than a length of the second member between the corner and a distal end of the second member (annotated figure 7).
Regarding claim 6, Morgan teaches a proximal end of the first member is integrally coupled with a proximal end of the second member at the corner (annotated figure 7).
Regarding claim 21, Morgan teaches the planar sections of the first and second members each extend away from the void along the pair of support walls to define a lateral width, the lateral width of the planar section being greater than a width of the void (annotated figure 10).
Regarding claim 22, Morgan teaches the planar sections having a lateral width greater than the width of the void provide a contact surface area on each of the first and second surfaces sufficient to establish an adhesive bond between the form bracket and at least one of the casting slab and the concrete panel form without mechanical fasteners (it is understood that the lateral width is capable of providing a contact surface area on each of the first and second surfaces sufficient to establish an adhesive bond between the form bracket and at least one of the casting slab and the concrete panel form without mechanical fasteners) .
Regarding claim 23, Morgan teaches the first surface and the second surface are each substantially planar and continuous across the respective planar sections (annotated figures 7 and 10) such that the planar sections present an uninterrupted adhesive-receiving surface (annotated figures 7 and 10).
Regarding claim 24, Morgan teaches the first member, the second member, and the pair of support walls are formed as a single unitary structure (annotated figure 7).
Regarding claim 25, Morgan teaches the fixed angle between the first surface and the second surface is substantially ninety degrees (annotated figure 7).
Regarding claim 27, Morgan as modified teaches the void opens at a front face of the form bracket (annotated figures 7 and 10 of Morgan), Graves in the combination discloses such that the second form bracket is receivable into the void from the front face in the stacked arrangement (in the combination, it is understood that the second form bracket would be receivable into the void from the front face in the stacked arrangement).
Claim(s) 26, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (U.S. Patent No. 1028590 A), in view of Graves (U.S. Patent No. 0576110 A), and in view of Overton (U.S. Patent No. Des. 312,962).
Regarding claim 26, Morgan does not specifically disclose the planar sections of the first member have the consistent lateral width along the entire length of the first member from the corner to the distal end of the first member, and the planar sections of the second member have the consistent lateral width along the entire length of the second member from the corner to the distal end of the second member.
Overton discloses a bracket (title) wherein the planar sections of the first member have the consistent lateral width along the entire length of the first member from the corner to the distal end of the first member (figures 1-5), and the planar sections of the second member have the consistent lateral width along the entire length of the second member from the corner to the distal end of the second member (figures 1-5).
Therefore, from the teaching of Overton, 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 bracket of Morgan such that the planar sections of the first member have the consistent lateral width along the entire length of the first member from the corner to the distal end of the first member, and the planar sections of the second member have the consistent lateral width along the entire length of the second member from the corner to the distal end of the second member, as taught by Overton, in order to provide a symmetrical design on both sides to facilitate manufacturing by being directionally reversable and to facilitate assembly by being direction neutral.
PNG
media_image1.png
945
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. New reference(s) Morgan (U.S. Patent No. 1028590 A), Graves (U.S. Patent No. 0576110 A), and Overton (U.S. Patent No. Des. 312,962) have been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding being completely hollow throughout the space between the pair of support walls overcomes the previous rejection in view of Bennett et al. and the reference has been withdrawn. The new limitations are overcome in view of new references Morgan, Graves, and Overton.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F 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
Prosecution Insights