DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 has been amended and claim(s) 2-4 and 8-20 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, at line 10, the recitation “the pair of support members”, is understood to mean -- the pair of support walls --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, at line 20, the recitation “sufficient” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In particular, the term does not clearly set forth what degree or level would be considered sufficient.
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 and 5-7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,828,263) in view of Steele et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,732,918).
Regarding claim 1, Bennett et al. teaches a form bracket (abstract) capable of supporting a concrete panel form at a casting slab, the form bracket comprising: a first member (36-vertical) having a first surface configured to engage one of a casting slab or a concrete panel form (figure 1); a second member (36-horizontal) coupled with the first member and having a second surface that meets the first surface at a corner (figure 1), the second surface configured to engage the other of the casting slab or the concrete panel form (figure 1); and a pair of support walls (20, 22) integrally extending between the first member and the second member (figure 1) to support the first surface at a fixed angle relative the second surface (figure 1), wherein the pair of support members are spaced apart to define a void (figure 4), wherein a first support wall of the pair of support walls extends along a first outer lateral edge of the first member and extends along a first outer lateral edge of the second member (figure 1) and a second support wall of the pair of support walls extends along a second outer lateral edge of the first member and extends along a second outer lateral edge of the second member (figure 1), and wherein the first and second members each include planar sections (arbitrary planar portions of 36) that extend laterally from opposing sides of the pair of support wall (figure 1) and that are laterally separated from each other by the void (figure 1), the planar sections having a consistent lateral width along the extent of the pair of support walls so as to form the first and second surfaces (as illustrated the planar sections are consistent in shape with respect to one another, and form the first and second surfaces; figure 1) with sufficient surface area to receive adhesive for engaging the casting slab or the concrete panel form with a desired connection strength (it is understood that the surface area is capable of receiving adhesive for engaging the casting slab or the concrete panel form with a desired connection strength).
Bennett et al. does not specifically disclose that it is devoid of stiffening ribs and configured to matably receive a second form bracket with a substantially identical shape to the form bracket in a stacked arrangement.
Steele et al. discloses a bracket (abstract) that it is devoid of stiffening ribs and configured to matably receive a second form bracket with a substantially identical shape to the form bracket in a stacked arrangement (figure 7).
Therefore, from the teaching of Steele et al., 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 Bennett et al. such that it is devoid of stiffening ribs and configured to matably receive a second form bracket with a substantially identical shape to the form bracket in a stacked arrangement, as taught by Steele et al., in order to save space and reduce shipping costs.
Regarding claim 5, Bennett et al. teaches the first member comprises a length between the corner and a distal end of the first member (figure 1), does not specifically disclose 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.
Steele et al. discloses a bracket (abstract) whereby 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 (figure 6).
Therefore, from the teaching of Steele et al., 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 Bennett et al. such that 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, as taught by Steele et al., in order to provide the optimal height for a support structure and the longer base length for optimal stability.
Regarding claim 6, Bennett et al. teaches a proximal end of the first member is integrally coupled with a proximal end of the second member at the corner (figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Bennett et al. teaches the first member, the second member, the first support member, and the second support member generally form a triangular prism with an opening (figures 3 and 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the flange portions of Bennett lack a consistent lateral width has been considered, however, it is not persuasive. The term consistent is defined as: agreeing or accordant; compatible; constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form; holding firmly together; cohering; fixed; firm (https://www.dictionary.com /consistent). Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is met as the opposing flange are consistent in width with respect to one another. With regards to the argument that primary reference Bennett teaches elongated webs between the sidewalls, and therefore fails to teach a void that is devoid of stiffening ribs, the examiner attests that the elongated webs are a part of a separate embodiment of figure 4 (col. 2, lines 60-65). Nonetheless, the limitation is met in view of secondary reference Steele et al. which includes a void that is devoid of stiffening ribs (figure 7).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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