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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, U.S. Patent 6,059,257 (‘257) in view of Scott, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0107534 (‘534).
Regarding claim 1, Scott (‘257) discloses a bracket comprising: a support panel (174) having a front surface (as shown in Fig. 8) and a back surface (surface opposite the front surface), the front surface of the support panel configured to abut a first face of each of the masonry units (188, surface adjacent the panel as shown in Fig. 9); first spacer members (pair of longitudinal sidewalls 176) extending transversely from the front surface of the support panel; second spacer members (pair of transversely extending sidewalls 176) extending transversely from the front surface of the support panel; engagement members (62) extending from at least one of the following: the front surface of the support panel, the first spacer members, the second spacer members, or any combination thereof (see Fig. 8, generally), wherein the engagement members are releasably engageable with a second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and a third face (one of longitudinal edge surfaces, see Fig. 9) of each of the masonry units (when unit 174 is removed), but does not disclose wherein the engagement members are flexible. Scott (534) teaches engagement members (12) which are flexible (paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the bracket with a flexible member rather than a brittle member so that the form may be reused in the same manner with the engagement members being on the bracket to aid in retention of another brick. The phrases “configured to abut a first face of each of the masonry units” and “releasably engageable with a second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and a third face of each of the masonry units” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art, as modified, discloses a bracket wherein the engagement members are manually disengageable with the second face of each of the masonry units (as shown in Scott (‘534) Fig. 14) or the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units after a fourth face of each of the masonry units is set in a bonding material applied on the substrate (Scott (‘534) paragraphs 5, paragraph 48), the fourth face of each of the masonry units being opposite from the first face of each of the masonry units (see Scott (‘257) Fig. 9, surface of 188 opposite the panel/bracket). The phrase “manually disengageable with the second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units after a fourth face of each of the masonry units is set in a bonding material applied on the substrate” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art, as modified, discloses a bracket wherein the engagement members are manually disengageable with the second face of each of the masonry units (as shown in Scott (‘534) Fig. 14) or the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units by applying a force to the frame in a direction away from the bonding material and the substrate (after the concrete has been set; col. 7, lines 61-65 Scott (‘257)). The phrase “manually disengageable with the second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units by applying a force to the frame in a direction away from the bonding material and the substrate” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art, as modified, discloses a bracket wherein the engagement members being releasably engageable with the second face of each of the masonry units (as shown in Scott (‘534) Fig. 14) or the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units allows removal of the frame from each of the masonry units that is set in a bonding material applied on the substrate (after the concrete has been set; col. 7, lines 61-65 Scott (‘257)). The phrase “allows removal of the frame from each of the masonry units that is set in a bonding material applied on the substrate” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Scott (‘257) discloses a bracket wherein the support panel defines apertures (178) extending through the support panel from the front surface of the support panel to the back surface of the support panel.
Regarding claim 6, Scott (‘257) discloses a bracket wherein the apertures of the support panel are configured to allow air to pass therethrough upon removal of the frame from each of the masonry units that is set in the bonding material applied on the substrate (as it is an open space, air can pass). The phrase “configured to allow air to pass therethrough upon removal of the frame from each of the masonry units that is set in the bonding material applied on the substrate” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Scott (‘257) discloses a bracket wherein at least one of the second spacer members meets at least one of the first spacer members of an adjacent frame at substantially a middle point of a length of the at least one of the first spacer members (see Fig. 4) of the adjacent frame.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art, as modified, discloses a bracket wherein the first spacer members, the second spacer members, and the engagement members each extend a distance from the front surface of the support panel (see Scott (‘257) Fig. 9, Scott (‘534) Figs. 6a, 7a for engagement members), and wherein each of the distance is only a portion of a thickness of each of the second face, the third face, a fifth face, and a sixth face of each of the masonry units (see Scott (‘534) Figs. 6, 7,13 and Scott (‘257) Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art, as modified, discloses a bracket wherein the first spacer members, the second spacer members, and the engagement members, each extending the distance from the front surface of the support panel that is only a portion of the thickness of each of the second, third, fifth, and sixth face of each of the masonry units, expose a second portion of the thickness of each of the second, third, fifth, and sixth face of each of the of the masonry units and expose the entire surface area of the fourth face of each of the masonry units (portions of the block extending outside of the bracket as shown in Scott (‘257) Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Scott (‘257) discloses a bracket wherein the engagement members are configured to engage the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units, the third face of each of the masonry units being opposite from the second face of each of the masonry units (two opposite longitudinal edges, see Scott (‘257) Fig. 9, generally). The phrase “configured to engage the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Scott (‘257) discloses a bracket wherein two of the first spacer members meet two of the second spacer members to form a recess (cavity within the frame members, see Fig. 2), and wherein the recess is configured to receive one of the masonry units (see Fig. 9). The phrase “configured to receive one of the masonry units” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Scott (‘257) discloses a bracket wherein each of the masonry units comprises a thin brick (col. 4, lines 17-19) and the substrate comprises at least one of the following: a wall, a floor, a ceiling, an archway, or any combination thereof (wall, title).
Regarding claim 15, Scott (‘257) discloses a bracket wherein the first spacer members are longitudinal spacer members, the longitudinal spacer members being substantially parallel or substantially linear with one another, and wherein the second spacer members are vertical spacer members, the vertical spacer members being substantially parallel or substantially linear with one another and substantially perpendicular with the longitudinal spacer members (see Fig. 8, generally).
Regarding claim 16, Scott (‘257) discloses a bracket further comprising: at least one connector (170) configured to unite the frame to a second frame. The phrase “configured to unite the frame to a second frame” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 21, Scott (‘257) discloses a bracket system comprising: a first frame (108); a second frame (110); each of the first frame and the second frame comprising: a support panel (60) having a front surface (as shown in Fig. 2) and a back surface (surface opposite of that shown in Fig. 2), the front surface of the support panel configured to abut a first face of each of the masonry units (thin brick, col. 4 lines 17-32; 188, for example); first spacer members (80, 92) extending transversely from the front surface of the support panel; second spacer members (86, 98) extending transversely from the front surface of the support panel; engagement members (62) extending from at least one of the following: the front surface of the support panel, the first spacer members, the second spacer members, or any combination thereof (see Fig. 2, generally), wherein the engagement members are releasably engageable with a second face (face adjacent bracket, see Fig. 9 for example) of each of the masonry units or the second face and a third face of each of the masonry units; and at least one connector (104) uniting the first frame and the second frame, but does not disclose wherein the engagement members are flexible. Scott (534) teaches engagement members (12) which are flexible (paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the bracket with a flexible member rather than a brittle member so that the form may be reused in the same manner with the engagement members being on the bracket to aid in retention of another brick. The phrases “configured to abut a first face of each of the masonry units” and “releasably engageable with a second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and a third face of each of the masonry units” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The engagement members will be capable of engaging a second face of the masonry unit depending on the thickness/depth of the masonry unit.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, U.S. Patent 6,059,257 (‘257) in view of Scott, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0107534 (‘534) and Calmes, U.S. Patent 8,888,067.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art as modified discloses a bracket but does not specifically disclose a surface treatment configured to resist bonding to a bonding material applied on the substrate. Calmes teaches a release agent is known in the art of constructing decorative concrete walls (col. 11, lines 32-37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a release agent to resist bonding to the thin brick elements for ease of assembly in producing a wall.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, U.S. Patent 6,059,257 (‘257) in view of Scott, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0107534 (‘534) and Hunsaker, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0107531.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art asmodified discloses a bracket but does not specifically disclose wherein the first face of each of the masonry units is an ornamental face. Hunsaker teaches a decorative brick (colored, paragraph 48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the bracket with an outer ornamental face according to the aesthetic appearance desired by a sure, and since it would be an obvious matter of design choice as it would not effect the operability of the bracket.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. See rejections to added limitations as set forth above.
Conclusion
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 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 GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights