DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 09/04/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 17 and 19 have been amended, and claim(s) 1-16 has/have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
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) 17, 18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slominsky (US 3567171 A) in view of De Witte (EP 3133226 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Slominsky teaches a method of forming a cement foundation (concrete form; abstract) comprising: positioning a cement form (40) on a ground surface (figure 9), the cement form having a cement facing surface (right surface of 40) including a brick ledge portion (10) extending from the cement facing surface in a direction perpendicular to the cement facing surface (figure 9); positioning a volume of cement (42) against the cement facing surface and the brick ledge portion (figure 9); removing the brick ledge portion from the cement form to expose a brick ledge in the cement foundation (keyway; abstract), the brick ledge being configured to support a plurality of bricks along an edge of the cement foundation (it is understood that the keyway is capable of supporting a plurality of bricks along an edge of the cement foundation).
Slominsky does not specifically disclose foam.
De Witte discloses a method of using a formwork for concrete comprising foam material (abstract).
Therefore, from the teaching of De Witte, 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 concrete form of Slominsky to include foam material, as taught by De Witte, in order to provide a lightweight material that is lower cost in order to facilitate handling and reduce shipping costs.
Regarding claim 18, Slominsky teaches the brick ledge portion has a rectangular shape to form the brick ledge with a right-angle shape (as illustrated, there is a rectangular shape formed in the bottom of the keyway with a right-angle shape; figure 6).
Regarding claim 20, Slominsky does not specifically disclose the cement form includes a connector groove extending along a length of the cement form in a horizontal direction, the method including inserting a connector member into the connector groove to interconnect adjacent positioned cement forms.
De Witte discloses a method of using a formwork for concrete (abstract) wherein the cement form includes a connector groove (14) extending along a length of the cement form in a horizontal direction (figure 1), the method including inserting a connector member (beam member; paragraph 37) into the connector groove to interconnect adjacent positioned cement forms (paragraph 37).
Therefore, from the teaching of De Witte, 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 concrete form of Slominsky to include a connector groove extending along a length of the cement form in a horizontal direction, the method including inserting a connector member into the connector groove to interconnect adjacent positioned cement forms, as taught by De Witte, in order to facilitate the connection of adjacent form members for concrete structures with span distances greater than the length of the form.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slominsky (US 3567171 A) in view of De Witte (EP 3133226 A1), and in view of Shaw (U.S. Patent No. 4,837,991).
Regarding claim 19, Slominsky does not specifically disclose the cement form includes at least one relief cut formed in the cement form at a boundary of the brick ledge portion, and removing the brick ledge portion includes breaking off the brick ledge portion at the at least one relief cut.
Shaw discloses a concrete form member (abstract) includes at least one relief cut (9), and removing the brick ledge portion includes breaking off the brick ledge portion at the at least one relief cut (once a concrete floor or slab is poured, and hardened, a portion of the upright flange may be broken away) formed in the cement form at a boundary of the brick ledge portion (in the combination, it is understood that the relief cut of Shaw would be formed in the cement form at a boundary of the brick ledge portion of Slominsky).
Therefore, from the teaching of Shaw, 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 formwork of Slominsky to include at least one relief cut formed in the cement form at a boundary of the brick ledge portion, and removing the brick ledge portion includes breaking off the brick ledge portion at the at least one relief cut, as taught by Shaw, in order to facilitate removal of the ledge portion without the need for additional tooling or hardware.
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 Slominsky (US 3567171 A) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding a brick ledge portion extending from the cement facing surface in a direction perpendicular to the cement facing surface overcomes the previous rejection in view of De Witte. Applicant’s argument that this feature is not found in De Witte was found persuasive. In addition, applicant’s argument that the office action did not provide a resulting brick ledge was not found persuasive. Removing the form 2 which had a brick ledge portion (outer edge) would have resulted in a “brick” ledge on the concrete, or a surface capable of functioning as a ledge for bricks to be attached thereto. The examiner notes that the brick itself is not positively being claimed.
In addition, the argument that De Witte does not specifically disclose a connector groove has been carefully considered. The applicant argues that the slot recesses 14 are arranged on both the underside and upper side of formwork element and therefore are not a groove extending along a length of the cement form in the horizontal direction. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 1 shows that the recesses 14 clearly extend along a length [arbitrary length – the full length is not being claimed] and in a horizontal direction [no specific side is being claimed]. With regards to the argument of claim 19 that the Office Action does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have formed a relief cut at a boundary of a brick ledge portion in De Witte's formwork element, or why breaking off such a portion would have followed from the cited teachings. The argument is not found persuasive since one of ordinary skill would have looked to modify De Witte to include the breakaway portions of Shaw in order to choose a desired height of the concrete being set, as explained in the office action.
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
Prosecution Insights