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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olmetitaly (“A taste of Olmet Design. A slideshow of some of our products.”).
Regarding claim 1, Olmetitaly teaches:
A panel casting system (4:04 – 4:27), comprising:
a panel casting apparatus (4:04 – 4:27),
the panel casting apparatus comprising:
two outer forms (4:04 – 4:27; The blue edges across from each other lengthwise on the edges of the panels),
a plurality of dividers (4:04 – 4:27; The blue panels running along the length of the panels),
a plurality of concrete receiving inserts (4:04 – 4:27; The black slits in between the panels),
a concrete hopper configured to selectively pour concrete between the plurality of dividers into the plurality of concrete receiving inserts (4:04 – 4:27; The yellow hopper positioned above the panels, “concrete distribution machine”), and
a conveyor configured to move the concrete hopper from one side of the panel casting apparatus to the other (4:04 – 4:27; The yellow support bars and moving system for the “concrete distribution machine”).
Regarding claim 6, Olmetitaly teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Olmetitaly further teaches:
wherein the panel casting apparatus further comprises a platform (4:04 – 4:27; the gray platform around the panels with yellow fencing) and towers (4:04 – 4:27; The grey towers supporting the blue beam which supports the hopper support system) couplable to a fall restraint system, these towers are capable of being couplable to a fall restrain system.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmetitaly (“A taste of Olmet Design. A slideshow of some of our products.”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Di Lorenzo (U.S. Patent No. 7828544) and Waite (US-20090000242).
Regarding claim 2, Olmetitaly teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on, but does not teach wherein each of the plurality of concrete receiving inserts further comprises two side panels coupled to a rebar mesh, hanger plates, and spreaders. However, Di Lorenzo, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of concrete receiving inserts (Col. 3, lines 24-47; Fig. 4, #12) further comprises two side panels (Col. 7, lines 24-47; Fig. 4, #24) coupled to a mesh (Col. 7, lines 35-49; Fig. 16, #162), hanger plates (Col. 7, lines 50-61; Fig. 13, #166), and spreaders (Col. 7, lines 50-61; Fig. 13, #168, #170 and #172).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concrete receiving inserts of Olmetitaly to incorporate the teachings of Di Lorenzo and include a mesh, hanger plates, and spreaders. The purpose, as stated by Di Lorenzo, being that panels may be reinforced (Col. 7, line 35).
Olmetitaly in view of Di Lorenzo does not teach:
wherein the mesh is rebar.
However, Waite, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
wherein the mesh is rebar ([0042] – [0043]; Figs. 6 and 9, #270).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concrete mesh of Olmetitaly in view of Di Lorenzo to incorporate the teachings of Waite and have it be a rebar mesh. The purpose, as stated by Waite, being that steel rebar and mesh kits are supported within the compartments and concrete is then poured into each compartment ([0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Olmetitaly in view of Di Lorenzo and Waite teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends on, but does not teach each of the plurality of concrete receiving inserts further comprises spring-loaded ties couplable between the rebar mesh and the hanger plates. However, Di Lorenzo further teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of concrete receiving inserts further comprises spring-loaded ties couplable between the rebar mesh and the hanger plates (Col. 11, lines 50-67; Fig. 25, #264).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concrete receiving inserts of Olmetitaly in view of Di Lorenzo and Waite to further incorporate the teachings of Di Lorenzo and include ties. The purpose, as stated by Di Lorenzo, being that tie wires secure the various components of the basket together (Col. 7, lines 45-46).
Regarding claim 4, Olmetitaly in view of Di Lorenzo and Waite teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 4 depends on. Di Lorenzo teaches:
wherein the spreaders extend bidirectionally along a transverse axis of each concrete receiving insert to maintain adjacent dividers equidistant from one another in the panel casting apparatus (Col. 7, line 50 - Col. 8, line 9; Fig. 13, #168, #170 and #172).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmetitaly (“A taste of Olmet Design. A slideshow of some of our products.”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garfinkel (U.S. Patent No. 9415528) .
Regarding claim 5, Olmetitaly teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on, but does not explicitly teach wherein the concrete hopper further comprises a hopper valve, a wall dispenser, a plurality of dispensers, and a plurality of dispenser valves. However, Garfinkel, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
wherein the concrete hopper (Col. 4, line 45 – Col. 5, line 3; Fig. 1, #28) further comprises a hopper valve (Fig. 8, #152), a wall dispenser (Fig. 8, #138), a plurality of dispensers (Fig. 8, #150), and a plurality of dispenser valves (Fig. 8, #152). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add more valves to the concrete hopper in the absence of a showing of criticality of unexpected results through a duplication of parts, as the claims read in light of the specifications do not distinguish the different valves in a patentably significant way.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concrete hopper of Olmetitaly to incorporate the teachings of Garfinkel and explicitly include a hopper valve, a wall dispenser, and a plurality of dispensers. The purpose, as stated by Garfinkel, being that it delivers the concrete into the casting machine (Col. 4, lines 38-39).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 9, Olmetitaly teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on, but does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus further comprises a mounting rack or platform. However, Garfinkel, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
further comprising a mounting rack or platform configured to move up and down to facilitate assembly of each of the plurality of concrete receiving inserts (Col. 6, lines 26 – 36; Fig. 7, #90, #92, #94, #96, and #98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Olmetitaly to incorporate the teachings of Garfinkel and include a mounting rack or platform. The purpose, as stated by Garfinkel, being the top core and bottom core are placed into the cavity, and serve to form upper and lower cavities in the block to be formed (Col. 6, lines 40-42).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmetitaly (“A taste of Olmet Design. A slideshow of some of our products.”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Di Lorenzo (U.S. Patent No. 7828544).
Regarding claim 7, Olmetitaly teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on, but does not teach wherein the panel casting apparatus further comprises pairings of chain tensioner brackets each coupled to a chain. However, Di Lorenzo, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
wherein the panel casting apparatus further comprises pairings of chain tensioner brackets each coupled to a chain and configured to exert inward pressure against the concrete receiving inserts to facilitate the settling and curing of concrete therein (Col. 9, line 54 – Col. 10, line 17; Figs. 37-38, #602).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Olmetitaly to incorporate the teachings of Di Lorenzo and include pairings of chain tensioner brackets each coupled to a chain. The purpose, as stated by Di Lorenzo, being chains tighten and pull on successive interior forming boards until all movable forms or forming boards are separated. The same machine, operated in reverse, can be used to move the forms, or forming boards into a nested position (Col. 10, lines 4-9).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmetitaly (“A taste of Olmet Design. A slideshow of some of our products.”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waite (US-20090000242).
Regarding claim 8, Olmetitaly teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on, but does not teach wherein the panel casting apparatus further comprises threaded compression rods, pivotable base members, and transport stabilizer arms. However, Waite, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
wherein the panel casting apparatus further comprises threaded compression rods ([0037]; Fig. 2, #200), pivotable base members ([0036] – [0037]; Fig. 2, #180), and transport stabilizer arms ([0057]; Fig. 16, #430).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Olmetitaly to incorporate the teachings of Waite and include threaded compression rods, pivotable base members, and transport stabilizer arms. The purpose, as stated by Waite, being the tension system maintains the integrity of the superstructure walls against bowing or distorting to thereby successfully oppose the very high pressures exerted upon the movable panel wall forms when the cavities are filled with wet concrete ([0035]).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmetitaly (“A taste of Olmet Design. A slideshow of some of our products.”) in view of Garfinkel (U.S. Patent No. 9415528).
Regarding claim 10, Olmetitaly teaches:
A panel casting system (4:04 – 4:27), comprising:
a panel casting apparatus (4:04 – 4:27), the panel casting apparatus comprising:
two outer forms (4:04 – 4:27; The blue edges across from each other lengthwise on the edges of the panels),
a plurality of dividers interposed between the two outer forms (4:04 – 4:27; The blue panels running along the length of the panels),
each divider separated by a respective concrete receiving insert (4:04 – 4:27; The black slits in between the panels),
a concrete hopper (4:04 – 4:27; The yellow hopper positioned above the panels, “concrete distribution machine”) comprising a hopper valve (4:04 – 4:27; The yellow diagonal chute coming out of the bottom of the concrete hopper),
the concrete hopper configured to selectively pour concrete between the plurality of dividers into the plurality of concrete receiving inserts (4:04 – 4:27),
a conveyor configured to move the concrete hopper from one side of the panel casting apparatus to the other (4:04 – 4:27; The yellow support bars and moving system for the “concrete distribution machine”),
a platform surrounding the two outer forms (4:04 – 4:27; the gray platform around the panels with yellow fencing), and
towers extending upwardly from the platform and couplable to a fall restraint system (4:04 – 4:27; The grey towers supporting the blue beam which supports the hopper support system).
Olmetitaly does not teach:
the concrete hopper comprises:
a wall dispenser,
a plurality of dispensers, and
a plurality of dispenser valves.
However, Garfinkel, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
the concrete hopper (Col. 4, line 45 – Col. 5, line 3; Fig. 1, #28) comprises:
a wall dispenser (Fig. 8, #138),
a plurality of dispensers (Fig. 8, #150), and
a plurality of dispenser valves (Fig. 8, #152). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple dispenser valves to the concrete hopper in the absence of a showing of criticality of unexpected results through a duplication of parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concrete hopper of Olmetitaly to incorporate the teachings of Garfinkel and include a wall dispenser and a plurality of dispensers. The purpose, as stated by Garfinkel, being that it delivers the concrete into the casting machine (Col. 4, lines 38-39).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 16, Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel to teach the limitations of claim 10, which claim 16 depends on, but does not teach further comprising a mounting rack or platform. However, Garfinkel further teaches:
further comprising a mounting rack or platform configured to move up and down to facilitate assembly of the concrete receiving inserts (Col. 6, lines 26 – 36; Fig. 7, #90, #92, #94, #96, and #98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel to further incorporate the teachings of Garfinkel and a mounting rack or platform. The purpose, as stated by Garfinkel, being that the top core and bottom core are placed into the cavity, and serve to form upper and lower cavities in the block to be formed (Col. 6, lines 40-42).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmetitaly (“A taste of Olmet Design. A slideshow of some of our products.”) in view of Garfinkel (U.S. Patent No. 9415528), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Di Lorenzo (U.S. Patent No. 7828544) and Waite (US-20090000242).
Regarding claim 11, Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 11 depends on, but does not teach wherein each of the plurality of concrete receiving inserts further comprises two side panels coupled to a rebar mesh, hanger plates, and spreaders. However, Di Lorenzo, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of concrete receiving inserts (Col. 3, lines 24-47; Fig. 4, #12) further comprises two side panels (Col. 7, lines 24-47; Fig. 4, #24) coupled to a mesh (Col. 7, lines 35-49; Fig. 16, #162), hanger plates (Col. 7, lines 50-61; Fig. 13, #166), and spreaders (Col. 7, lines 50-61; Fig. 13, #168, #170 and #172).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concrete receiving inserts of Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel to incorporate the teachings of Di Lorenzo and include a mesh, hanger plates, and spreaders. The purpose, as stated by Di Lorenzo, being that panels may be reinforced (Col. 7, line 35).
Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel and Di Lorenzo does not teach:
wherein the mesh is rebar.
However, Waite, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
wherein the mesh is rebar ([0042] – [0043]; Figs. 6 and 9, #270).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concrete mesh of Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel and Di Lorenzo to incorporate the teachings of Waite and have it be a rebar mesh. The purpose, as stated by Waite, being that steel rebar and mesh kits are supported within the compartments and concrete is then poured into each compartment ([0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel and Di Lorenzo and Waite teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 12 depends on, but does not teach each of the plurality of concrete receiving inserts further comprises spring-loaded ties couplable between the rebar mesh and the hanger plates. However, Di Lorenzo further teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of concrete receiving inserts further comprises spring-loaded ties couplable between the rebar mesh and the hanger plates (Col. 11, lines 50-67; Fig. 25, #264).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concrete receiving inserts of Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel, Di Lorenzo, and Waite to further incorporate the teachings of Di Lorenzo and include ties. The purpose, as stated by Di Lorenzo, being that tie wires secure the various components of the basket together (Col. 7, lines 45-46).
Regarding claim 13, Olmetitaly in view of Di Lorenzo and Waite teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 13 depends on. Di Lorenzo teaches:
wherein the spreaders extend bidirectionally along a transverse axis of each concrete receiving insert to maintain adjacent dividers equidistant from one another in the panel casting apparatus (Col. 7, lines 50-61; Fig. 13, #168, #170 and #172).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmetitaly (“A taste of Olmet Design. A slideshow of some of our products.”) in view of Garfinkel (U.S. Patent No. 9415528), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Di Lorenzo (U.S. Patent No. 7828544).
Regarding claim 14, Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 14 depends on, but does not teach wherein the panel casting apparatus further comprises pairings of chain tensioner brackets each coupled to a chain. However, Di Lorenzo, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
wherein the panel casting apparatus further comprises pairings of chain tensioner brackets each coupled to a chain and configured to exert inward pressure against the concrete receiving inserts to facilitate the settling and curing of concrete therein (Col. 9, line 54 – Col. 10, line 17; Figs. 37-38, #602).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel to incorporate the teachings of Di Lorenzo and include pairings of chain tensioner brackets each coupled to a chain. The purpose, as stated by Di Lorenzo, being chains tighten and pull on successive interior forming boards until all movable forms or forming boards are separated. The same machine, operated in reverse, can be used to move the forms, or forming boards into a nested position (Col. 10, lines 4-9).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmetitaly (“A taste of Olmet Design. A slideshow of some of our products.”), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Waite (US-20090000242).
Regarding claim 15, Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 15 depends on, but does not teach wherein the panel casting apparatus further comprises threaded compression rods, pivotable base members, and transport stabilizer arms. However, Waite, in a similar field of endeavor, a panel casting system, teaches:
wherein the panel casting apparatus further comprises threaded compression rods ([0037]; Fig. 2, #200), pivotable base members ([0036] – [0037]; Fig. 2, #180), and transport stabilizer arms ([0057]; Fig. 16, #430).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Olmetitaly in view of Garfinkel to incorporate the teachings of Waite and include threaded compression rods, pivotable base members, and transport stabilizer arms. The purpose, as stated by Waite, being the tension system maintains the integrity of the superstructure walls against bowing or distorting to thereby successfully oppose the very high pressures exerted upon the movable panel wall forms when the cavities are filled with wet concrete ([0035]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmetitaly (“New 2016 Video - Concrete Machinery to Build the Future Together.”) in view of Ciuperca (US-20140260034), Di Lorenzo (U.S. Patent No. 7828544), and Hulsizer (US-20220356705). In the interest of clarity, Olmetitaly (“New 2016 Video - Concrete Machinery to Build the Future Together.”) will further me referred to as “Olmetitaly New.”
Regarding claim 17, Olmetitaly New teaches:
A method of using a panel casting system (1:10 – 4:00), the method comprising:
assembling a plurality of concrete receiving inserts (1:32 – 2:13);
transporting a plurality of dividers to the jobsite via a divider trailer (3:20 – 3:40);
inserting the plurality of dividers and the plurality of concrete receiving inserts alternatingly between two outer forms of a panel casting apparatus (3:40 – 3:50);
selectively pouring concrete from a concrete hopper into the plurality of concrete receiving inserts using a hopper valve (2:20 – 2:24; 3:50 – 3:54) and a plurality of dispenser valves. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple dispenser valves to the concrete hopper in the absence of a showing of criticality of unexpected results through a duplication of parts;
moving the concrete hopper from one end of the panel casting apparatus to another end via a conveyor (2:20 – 2:24).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Olmetitaly New does not teach:
the concrete receiving inserts can be made offsite and then brought onsite;
transporting the plurality of concrete receiving inserts from offsite to a jobsite;
exerting pressure against the plurality of concrete receiving inserts via pairings of chain tensioner brackets and chains; and
removing partially cured concrete wall panels from the concrete casting apparatus and mounting them to curing racks until completely cured.
However, Ciuperca, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of using a panel casting system, teaches:
the concrete receiving inserts can be made offsite and then brought onsite ([0005] and [0087]);
transporting the plurality of concrete receiving inserts from offsite to a jobsite ([0005] and [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Olmetitaly New to incorporate the teachings of Ciuperca and include a step of making the inserts offsite and transporting them. The purpose, as stated by Ciuperca, being they will be preassembled at a remote location and transported to a job site ([0087]).
Olmetitaly New in view of Ciuperca does not teach:
exerting pressure against the plurality of concrete receiving inserts via pairings of chain tensioner brackets and chains; and
removing partially cured concrete wall panels from the concrete casting apparatus and mounting them to curing racks until completely cured.
However, Di Lorenzo, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of using a panel casting system, teaches:
exerting pressure against the plurality of concrete receiving inserts via pairings of chain tensioner brackets and chains (Col. 9, line 54 – Col. 10, line 17; Figs. 37-38, #602).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Olmetitaly New in view of Ciuperca to incorporate the teachings of Di Lorenzo and include a step of exerting pressure against the plurality of concrete receiving inserts via pairings of chain tensioner brackets and chains. The purpose, as stated by Di Lorenzo, being chains tighten and pull on successive interior forming boards until all movable forms or forming boards are separated. The same machine, operated in reverse, can be used to move the forms, or forming boards into a nested position (Col. 10, lines 4-9).
Olmetitaly New in view of Ciuperca and Di Lorenzo does not teach:
removing partially cured concrete wall panels from the concrete casting apparatus and mounting them to curing racks until completely cured.
However, Hulsizer, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of using a panel casting system, teaches:
removing partially cured concrete wall panels from the concrete casting apparatus and mounting them to curing racks until completely cured ([0039] and [0195]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Olmetitaly New in view of Ciuperca and Di Lorenzo to incorporate the teachings of Hulsizer and include a step of removing partially cured concrete wall panels from the concrete casting apparatus and mounting them to curing racks until completely cured. The purpose, as stated by Hulsizer, being to allow the panel to finish curing ([0039]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmetitaly (“New 2016 Video - Concrete Machinery to Build the Future Together.”) in view of Ciuperca (US-20140260034), Di Lorenzo (U.S. Patent No. 7828544), and Hulsizer (US-20220356705), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Waite (US-20090000242).
Regarding claim 18, Olmetitaly New in view of Ciuperca, Di Lorenzo, and Hulsizer teaches the limitations of claim 17, which claim 18 depends on, but does not teach exerting pressure against the plurality of concrete receiving inserts via threaded compression rods. However, Waite, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of using a panel casting system, teaches:
further comprising prior to removing the partially cured concrete wall panels, exerting pressure against the plurality of concrete receiving inserts via threaded compression rods ([0034] – [0039]; Fig. 2, #200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Olmetitaly New in view of Ciuperca, Di Lorenzo, and Hulsizer to incorporate the teachings of Waite and include a step of exerting pressure against the plurality of concrete receiving inserts via threaded compression rods. The purpose, as stated by Waite, being the tension system maintains the integrity of the superstructure walls against bowing or distorting to thereby successfully oppose the very high pressures exerted upon the movable panel wall forms when the cavities are filled with wet concrete ([0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748