DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 2011/0214370) in view of Garrett (US 2017/0058591).
Re claim 1, Stewart discloses an insulating concrete form buck 10) for an insulated concrete form wall (10 is capable of use with a concrete form wall) comprising:
a top buck section (14),
a bottom buck section (15), and
side buck sections (12, 13) joined to the top buck section (14) and the bottom buck section (15) to define an opening (11),
the outer layer of insulation material (60, as modified below) having an exposed section face (see examiner comments), an internal section face (see examiner comments) adjacent the opening (11) and opposite ends (see examiner comments),
the exposed section face (see examiner comments) having a raised central section (see examiner comments) for self draining of water (the raised central section of the examiner comments is capable of self draining water) towards each of the opposite sides (see examiner comments),
but fails to disclose each of the top buck section, the bottom buck section and the side buck sections having an inner core, an outer layer of insulation material surrounding the inner core and opposite sides.
However, Garrett discloses each of the top buck section (10; Stewart: 14), the bottom buck section (10; Stewart: 15) and the side buck sections (10; Stewart: 12, 13) having an inner core (14, 16, 18), an outer layer of insulation material (12) surrounding the inner core (14, 16, 18) and opposite sides (sides of 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating concrete form buck of Stewart with each of the top buck section, the bottom buck section and the side buck sections having an inner core, an outer layer of insulation material surrounding the inner core and opposite sides as disclosed by Garrett in order to provide strength and rigidity ([0027]) while providing fire retardance ([0019]).
Re claim 2, Stewart as modified discloses the insulating concrete form buck of Claim 1 wherein: the raised central section (see examiner comments) is peaked (Fig. 2), but fails to disclose wherein: the raised central section is outwardly tapered towards each of the opposing sides.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating concrete form buck of Stewart wherein: the raised central section is outwardly tapered towards each of the opposing sides in order to increase strength of the buck and of the raised central section, as a taper design is stronger than that of the rectangular projection design of Stewart. Moreover, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 7, Stewart as modified discloses the insulating concrete form buck of Claim 1 wherein: the inner core is hollow extruded one-piece plastic a plank core.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating concrete form buck of Stewart wherein: the inner core is hollow extruded one-piece plastic a plank core in order utilize a readily available, easily formable, inexpensive, durable, long lasting material, while reducing weight thereof. In addition, has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
It should further be noted that the language “extruded” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 9, Stewart as modified discloses the insulating concrete form buck of Claim 1 Garrett discloses wherein: the outer layer (12) is a polystyrene foam layer ([0019]).
Re claim 10, Stewart as modified discloses the insulating concrete form buck of Claim 1 including: fasteners ([0076]) located at adjacent corners (Fig. 1) of the top buck section (14), the bottom buck section (15) and the side buck sections (12, 13) to fasten ([0076]) the top buck section (14) and the bottom buck section (15) to the side buck sections (12, 13).
Claim(s) 5-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 2011/0214370) in view of Garrett (US 2017/0058591) and Sloman (GB 2082235).
Re claim 5, Stewart as modified discloses the insulating concrete form buck of Claim 1 but fails to disclose an intermediate layer of adhesive surrounding the inner core and located between the outer layer of insulation material and the inner core to hold the outer layer of installation material to the inner core.
However, Sloman discloses an intermediate layer (6) of adhesive (Page 1 lines 88-94) surrounding the inner core (4) and located between (Fig. 1) the outer layer of insulation material (2) and the inner core (4) to hold the outer layer of installation material (2) to the inner core (4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating concrete form buck of Stewart with an intermediate layer of adhesive surrounding the inner core and located between the outer layer of insulation material and the inner core to hold the outer layer of installation material to the inner core as disclosed by Sloman in order to provide tool-lessly, rigidly, and permanently attach the outer layer to the inner core.
Re claim 6, Stewart as modified discloses the insulating concrete form buck of Claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein: the inner core is a solid wood plank core.
However, Sloman discloses wherein: the inner core (4) is a solid wood plank core (Page 2 lines 44-47, plywood being a solid material and being wood).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating concrete form buck of Stewart wherein: the inner core is a solid wood plank core as disclosed by Sloman in order to use a cheap, readily available, easily formable material. Moreover, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 8, Stewart as modified discloses the insulating concrete form buck of Claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein: the inner core is a formed metal member.
However, Sloman discloses wherein: the inner core (4) is a formed metal member (Page 1 lines 26-31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating concrete form buck of Stewart wherein: the inner core is a formed metal member as disclosed by Garrett in order to provide strength and rigidity using a readily available, inexpensive, easily formable material. In addition, has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mill (US 2008/0115431) in view of Sloman (GB 2082235).
Re claim 11, Mill discloses an insulating concrete form buck section (6, 10, 14) for an insulated concrete form buck (2) comprising:
an inner core (34),
the inner core (34) having an outer surface (proximate 26), an inner surface (68) opposite the outer surface (proximate 26) and opposite ends (ends of 34),
at least one elongated element (30) extending longitudinally between (Fig. 4) the opposite ends (ends of 34) of the inner core (34),
the inner core (34) having a first thickness (the thickness of 34 at 68),
the at least one elongated element (30) having a second thickness (thickness of 30) greater than (Fig. 4) the first thickness (thickness of 34 at 68) of the inner core (34),
an outer layer (26),
but fails to disclose the outer layer being an outer layer of rigid insulation material surrounding the inner core, an intermediate layer of adhesive located between the outer layer and the inner core to hold the outer layer on the inner core.
However, Sloman discloses the outer layer (2) being an outer layer (2) of rigid insulation material (Page 1 lines 73-75 disclosing PVC) surrounding the inner core (4), an intermediate layer (6) of adhesive (Page 1 lines 92-94) located between the outer layer (2) and the inner core (4) to hold the outer layer (Page 1 lines 92-94) on the inner core (2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating concrete form section of Mill with the outer layer being an outer layer of rigid insulation material surrounding the inner core, an intermediate layer of adhesive located between the outer layer and the inner core to hold the outer layer on the inner core as disclosed by Sloman in order to provide a rigid member (Page 1 lines 8-14) while preventing water intrusion (Page 1 lines 41-45), and to connect each together in a tool-less, permanent manner.
Re claim 12, Mill as modified discloses the insulating concrete form buck section of Claim 11 wherein: the outer layer of rigid insulation material (34, as modified by Sloman) has an exposed section face (at 66) and opposite sides (left/right sides of 34), the exposed section face (at 66) having an outwardly tapered raised central section (66, being central because 66 is not disposed on the outermost ends of 34) for self draining water toward each of the opposite sides (66 is capable of draining towards sides; for example, 66 on the right can drain water towards the left side of 34) of the outer layer (34, as modified).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mill (US 2008/0115431) in view of Sloman (GB 2082235) and Francavilla (US 9,151,046).
Re claim 13, Mill as modified discloses the insulating concrete form buck section of Claim 11 but fails to disclose including: at least one concrete anchor attached to the inner core, the at least one concrete anchor having an outer end extending outwardly from the outer layer, the outer end having a looped opening.
However, Francavilla discloses including: at least one concrete anchor (30) attached to the inner core (Sloman: 4), the at least one concrete anchor (30) having an outer end (32) extending outwardly from the outer layer (Sloman: 2), the outer end (32) having a looped opening (32 being an eyelet).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating concrete form buck section of Mill including: at least one concrete anchor attached to the inner core, the at least one concrete anchor having an outer end extending outwardly from the outer layer, the outer end having a looped opening as disclosed by Francavilla in order to secure attachment to additional components such as rebar and/or rebar supports (Col 7 lines 30-37).
Claim(s) 14-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mill (US 2008/0115431) in view of Sloman (GB 2082235) and Garrett (US 2017/0058591).
Re claim 14, Mill discloses a method (Fig. 4) of making an insulating concrete form buck section (6, 10, 14) for an insulated concrete form buck (2), comprising:
providing (Fig. 1 showing 34 provided) an inner core (34),
providing (Fig. 1 showing 34 provided) the inner core (4) with an outer surface (proximate 26), an inner surface (68) opposite the outer surface (proximate 26) and opposite ends (ends of 34),
providing (Fig. 4 showing 30 provided) a plurality of elongated elements (30) having a second thickness (thickness of 30) greater than (Fig. 4) the first thickness (thickness of 34 at 68) of the inner core (34),
providing the inner core (34) with a first thickness (the thickness of 34 at 68),
providing (Fig. 4 showing 30 provided) the plurality of elongated elements (30) with a second thickness (thickness of 30) greater than (Fig. 4) the first thickness (thickness of 34 at 68) of the inner core (34),
but fails to disclose applying adhesive to the outer surface and the inner surface of the inner core, and molding an outer layer of insulating foam material to the adhesive whereby the outer layer of insulating foam material surrounds the inner core and adheres to the inner core.
However, Sloman discloses applying (Fig. 1 showing 6 applied) adhesive (6) to the outer surface (one surface of 4) and the inner surface (another surface of 4) of the inner core (4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mill with applying adhesive to the outer surface and the inner surface of the inner core as disclosed by Sloman in order to tool-lessly and permanently attach the inner core to an outer skin.
In addition, Garrett discloses molding ([0018]) an outer layer of insulating foam material (12, 0018]) to the adhesive (Sloman: 6) whereby the outer layer of insulating foam material (12, 0018]) surrounds the inner core (14, 16, 18) and adheres (Sloman: 6) to the inner core (14, 16, 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mill with molding an outer layer of insulating foam material to the adhesive whereby the outer layer of insulating foam material surrounds the inner core and adheres to the inner core as disclosed by Garrett in order to allow for high-volume, cost-effective production with design flexibility, precision and repeatability, all known benefits of molding, and to increase fire resistance ([0019]) though use of foam.
Re claim 15, Mill as modified discloses the method of Claim 14, Sloman discloses including: pre-applying (Fig. 1 showing 6 applied, as no point in time is provided) the adhesive (6) to the outer surface (one surface of 4) and the inner surface (another surface of 4) of the inner core (4) to form an intermediate adhesive layer (layer 6) surrounding the inner core (4).
Re claim 17, Mill as modified discloses the method of Claim 14 wherein:
providing the outer layer of insulating foam material (Garrett: 12) with an exposed section face (68) and opposite sides (sides of 34),
outwardly tapering and peaking (Fig. 4 showing 66 tapered and peaked) a central section (66) of the exposed section face (68) whereby the central section (66) tapers toward each of the opposite sides (66 is capable of draining towards sides; for example, 66 on the right can drain water towards the left side of 34).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mill (US 2008/0115431) in view of Sloman (GB 2082235), Garrett (US 2017/0058591) and Francavilla (US 9,151,046).
Re claim 18, Mill as modified discloses the method of Claim 18 but fails to disclose attaching at least one concrete anchor to the inner core and extending the at least one concrete anchor outwardly from the outer layer of insulating foam material.
However, Francavilla discloses attaching (Fig. 2 showing 30 attached) at least one concrete anchor (30) to the inner core (13) and extending (Fig. 2 showing extension of 30) the at least one concrete anchor (30) outwardly from (Fig. 2) the outer layer (112) of foam insulating material (per the above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mill attaching at least one concrete anchor to the inner core and extending the at least one concrete anchor outwardly from the outer layer of insulating foam material as disclosed by Francavilla in order to secure attachment to additional components such as rebar and/or rebar supports (Col 7 lines 30-37).
Re claim 19, Mill as modified discloses the method of Claim 19 Francavilla discloses the at least one concrete anchor (30) has an outer end (32), and looping (32 being an eyelet) the outer end (32) to form a looped opening (32 being an eyelet).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 16 are 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.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
589
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Response to Amendment: At the outset, it is noted that Applicant’s substantive amendments to the specification and the drawings are supported by Fig. 8 as originally filed.
Objections to the Specification: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the Specification is hereby withdrawn.
Objections to the Claims: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not moot as they do not apply to any of the combination of references relied upon in the 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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Mattei can be reached at (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 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635