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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-15, as amended 24 NOV. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 6 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 1 ln. 8: replace “column shaped” with --column-shaped-- to be consistent
Cl. 6 ln. 2: replace “comprise” with --comprises--
Cl. 15 ln. 3: replace “column shaped” with --column-shaped-- to be consistent
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-11 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. US 6370831 B1 (Marshall) in view of Daga US 4542612 A.
As per claim 1 Marshall teaches a system of modular elements for making reinforced concrete floors, comprising:
a plurality of base elements (base floor web tile assemblies 104, 1004 FIGs. 1, 11; this is recognized as teaching a base element comprises of a plurality of elements) intended to be laid at modular and pre-established distances on a surface to be floored, said plurality of base elements having projections (see at least two projections shown extending upward from element 104, proximate element 404, FIG. 7) extending therefrom;
a plurality of upper elements (floor panels 102, FIG. 1) intended to be positioned side by side to form a surface on which concrete can be cast; and
a plurality of [[column shaped]] --column-shaped-- elements (floor panel supports 204, FIG. 2) configured to be positioned vertically on said plurality of base elements (base floor web tile assemblies 104, 1004 FIGs. 1, 11) to engage said projections (see at least two projections shown extending upward from element 104, proximate element 404, FIG. 7; see “Stays 208 secure metal cylinders 404 to base floor web tile 202” 8:38),
each column-shaped element (floor panel supports 204, FIG. 2) being configured to support at least one of said upper elements (floor panels 102, FIG. 1),
wherein, at or adjacently to a top end of each column-shaped element (floor panel supports 204, FIG. 2), each of said plurality of upper elements (floor panels 102, FIG. 1) comprises at least one closing surface or element (floor panel support boss 206, FIG. 2) that prevents an introduction of the concrete inside the column-shaped element (floor panel supports 204, FIG. 2).
Marshall fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising one or more auxiliary upper elements,
each extending planarly within perimetral edges and having a hole configured to be connected to an auxiliary column-shaped element that is tubular,
said hole having a diameter corresponding to an outer diameter of said auxiliary column-shaped element,
the perimetral edges of said one or more auxiliary upper elements being configured to be engaged to perimetral edges of one or more of the upper elements.
Daga teaches an auxiliary member capable of use with the flooring panels of Marshall, specifically:
further comprising one or more auxiliary upper elements (insert 106, FIG. 19),
each extending planarly (see surfaces extending planarly at least at 106 and 107, FIG. 19) within perimetral edges (edges 108, FIG. 19) and having a hole (opening 109, FIG. 19) configured to be connected to an auxiliary column-shaped element that is tubular (see FIG. 19; an “auxiliary column-shaped element that is tubular” can be connected to the opening as above identified);
said hole having a diameter corresponding to an outer diameter of said auxiliary column-shaped element (see FIG. 19; this opening 109 can be reasonably broadly considered to be “corresponding” to a later added support—that is to say “be in conformity or agreement” with an opening of an at least somewhat comparably sized member),
the perimetral edges of said one or more auxiliary upper elements (insert 106, FIG. 19) being configured to be engaged to perimetral edges of one or more of the upper elements (see upper elements engaged with floor panels, FIG. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Marshall by including the inserts as taught by Daga in order to allow for a closing member to be mounted amongst the floor panels because doing so would enable the passage of construction elements therethrough as is old and well-known in the art of formworks.
As per claim 2 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Marshall further discloses wherein at least one of said upper elements (floor panels 102, FIG. 1) comprises:
a planar or curved upper surface (see “generally planar floor panels defining the raised floor” Cl. 20) defining a formwork bottom surface of a slab to be cast; and
lowered side edges (see “lowered” edge extending downward at recess 106, FIG. 1) shaped to be joined to corresponding side edges of other adjacent upper elements (floor panels 102, FIG. 1),
Daga further discloses said at least one closing surface or element is configured as an angular portion (see angular portions of panels 110 which allow for opening 109, FIG. 19) that is positioned at each corner of said at least one of said upper elements and is configured to be rested on the top end of one of said column-shaped elements, and wherein said angular portion is configured to form, together with other identical angular portions of a same number of upper elements resting on the same column-shaped element ), a closed surface which completely closes said top end of said column-shaped element (see flange 108 completely closing a surface of subjacent elements 110, FIG. 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Marshall in view of Daga by including the angular shape of the auxiliary upper element as taught by Daga in order to allow for the intended construction elements to be directed into the hole.
As per claim 3 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 2, and Daga further discloses wherein said angular portion comprises a part shaped as a straight angle (see “straight angle” —as reasonably broadly interpreted to include right angles with straight sides— around opening 109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Marshall in view of Daga forming the angular portions to have straight sides as taught by Daga in order to allow a straight walled insert member to be used which an installer could more easily produce a clean, defined edge, minimizing the risk of concrete leakage.
As per claim 4 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 2, and Daga further discloses said angular portion comprises means for removable connection with (see above identified “straight sides” straight sides around opening 109, FIG. 19, which would allow the elements to be connected by a later added auxiliary straight sided insert, such as element 106) the angular portions (see angular portions of panels 110 which allow for opening 109, FIG. 19) of other upper elements resting on the same column shaped element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Marshall in view of Daga forming the angular portions to be removably connected by an insert as taught by Daga in order to allow temporary positioning before the final pouring operation.
As per claim 5 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Daga further discloses wherein said one or more auxiliary upper elements (insert 106, FIG. 19) have a planar surface (see planar surfaces at least at 106 and 107, FIG. 19) provided with the hole (opening 109, FIG. 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Marshall in view of Daga by including the planar surfaces as taught by Daga in order to expedite the passage of construction elements though the hole; a planar surface would resist the tendency of construction elements passed through the insert to be wedged or jammed in place.
As per claim 6 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 5, and Daga further discloses said one or more auxiliary upper elements (insert 106, FIG. 19) [[comprise]] --comprises-- a plurality of seats (inside and outside bottom edge surfaces of four straight sections of flange 108, FIG. 19) distributed on one or more circumferences (see circumference of 108, FIG. 19) which are concentric with said hole (opening 109, FIG. 19), said plurality of seats being configured to receive an edge of the top end of a tubular column-shaped element (see FIG. 19; insert 106 is recognized as configured —or “capable”— or receiving a later added tubular column-shaped element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Marshall in view of Daga forming the insert to receive a lower placed tubular element as taught by Daga in order to allow rigid connection with a subjacent passageway. Regarding the limitation of the seats being located in a “concentric” fashion, the Examiner submits square shaped areas having a common center point can be considered concentric, i.e. having a common center.
As per claim 7 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 6, and Daga further discloses said plurality of seats (inside and outside bottom edge surfaces of four straight sections of flange 108, FIG. 19) are distributed on at least two of said circumferences which are concentric with said hole (opening 109, FIG. 19) and have different diameters (see diameter of inside edge of 108 and outside edge of 108, FIG. 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Marshall in view of Daga forming the insert to have inner and outer edges as taught by Daga in order to allow a broader area of support between the insert and subjacent flooring panel.
As per claim 8 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 5, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein a diameter of said auxiliary column-shaped element, which is connected to said at least one hole of said one or more auxiliary upper elements, is larger than a diameter of the other column-shaped elements.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Marshall in view of Daga by making the diameter of said auxiliary column-shaped element, which is connected to said at least one hole of said one or more auxiliary upper elements, be larger than a diameter of the other column-shaped elements because of the special need required of the auxiliary column-shaped element connected to the hole whereby a distinctly larger column shaped element would provide a visual cue to the workers and allow larger construction elements to pass therethrough.
As per claim 9 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Marshall further discloses each of said base elements (base floor web tile assemblies 104, 1004 FIGs. 1, 11) comprises:
a planar lower surface (see “generally planar floor panels defining the raised floor” Cl. 20; this is recognized as teaching the lower surface is at least somewhat “planar”) configured to be rested on a surface (see FIG. 1; also “ affix the interconnected base floor web tile assemblies to the base floor” abstract ln. 10) on which a floor will be laid; said projections (see at least two projections shown extending upward from element 104, proximate element 404, FIG. 7) extending upwards from said planar lower surface (see EXRFIG. 7, below; note the continuous surface extending “upwards” from the bottom surface through the projections),
each of said projections (see at least two projections shown extending upward from element 104, proximate element 404, FIG. 7) comprising at least one step (see inside face —hidden from view— of above identified projections, FIG. 7; compare to inward face, FIG. 11 and EXRFIG. 11, below; also “matrix into which floor panel supports 204 are secured” 7:58; this is recognized as teaching the above identified projections have an inside face, which teaches a “step”) facing towards a center of each base element,
said at least one step (see inside face —hidden from view— of above identified projections, FIG. 7, discussed above) being configured to engage (see FIG. 7; also “matrix into which floor panel supports 204 are secured” 7:58) a part of a bottom end of one of the column-shaped elements (floor panel supports 204, FIG. 2), wherein said projections (see at least two projections shown extending upward from element 104, proximate element 404, FIG. 7) and said at least one step are configured to jointly define a circumference (X) on which said bottom end of the one of the column-shaped elements (floor panel supports 204, FIG. 2) can be rested, and
wherein said circumference (X) lies on an ideal plane which is parallel to said planar lower surface (see FIG. 7 and EXRFIG. 7, below; the “circumference” wherein element 404 is secured is recognized as parallel to the base floor web tile assemblies 104, 1004 FIGs. 1, 11).
EXRFIG. 7
PNG
media_image1.png
529
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
EXRFIG.11
PNG
media_image2.png
488
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per claim 10 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 9, and Marshall further discloses said projections (see at least two projections shown extending upward from element 104, proximate element 404, FIG. 7) are connected to said planar lower surface with flexible arms (see “elongated arm” at arrow 202, FIG. 7; note “Base floor web tile 202 and floor panel support boss 206 are preferably made of plastic but other resilient and flexible materials may be used” 6:4; this is recognized as teaching the above identified “arm” is at least somewhat “flexible” as plastic is known to be flexible).
As per claim 11 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 9, and Marshall further discloses wherein each one of said projections (see at least two projections shown extending upward from element 104, proximate element 404, FIG. 7) comprises a body (see above identified projections, FIG. 11; these have at least a somewhat upwardly extending “body”; see also EXRFIG.11 below), with at least one wall (upward and inward extending walls between ring and top face, EXRFIG.11) facing towards a center of the base element and said at least one step, on which a part of the bottom end of a column-shaped element (floor panel supports 204, FIG. 2) can be rested, and
wherein said projections (see at least two projections shown extending upward from element 104, proximate element 404, FIG. 7) and said at least one step define a seat (bottom face extending downward opposite top face, EXRFIG. 11) configured to house said bottom end of one of the column-shaped elements (floor panel supports 204, FIG. 2),
said bottom end being held laterally by walls (upward and inward extending walls between ring and top face, EXRFIG.11) of said projections (see at least two projections shown extending upward from element 104, proximate element 404, FIG. 7) and at a bottom by said at least one step .
As per claim 15 Marshall in view of Daga teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Marshall further discloses wherein each of said base elements (base floor web tile assemblies 104, 1004 FIGs. 1, 11) comprises elements (tabs 314, FIG. 3) for a removable, direct or indirect, connection with adjacent base elements (base floor web tile assemblies 104, 1004 FIGs. 1, 11), on which said plurality of column shaped elements that can rest.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-13 allowed.
Claim 14 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 NOV. 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the argument (page 9 of 11)
supports 204 are not 'configured to be positioned" on the base elements, that is, are not elements that are made separate from the base elements, but instead are an integral part of the base elements.
the Examiner submits Marshall makes clear at column 6 line 3 that the base and support are separate materials, namely, plastic and metal (see “Base floor web tile … and floor panel support boss … are preferably made of plastic but other resilient and flexible materials may be used. Floor panel support … is preferably made of metal.” 6:3). Note also “Stays 208 secure metal cylinders 404 to base floor web tile 202 for installation and use but may still allow for removal and replacement of metal cylinders 404” (8:37).
As per Applicant’s supposition that “To prevent this interpretation, claim 1 now recites that the auxiliary upper elements extend planarly within perimetral edges. That is not the case in Daga, where capital form inserts 106 have a pyramidal shape within its perimetral edges rather than a planar extension” Examiner submits Applicant is interpreting the claim language too narrowly. The elements in Daga clearly “extend planarly” within a perimeter defined by the upper edge.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A support frame for a raised floor is taught by FIG. 1 in Schilham US RE39097 E
PNG
media_image3.png
500
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 D 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635