DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 07 December 2023, amending claim 3, 6, 9-11, 13-14, and adding claims 17-20, are acknowledged.
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 .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-15, 17-20, drawn to an apparatus.
Group II, claim 16, drawn to a method.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the assembly, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of FR 2695952 A1. See further the ISR of parent PCT/AU2022/050723.
During a telephone conversation with Burton Amernick on 27 May 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-15 and 17-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Azarin (US 8,024,896 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Azarin discloses a recess former assembly for creating a recess surrounding a cast in situ lifting element in a cast concrete element having a cast outer surface (title/abstract; FIG. 18-20), said assembly comprising:
an anchor recess former 10, equated with the claimed frame, having rebar braces (20A, B, 22A, B), equated with the claimed locating lugs, engageable with components of a reinforcing cage to be positioned within the mould in which said concrete element is to be cast, engagement of said locating lugs with said reinforcing components locating said frame in a rest position spaced from said mould (FIG. 15-20; 4:32+, 8:51+),
a faceplate 40, equated with the claimed removable recess former, releasably retained in said frame (FIG. 8-10; 6:21+),
an anchor 96, equated with the claimed lifting element, retained within said recess former and having an anchor portion extending from said recess former (FIG. 12-20; 7:5+), and
a non-rigid interconnection between said lugs and said frame permitting said frame and recess former to be urged towards said mould into an operative casting position in which at least a portion of said recess former substantially abuts said mould (FIG. 17; 9:35+).
Regarding claim 6, Azarin discloses that the rebar braces are U-shaped bights formed by a pair of legs (FIG. 1+).
Regarding claim 7-9, Azarin discloses upper open mouths 48 of upper rebar braces 20 open downwardly and lower open mouths 50 of lower rebar braces 22 open rearwardly (8:46+; FIG. 17).
Regarding claim 10, Azarin discloses the rebar braces include a projecting foot which forms a restricted entrance to said U-shaped bights (FIG. 17).
Regarding claim 11-12, Azarin discloses that the rebar braces include a snap engageable brake shoe able to be engaged with said cage component to prevent said assembly sliding along said cage component (FIG. 17-18; 9:35+).
Regarding claim 14-15, Azarin discloses that the frame is retained in said rest position by a releasable latch and said latch is releasable by movement of said mould relative to said cage (FIG. 17-18; 9:35+).
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.
Claims 2-5, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azarin (US 8,024,896 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Notarfrancesco et al. (WO 99/25941 A1).
Regarding claims 2-4 and 17, Azarin does not appear to expressly disclose details of the non-rigid interconnection between the lugs and frame.
However, Notarfrancesco discloses a similar means for clamping connecting pieces to a rebar cage in a reinforced concrete molding (title/abstract) formed of flexible strips/arms or springs (FIG. 7-18, 23A-25A, 27A-29A; 4:18+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interconnection between the lugs and frame of Azarin to include the means of Notarfrancesco, because such means would provide a desirable interconnection that allows flexibility during molding and would prevent damage or displacement from the pressure of the flowing concrete during casting, and prevent problems associated with conventional means of fastening connections to the reinforcement.
Regarding claim 5, Notarfrancesco suggest that the clamping elements can be plastic (4:14+) and Azarin discloses that the frame is plastic (4:62+).
Regarding claim 18-20, Azarin discloses that the rebar braces are U-shaped bights formed by a pair of legs (FIG. 1+).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Specifically, the closest prior art fails to disclose that the frame is movable relative to said lugs and out of said rest position by the pressure of flowable concrete being positioned over said cage. In contrast the assembly of the closest prior art is designed not to move by the pressure of flowable concrete.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MACKAY, SIM RODNEY et al.
WO 9424390 A1
Hansort; Marinus
US 20170247232 A1
Lawley, Derek Trent
US 20050017521 A1
Hansort; Rens
US 20060248811 A1
Bondpers; Per-Erik
US 4471936 A
Mackay Sim; Rodney et al.
US 6095483 A
Mackay Sim; Rodney
US 10240356 B2
Wright; William James
US 6779312 B2
MACKAY SIM ROD
NZ 579819 A
CONNELL ROBERT URQUHART et al.
NZ 593077 A
MACKAY SIM ROD
NZ 573621 A
MACKAY SIM ROD
AU 2006251997 B2
SIM ROD MACKAY
AU 2009217422 A1
BARRACLOUGH ANDREW
AU 2012261677 B2
SIM RODNEY MACKAY et al.
AU 641352 B3
FLETCHER GEOFFREY ALAN et al.
AU 2007202357 B2
ELLIS-CALLOW TREVOR JAMES
AU 6185994 A
NOTARFRANCESCO T et al.
DE 29720149 U1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742