DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-15 as originally filed are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, at line 1, the recitation “wherein inner”, is understood to mean -- wherein the inner --.
Regarding claim 13, at line 1, the recitation “in claim 11”, is understood to mean – in claim 12 -- since the limitations appear to depend from claim 12 and not claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, at lines 1-2, the recitation “inflating the air form before air form before”, is understood to mean -- inflating the air form before --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “trench rubble foundation or stem wall” of claim 3, the “screwing [screws in] weld plates” of claim 6, and “doorways, windows, utility connections and plumbing” of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heifetz (U.S. Patent No. 4,102,956) in view of Stickler (U.S. Patent No. 3,734,670).
Regarding claim 1, Heifetz teaches a method for building a monolithic structure (abstract), the method comprising: compacting and preparing a foundation (1) on a site where the monolithic structure will reside (figure 1); erecting an inner vertical structural wall (11) on the foundation (figure 10); securing the inner vertical structural wall to the foundation (at 12); connecting an inner air form (3) to a top of the inner vertical structural wall (figure 9); inflating the inner air form creating an inner mold (col. 4, lines 48-50); erecting an outer vertical structural wall (4) around the inner vertical structural wall (outer wall [not labeled] figure 10), wherein the distance between the inner vertical structural wall and the outer vertical structural wall is a desired thickness of the monolithic structure (figure 4); securing the outer vertical structural wall to the foundation (figure 10); adding a moldable mixture in a space between the inner mold and the outer vertical structural wall (abstract); removing air pressure once the moldable mixture is solidified (after the material has set, the former is deflated); curing the moldable mixture (it is understood that the moldable cement mixture will inherently cure); and detaching the inner air form from the inner vertical structural wall and removing the inner air form and the inner vertical structural wall from the moldable mixture (released from the base and removed for reuse; abstract).
Heifetz does not specifically disclose connecting an outer air form to a top of the outer vertical structural wall creating an outer mold; pouring a moldable mixture in a space between the inner mold and the outer mold; detaching the outer air form from the outer vertical structural wall, and removing the outer air form and the outer vertical structural wall from the cured moldable mixture.
Stickler discloses a concrete mold (abstract) including connecting an outer air form (6) to a top of the outer vertical structural wall creating an outer mold (figure 2); pouring a moldable mixture in a space between the inner mold and the outer mold (col. 2, lines 55-60); detaching the outer air form from the outer vertical structural wall (col. 3, lines 7-10), and removing the outer air form and the outer vertical structural wall from the cured moldable mixture (col. 3, lines 10-15).
Therefore, from the teaching of Stickler, 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 building method of Heifetz to include connecting an outer air form to a top of the outer vertical structural wall creating an outer mold; pouring a moldable mixture in a space between the inner mold and the outer mold; detaching the outer air form from the outer vertical structural wall, and removing the outer air form and the outer vertical structural wall from the cured moldable mixture, as taught by Stickler, in order to provide cover for the entire mixture to ensure the desired shape and curing speed of the concrete is optimized per the design requirements of the structure.
Regarding claim 2, Heifetz teaches the inner vertical structural wall and the outer vertical structural wall comprise one or more rigid forms (figure 10).
Regarding claim 3, Heifetz teaches the foundation is a poured concrete slab (figure 10).
Regarding claim 4, Heifetz teaches the inner structural wall and the outer structural wall are secured to the foundation using concrete anchors (figure 10).
Regarding claim 6, Heifetz teaches the inner and outer structural walls are secured to the foundation but does not specifically disclose by screwing weld plates on the rigid forms into the foundation. However, the examiner takes official that it is well known in the art to utilize weld plates when securing structural elements to a foundation, as a quick and efficient technique that utilizes readily available tooling and materials, in order to save time and costs.
Regarding claim 7, Stickler in the combination teaches the moldable mixture is poured in a hole (at 23) in the outer mold (figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Stickler in the combination teaches doorways, windows (col. 2, lines 20-25), utility connections and plumbing are cast in the inner and the outer vertical structural walls (col. 3, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 10, Heifetz teaches the one or more rigid forms and the inner and outer air forms are reusable for another monolithic structure (removed for reuse; abstract; col. 4, lines 50-62).
Regarding claim 11, Heifetz teaches sealing the monolithic structure (col. 4, lines 48-50).
Regarding claim 12, Heifetz teaches system for constructing a monolithic structure (abstract) with a moldable mixture (cementitious material; abstract) comprising: one or more rigid forms (11) connected to form an inner rigid wall (figure 10); an inner inflatable air form (3), wherein the inner inflatable air form extends from the inner rigid wall (figure 10); one or more rigid forms (4) connected together to form an outer rigid wall (figure 10).
Heifetz does not specifically disclose an outer inflatable air form, wherein the outer inflatable wall extends from the outer rigid wall.
Stickler discloses a concrete mold (abstract) including an outer inflatable air form (6), wherein the outer inflatable wall extends from the outer rigid wall (in the combination, it is understood that the outer air form of Stickler would extend from the outer rigid wall of Heifetz).
Therefore, from the teaching of Stickler, 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 building method of Heifetz to include an outer inflatable air form, wherein the outer inflatable wall extends from the outer rigid wall, as taught by Stickler, in order to provide cover for the entire mixture to ensure the desired shape and curing speed of the concrete is optimized per the design requirements of the structure.
Regarding claim 15, Heifetz teaches inflating the air form before air form before pouring the moldable mixture (abstract).
Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heifetz (U.S. Patent No. 4,102,956) in view of Stickler (U.S. Patent No. 3,734,670), and in view of Bena (U.S. Patent No. 4,265,961).
Regarding claim 5, Heifetz does not specifically disclose the one or more rigid forms are a web of rebar, reinforcing mesh or basalt rebar.
Bena discloses a building device wherein one or more rigid forms are a web of rebar (skeleton 1).
Therefore, from the teaching of Bena, 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 building method of Heifetz such that the one or more rigid forms are a web of rebar, as taught by Bena, in order to further support the formed material by providing rebar that can remain in place and provide additional strength to the wall structure for a longer lasting construction.
Claim(s) 8, 13, and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heifetz (U.S. Patent No. 4,102,956) in view of Stickler (U.S. Patent No. 3,734,670), and in view of South (U.S. Patent No. 6,840,013).
Regarding claim 8, Heifetz does not specifically disclose cutting a doorway in the cured moldable mixture to detach and remove the inner air form and the inner structural wall.
South discloses an inflatable form assembly (abstract) including cutting a doorway in the cured moldable mixture to detach and remove the inner air form and the inner structural wall (col. 12, lines 8-10).
Therefore, from the teaching of South, 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 building method of Heifetz to include cutting a doorway in the cured moldable mixture to detach and remove the inner air form and the inner structural wall, as taught by South, in order to provide access to the final structure without requiring preformed molds to be placed within the formwork in order to expedite construction.
Regarding claim 13, Heifetz does not specifically disclose the moldable mixture is a foam cement.
South discloses an inflatable form assembly (abstract) including a moldable mixture with foam cement (abstract).
Therefore, from the teaching of South, 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 building method of Heifetz such that the moldable mixture is a foam cement, as taught by South, in order to provide a lightweight concrete construction in order to reduce the amount of formwork required and provide for a faster placement thereof.
Regarding claim 14, Heifetz does not specifically disclose the moldable mixture is hempcrete or a mixture infused with fiberglass, polymers, epoxies, plastics, or curable liquid insulators.
South discloses an inflatable form assembly (abstract) including a mixture with polymers (abstract).
Therefore, from the teaching of South, 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 building method of Heifetz such that the moldable mixture is a mixture with polymers, as taught by South, in order to provide a lightweight concrete construction in order to reduce the amount of formwork required and provide for a faster placement thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to air form construction methods in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR 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