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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II encompassed in claims 14-15, 18, 20-25, 27, 30, 32, 34, 37 and 40 in the reply filed on 02/06/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 14, 15, 18, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakaguchi Nobuhiro JP3172374 B2 (hereinafter ‘Sakaguchi’).
In regard to claim 14, Sakaguchi teaches a rebar installation device (fig. 1), comprising:
an upper rebar-engaging body defining an upper rebar-receiving cavity (1); and
at least two supporting members (2) secured to or formed integral with the upper rebar-engaging body, said at least two supporting members being spaced apart from each other (fig. 1);
wherein each of said at least two supporting members defines a lower rebar-receiving cavity (4); and wherein the lower rebar-receiving cavities of said at least two supporting members are in register with each other (as seen in figs. 1-2).
In regard to claim 15, Sakaguchi teaches the upper rebar-engaging body comprises two upper rebar-engaging members and an upper portion between them and connecting them to each other thereby at least partially delimiting the upper bar-receiving cavity (see figures, note that the cavity is a V shape cavity, the members are the two legs of the V while the upper portion between them is the junction where the bar sits); the upper engaging members are slightly inclined as claimed in two opposite directions (they have a V shape).
In regard to claim 18, Sakaguchi teaches the claimed invention wherein each upper rebar-engaging member defines an acute angle with the vertical direction (note that the angle is formed between the member and the vertical portion 3 -see fig. 3).
In regard to claim 40, Sakaguchi teaches the device is for use in forming concrete structures (see [0001] of Applicant’s provided machine translation).
Alternatively, for claim 15:
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.
Claims 15, 18, 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi as applied to claim 14 above and in view of Golledge et al. US 2015/0075110 A1 (hereinafter ‘Golledge’).
In regard to claim 15, Sakaguchi teaches the upper rebar-engaging body comprises two upper rebar-engaging members (3) and an upper portion (V-shaped cavity) between them and connecting them to each other thereby at least partially delimiting the upper bar-receiving cavity (see figures, note that the cavity is a V shape cavity which connects members 3).
The upper engaging members of Sakaguchi are not slightly inclined as claimed in two opposite directions with respect to a vertical direction.
Golledge teaches a rebar installation device comprising two rebar engaging members (30a) and an upper portion connecting them and at least partially delimiting an upper bar-receiving cavity (26). The upper engaging members being inclined with respect to a vertical direction in two opposite directions (See fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filling date of the instant application, to provide the rebar engaging members of Sakaguchi having a slight inclination with respect to a vertical direction, as taught by Golledge, because this arrangement provides more stability to the device.
In regard to claim 18, the combination of Sakaguchi/Golledge teaches the claimed invention wherein each upper rebar-engaging member defines an acute angle with the vertical direction (see Golledge fig. 2).
In regard to claim 20, the combination of Sakaguchi/Golledge teaches the claimed invention wherein the two upper rebar-engaging members substantially converge toward each other at junctions between the corresponding upper rebar-engaging member and the upper portion (as taught by Golledge in fig. 2).
In regard to claims 21 and 22, the combination of Sakaguchi/Golledge teaches the claimed invention wherein the upper portion comprises two substantially inclined parts (V legs, at 1- see Sakaguchi) so that the upper portion is substantially V-shaped (1 -Sakaguchi) forming a concavity delimiting the cavity (see Sakaguchi fig. 3).
In regard to claim 23, the combination of Sakaguchi/Golledge teaches the claimed invention wherein the lower bar-receiving cavity is at least partially delimited by a portion of the corresponding upper rebar-engaging member and by a portion of the corresponding supporting member (see Sakaguchi’s figs. 1-3).
In regard to claim 24, the combination of Sakaguchi/Golledge teaches the claimed invention wherein the at least two supporting members are substantially parallel to each other and extend in a vertical direction (see Sakaguchi fig. 3), wherein each of the two supporting members is substantially bent to form a concavity delimiting at least partially the corresponding lower rebar-receiving cavity (See concavity 4 in fig. 2).
Claims 25, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi and Golledge as applied to claim 24 and in view Sullivan US 4,132,045 (hereinafter ‘Sullivan’).
In regard to claim 25, the combination of Sakaguchi/Golledge does not explicitly teach the lower rebar-receiving cavities open towards opposed directions.
Sullivan teaches a rebar installation device comprising two rebar receiving cavities that open towards opposed directions (see figs 2 and 3, note that the bending of elements 28/30 and 22/24 create cavities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filling date of the instant application, to provide the rebar engaging members of the combination, bended in opposite directions as taught by Sullivan to as to provide more stability and firmly secure the bar (see Sullivan fig. 3) that goes in the lower receiving cavities.
In regard to claim 27, the combination teaches each of the two supporting members comprises a rebar-maintaining protrusion at least partially delimiting a rebar engaging apertures opening into the corresponding lower rebar-receiving cavity (see round protrusion 7 in Sakaguchi fig. 1-note that 7 at least partially delimits the engaging apertures of the lower-receiving cavity); wherein each of the two supporting members comprises a flat bottom surface (5 in Sakaguchi fig. 2-3); wherein each of the at least two supporting members comprises a flat bottom surface (see 5 in figs. 1 and 3 of Sakaguchi); and
wherein each of the at least two supporting members comprises a supporting part forming at least partially the flat bottom surface and an opposed rebar-guiding part (6).
In regard to claim 30, the combination teaches the rebar guiding part is dividable into a cavity-delimiting portion and an opposed outer portion (each of the legs of the upside-down V shape part 6); and
wherein the cavity-delimiting and outer portions are inclined with respect to each other (each of the legs of the V shape are inclined as claimed).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi as applied to claim 14 above.
In regard to claim 37, Sakaguchi teaches the device is for installing upper and lower rebars in a concrete structure by engaging two spaced apart portions of a lower rebar and a portion of an upper rebar with the lower and upper rebar-receiving cavities respectively (see figs. 11-13 and [0023] of Applicant’s provided machine translation).
Sakaguchi does not explicitly recite the bars and device are arranged in a concrete structure form space.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the device of Sakaguchi on the floor of a concrete form, in order to provide support for the reinforcement in the concrete slab of Sakaguchi in [0001].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 34 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:
For claim 32, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the rebar installation device of claim 30 wherein each rebar-maintaining protrusion forms a junction between the cavity-delimiting and outer portions of the rebar guiding part of the corresponding support member, and wherein the cavity delimiting portion extends downwardly from the rebar maintaining protrusion towards the lower rebar receiving cavity as recited within the context of the claim.
For claim 34, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the rebar installation device of claim 27 wherein an acute angle is created between the cavity-delimiting portion and the corresponding upper rebar-engaging member; and wherein the cavity-delimiting portion substantially converges toward the upper rebar-engaging member as recited within the context of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 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 E Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633