DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is believed line 2 should read “shaped to fit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, 15-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stewart (US PGPub No 2017/0321419).
Referring to claim 1: Stewart teaches a collapsible formwork element, the element including: a pair of opposing side wall panels (items 16 and 16’); and at least one connector member (item 14) extending between the side wall panels, wherein the at least one connector member includes at least two hinge portions (item 206) that permit movement of the element between an expanded configuration, wherein the opposing panels are spaced apart, and a collapsed configuration, wherein the opposing panels are relatively closer together.
Referring to claim 2: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches the at least one connector member includes a centre panel between a pair of hinged ends provided by the hinge portions (figure 13).
Referring to claim 3: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches the hinged ends are configured to be engaged with the side wall panels (figure 6).
Referring to claim 6: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches wherein the hinge portions are provided by a narrowing or thinning in the connector member (figure 18).
Referring to claim 7: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches wherein the hinge portions are provided by a relative reduction in connector member thickness so as to provide a fold line that permits bending of the connector member (figure 18).
Referring to claim 8: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches wherein the at least one connector member is realisably attachable between the opposing side panels (figure 6).
Referring to claim 9: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches wherein the opposing side wall panels include slots therein to respectively receive the hinged ends of the least one connector member via a sliding engagement (figure 6).
Referring to claim 10: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches wherein the hinged ends of the at least one connector member are shaped fit the slots so as to provide a frictional engagement therein (figure 6).
Referring to claim 11: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches wherein, in the expanded configuration, the centre panel of the at least one connector member extends substantially perpendicular to the opposing side wall members (figure 3).
Referring to claim 12: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches wherein the formwork element includes a plurality of connector members (figures 3 and 6).
Referring to claim 15: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches wherein the side wall panels include one or more channels (item 106) therein extending substantially vertically therethrough.
Referring to claim 16: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches wherein the one or more channels include an insulating material therein (items 16 and 16’ are themselves insulation).
Referring to claim 17: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches the lateral ends of the opposing side wall panels include engagement portions for engagement with like collapsible formwork elements so as to allow formation of a formwork structure comprised of a plurality of the collapsible formwork elements (items 74 and 78).
Referring to claim 19: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Stewart teaches in the collapsed configuration, the distance between the opposing walls panels is less than 1/3 the distance between the opposing wall panels in the expanded configuration (figures 3 and 6).
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) 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart.
Referring to claim 13: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Stewart does not specifically teach wherein the formwork element is configured to snap lock into the expanded configuration. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the locking mechanism of Stewart (item 244) would provide the “snap lock” required by the instant claim to secure it in the expanded configuration.
Referring to claim 20: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Stewart does not specifically teach wherein the at least one connector member and side wall panels are each separately formed as single extruded pieces. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the individual elements of Stewart are each created separately such as extrusion and assembled to create the final product
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart in view of Pfeiffer (US PGPub No 2014/0260055).
Referring to claim 18: Stewart teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Stewart does not specifically teach the engagement portions are configured to provide snap lock engagement between neighbouring formwork elements. However, Pfeiffer teaches the engagement portions are configured to provide snap lock engagement between neighbouring formwork elements (figure 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Stewart with the locking configuration taught by Pfeiffer in order to create a stronger connection between abutting formwall sections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,920,345. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant invention are broader and require fewer limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, , and 14 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 as well as remediation of the Double Patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635