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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 33. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 and subsequent dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the open ended base" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hafen et al (US 7,178,657), hereinafter Hafen.
Regarding claim 6, Hafen teaches an attachment for a concrete delivery chute (10, Fig 1-3) operable to receive and funnel concrete discharged from the concrete delivery chute comprising: a body (26) having an open front end (29) and a back end (28) opposite from the open front end (as shown in Fig 2), an opening (27) located between the open front end and the back end (as shown in Fig 2), an end wall (11) closing the back end of the body, a tube (19) secured to the body in alignment with the opening (as shown in Fig 3; Col 4, Ln 44-45), a pair of hooks (21) secured to the body adapted to attach the body to the concrete delivery chute (Col 4, Ln 9-11), and a foot (18) secured to the tube opposite from the body whereby concrete discharged into the body is directed through the tube and the foot and discharged from the open ended base (Col 4, Ln 47-49).
Hafen further teaches in claim 11 wherein: the body is a U-shaped body (Col 4, Ln 1), the end wall being an inwardly inclined end wall (Col 4, Ln 35-40), the inwardly inclined end wall having a bottom portion abutting a rear portion of the opening (as shown in Fig 1).
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafen, in view of Manno (US 7,506,672, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Hafen teaches substantially all features of the claimed invention except for a handle mounted on the body. Attention is directed to Manno that teaches a handle (60, Fig 1) mounted on the body (26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a handle mounted on the body, in view of Manno's teaching. Handles mounted on the body are often placed to aid in placement of concrete chutes.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafen, in view of Galvin (US 8,522,948, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 8-9, Hafen teaches substantially all features of the claimed invention except for a collar surrounding the foot and the tube securing the foot to the tube, and wherein the collar is a removable collar releasably securing the foot to the tube.
Attention is directed to Galvin that teaches in claim 8 a collar (42) surrounding the foot and the tube securing the foot to the tube (Fig 1) and in claim 9 wherein the collar is a removable collar releasably securing the foot to the tube (inherent feature of a conventional clamp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a removable collar releasably securing the foot to the tube, in view of Galvin's teaching. Concrete hardens therefore it is necessary to have parts that comes in contact with concrete that can be removed and cleaned after each use.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafen.
Regarding claim 10, Hafen is silent regarding a bracket secured to the body opposite from the handle supporting the body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to add a bracket secured to the body as a matter or design choice, since it was known in the art that brackets used to provide support is old and well known and widely practiced. Applicant also has not disclosed that the bracket achieves any unexpected result other than providing support for the body. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify Hafen to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been a mere design consideration. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 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.
Claims 12-14 would also be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-5 and 15-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance: claims 1, 15 are allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
The prior art of record, Hafen et al (US 7,178,657), does not teach “the foot having an inwardly converting top end joined to the downwardly directed discharge tube, the foot having an open ended base extending downwardly from the inwardly converging top end opposite the downwardly directed discharge tube, funneling the pourable concrete through the foot and the open ended base whereby pourable concrete is discharged into the concrete form” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 1.
The prior art of record, Hafen et al (US 7,178,657), does not teach “providing the foot with an open ended base, funneling the pourable concrete through the foot and the open ended base whereby pourable concrete is discharged into the concrete form” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 15.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,007,821 to Schiffelbein is directed to the state of the art as relevant teachings of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 AM- 6 PM 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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/JENNIFER C CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754