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
Claims 12-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claims 12-19: It appears “The form liner produced according to a manufacturing process” should be --The form liner-- for consistency of the claim language. Further regarding claims 14-15, the claims should end in a period.
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)(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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (US 5,002,817).
With regard to claim 20: Jones discloses a form liner (10) for concrete (figs. 1, 3 and 8-9) comprising:
a substrate material (planar sheet A) (figs. 1, 3, and 8-9; col. 3, lines 49-54);
an expandable foam material (expanded plastic foam) in a desired pattern (longitudinal ribs 26 and transverse ribs 28) on the substrate material (A) (figs. 1, 3 and 8-9; abstract);
the expandable foam material (expanded plastic foam) being a stiff material that is cured and forms an impression design on the substrate material (A) providing the substrate material (A) the desired pattern for use as the form liner (10) for concrete (figs. 1, 3 and 8-10; abstract).
The form liner being produced according to a manufacturing process comprising: providing the substrate material; printing the expandable foam material in a liquid state in the desired pattern on the substrate material; curing the expandable foam material such that the expandable foam material is stiffened and forms the impression design on the substrate material to provide the desired pattern for use as the form liner for concrete are considered product by process limitations.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1: Jones (US 5,002,817)
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) 1-5 and 7-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passeno (US 6,041,567) in view of Jones (US 5,002,817).
With regard to claim 1: Passeno discloses a form liner (10) for concrete (figs. 1-4; abstract), comprising:
a substrate material (O) (fig. 3);
a barrier substance (M) on the substrate material (O) in an outline form (supporting a major surface of bricks 24) of a desired pattern (figs. 2-3);
a material (forming lateral ribs 14 and transverse ribs 16) between the outline form (supporting a major surface of bricks 24) of the barrier substance (M) to provide the desired pattern on the substate material for use as the form liner for concrete (fig. 3).
Passeno discloses that the form liner (10) is preferably manufactured of any elastomeric material or any other material that can stripped away with ease (col. 4, lines 24-27).
Passeno does not disclose that the material between the outline form of the barrier substance is an expandable foam material.
However, Jones discloses a form liner (10) for concrete (figs. 1, 3 and 8-9), the form liner made of an expandable foam material (expanded plastic foam) (figs. 1, 3 and 8-9; abstract).
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 form liner of Passeno to be made of expandable foam material such as taught by Jones in order to provide a form liner material that is light weight for ease of transport, installation and/or removal. Passeno as modified by Jones would result in the material between the outline form of the barrier substance to be an expandable foam material. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the form liner of Passeno to be made of another known form liner material comprising expandable form such as taught by Jones. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The form liner being produced according to a manufacturing process comprising: providing the substrate material, printing the barrier substance onto the substrate material in the outline form of the desired pattern, printing the expandable foam material in a liquid state between the outline form of the barrier substance, and curing the expandable foam material such that the expandable foam material is stiffened on the substrate material between the outline form of the barrier substance to provide the desired pattern on the substrate material for use as the form liner for concrete” are considered product by process limitations (emphasis added).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
PNG
media_image2.png
376
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3: Passeno (US 6,041,567)
With regard to claim 2: Passeno as modified by Jones discloses that the claimed structure of the form liner including the cured expandable foam material, which would form a flexible joint on the substrate material.
With regard to claim 3: Passeno as modified by Jones discloses that the flexible joint is compressed by a textured form (brick) pressing between the cured expandable foam material.
Examiner notes that the compressing of the flexible joint by pressing a texture form between the cured expandable foam material is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 4: Passeno as modified by Jones discloses that the flexible joint is compressed by a blockout form (brick) pressing between the cured expandable foam material.
Examiner notes that the compressing of the flexible joint by pressing a blockout form between the cured expandable foam material is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 5: Passeno as modified by Jones discloses that the flexible joint is compressed by embeddable object(brick) pressing between the cured expandable foam material.
Examiner notes that the compressing of the flexible joint by pressing a embeddable object between the cured expandable foam material is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 7: Passeno discloses an undercut joint profile (at lower ends of 14 and 16) to accommodate a blockout form (brick 24) for an embeddable object (figs. 1 and 3-4).
Passeno notes that the forming of an undercut joint profile to accommodate the blockout form for an embeddable object is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 8: Passeno discloses an undercut joint profile (at lower ends of 14 and 16) to accommodate a texture form (brick 24) for an embeddable object (figs. 1 and 3-4).
Passeno notes that the forming of an undercut joint profile to accommodate the texture form for an embeddable object is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 9: The substate material of Passeno comprises a surface texture (smooth) (figs. 1-4).
Examiner notes that providing the substrate material with a surface texture prior to printing operations is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 10: The substate material of Passeno comprises a surface texture (smooth) (figs. 1-4).
Examiner notes that providing the substrate material with a surface texture after printing operations is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 11: Passeno as modified by Jones discloses that the expandable foam material forms a grout line (between bricks) of the desired pattern.
Examiner notes that the expandable foam material being printed as a grout line of the desired pattern is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 12: Passeno discloses a reservoir (between M) with the barrier substance (M) retaining the material (14 and 16) (fig. 3). Passeno as modified by Jones discloses the material is the expandable material.
Examiner notes that forming the reservoir with the barrier substance for the expandable foam material to retain the expandable foam material in the liquid state in a desired position on the substrate material during curing of the expandable foam material is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 13: Examiner notes that customizing the form liner for concrete to a particular job is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 14: Examiner notes that customizing a size of the form liner for concrete is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 15: Passeno discloses that the form liner (10) comprises courses (rows) (fig. 2).
Examiner notes that customizing a coursing of the form liner for concrete is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 16: Examiner notes that providing the substrate material is on a substrate sheet is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 17: Examiner notes that providing the substrate material is on a substrate roll is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 18: Passeno discloses a pocket (receiving 24) in the desired pattern on the substrate material (O) (figs. 1-4).
Examiner notes that forming the pocket in the desired pattern on the substrate material is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 19: Passeno does not disclose a concrete curing retardant integrated into the pocket in the desired pattern on the substrate material, to reduce or eliminate a need for waxing an object to be embedded in the pocket.
However, Jones further discloses a concrete curing retardant (water soluble concrete retardant) on the pattern surfaces of the liners (col. 5, line 60 – col. 6, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the form liner of Passeno previously modified by Jones to coat pattern surfaces with concrete curing retardant such as further taught by Jones in order to allow for ease of removal of the form liner from concrete. Passeno as modified Jones would result in the concrete curing retardant integrated into the pocket.
Examiner notes that integrating a concrete curing retardant into the pocket in the desired pattern on the substrate material, to reduce or eliminate a need for waxing an object to be embedded in the pocket is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passeno (US 6,041,567) in view of Jones (US 5,002,817) and in further view of Potvin (US 2001/0020669 A1).
With regard to claim 6: Passeno in view of Jones does not disclose identifying markings on the form liner.
However, Potvin discloses a form liner comprising pockets (60 and 72) including indicia corresponding to a color or shade (fig. 6; par. [0069])
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 form liner of Passeno previously modified by Jones to include identifying markings such as taught by Potvin in order a provide a means of identifying corresponding colors or shades for a desired aesthetic.
Examiner notes that adding the identifying markings to the form liner for concrete by laser or cnc router is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to foam liners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633