DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-15 and 17-22 are pending.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 16 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/3/25 has been entered.
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, 3, 5, 7-15 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US 4,958,800) in view of Plough (US 3,917,216).
At the outset, it is noted that the term “standard” in the phrase, “standard clamp” is not intpereted as a relative term due to being identified in at least Fig. 14E-F.
Re claim 1, Carlson discloses a formwork system (2), comprising:
a first formwork panel (3) having a first inner rail (8) abutting against (Fig. 1) a first rear surface (rear surface of 3) of a first form face (face of 3);
a second formwork panel (another adjacent 3) having a second inner rail (8) abutting against (Fig. 1) a second rear surface (rear surface of an adjacent 3) of a second form face (face of an adjacent 3);
an interior corner form (1) having an interior corner bracket (1), the interior corner bracket (1) having a first member (12) including a first inner surface (inner surface of 12) and a first outer surface (opposite outer surface 12) and a second member (13) including a second inner surface (inner surface of 13) and a second outer surface (opposite outer surface 13); and
wherein the first member (12) and the second member (13) are hingedly attached (at 17) via a hinge (28; Col 1 lines 27-33) located at an intersection between (Fig. 5) the first member (12) and the second member (13),
wherein the first inner surface (inner surface of the left side of 1) faces (Fig. 1) the second outer surface (opposite outer surface of the right side of 1; per the L-shape of bracket 1); and
a first coupling (29 at 14) between the first formwork panel (3) and the interior corner form (1), wherein the coupling (29 at 14) is a removable member (Col 2 lines 57-60 disclosing bolts) configured to allow the uncoupling and recoupling (29 being a bolt) of the first formwork panel (3) and the interior corner form (1),
a second coupling (29 at 14) between the second formwork panel (an adjacent 3) and the interior corner form (1), wherein the second coupling (29 at 14) is a removable member (Col 2 lines 57-60 disclosing bolts) configured to allow the uncoupling and recoupling (29 being a bolt) of the second formwork panel (an adjacent 3) and the interior corner form (1),
but fails to disclose the first coupling as a standard clamp, and the second coupling as a standard clamp.
However, Plough discloses the first coupling (Fig. 5 40 on the left) as a standard clamp (40; where “clamp” is defined as “a device designed to bind or constrict or to press two or more parts together so as to hold them firmly” per Merriam-Webster), and the second coupling (40 on the right) as a standard clamp (40; where “clamp” is defined as “a device designed to bind or constrict or to press two or more parts together so as to hold them firmly” per Merriam-Webster).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson with the first coupling as a the first coupling as a standard clamp, and the second coupling as a standard clamp as disclosed by Plough in order to tool-lessly and non-threadedly connect the corner form to the panels.
Re claim 3, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first standard clamp and/or the second standard clamp comprises steel.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson wherein the first standard clamp and/or the second standard clamp comprises steel in order to use an inexpensive, formable, readily available, durable material, as steel is very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 5, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 1 further comprising: a first side rail (4) between the first inner rail (8) and the interior corner form (1).
Re claim 7, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the interior corner form comprises extruded aluminum.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson wherein the interior corner form comprises extruded aluminum in order to use an inexpensive, formable, readily available, durable material, as aluminum is very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 8, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 7, wherein the extruded aluminum (per the above) comprises an L-shaped cross-section (12/13).
Re claim 9, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 7, wherein the interior corner form (1) comprises a hinge (28) disposed between (Fig. 1) the first member (12) and the second member (13), but fails to disclose the hinge as aluminum.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson wherein the hinge is aluminum in order to use an inexpensive, formable, readily available, durable material, as aluminum is very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 10, Carlson as modified as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 9, the first formwork panel (3) further comprising a plurality of additional inner rails (8), but fails to disclose wherein a first of the plurality of additional inner rails is steel and a second of the plurality of additional inner rails is wood.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson wherein a first of the plurality of additional inner rails is steel in order to use an inexpensive, formable, readily available material, as steel is very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson with a second of the plurality of additional inner rails is wood in order to use an inexpensive, formable, readily available material, as wood is very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 11, Carlson discloses a formwork system (2), comprising:
a first panel (3) comprising a first inner rail (8), a first corner casting (12; “casting” being product by process) and a first side rail (4),
wherein the first inner rail (8) and the first side rail (4) abut against (Fig. 1) a first rear surface (rear surface of 3) of a first form face (face of 3);
wherein the first inner rail (8), the first corner casting (12) and the first side rail (4) are interconnected (Fig. 5) at a first coupling (29 at 14);
a second panel (another adjacent 3) comprising a second inner rail (8), a second corner casting (13; “casting” being product by process) and a second side rail (4),
wherein the second inner rail (8) and the second side rail (4) abut against (Fig. 1) a second rear surface (rear surface of an adjacent 3) of a second form face (face of an adjacent 3);
wherein the second inner rail (8), the second corner casting (13) and the second side rail (4) are interconnected (Fig. 5) at a second coupling (29 at 14);
an interior corner form (1) having an interior corner bracket (1), the interior corner bracket (1) having a first member (12) including a first inner surface (inner surface of 12) and a first outer surface (opposite outer surface 12) and a second member (13) including a second inner surface (inner surface of 13) and a second outer surface (opposite outer surface 13);
wherein the first member (12) and the second member (13) are hingedly attached (at 17) via a hinge (28; Col 1 lines 27-33) located at an intersection between (Fig. 5) the first member (12) and the second member (13),
a coupling (29 at 14) between the first panel (3) and the interior corner form (1), wherein the coupling (29 at 14) is removable (Col 2 lines 57-60 disclosing bolts) and configured to allow the uncoupling and recoupling (29 being a bolt) of the first formwork panel (3) and the interior corner form (1),
a second coupling (29 at 14) between the second panel (an adjacent 3) and the interior corner form (1), wherein the second coupling (29 at 14) is removable (Col 2 lines 57-60 disclosing bolts) and configured to allow the uncoupling and recoupling (29 being a bolt) of the second panel (an adjacent 3) and the interior corner form (1),
but fails to disclose the first coupling as press fit, and the second coupling as a press fit.
However, Plough discloses the first coupling (Fig. 5 40 on the left) as press fit (Fig. 5, 40 being pressed into the slots) and the second coupling (40 on the right) as press fit (Fig. 5, 40 being pressed into the slots).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson with the first coupling as press fit, and the second coupling as press fit as disclosed by Plough in order to tool-lessly and non-threadedly connect the corner form to the panels.
It should further be noted that the language “casting” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 12, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the first coupling and the second coupling are each a clip.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson wherein the first coupling and the second coupling are each a clip order to simplify installation and removal in a tool-less manner, and since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
Re claim 13, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the first coupling and the second coupling are comprised of steel.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson wherein the first coupling and the second coupling are comprised of steel in order to use an inexpensive, formable, readily available, durable material, as steel is very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 14, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 11, wherein the first coupling (29) and the second coupling (29) are a press fit coupling, a screwed coupling (29 being a bolt) or a riveted coupling.
Re claim 15, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 11 wherein the first side rail (4) is between the first inner rail (8) and the interior corner form (1).
Re claim 17, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the interior corner form comprises extruded aluminum.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson wherein the interior corner form comprises extruded aluminum in order to use an inexpensive, formable, readily available, durable material, as aluminum is very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 18, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 17 wherein the extruded aluminum (per the above) comprises an L-shaped cross-section (12/13).
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson wherein the extruded aluminum comprises an L-shaped cross-section in order to utilize a simple, strong, easy to manufacture shape. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 19, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 17, wherein the interior corner form (1) comprises a hinge (28) disposed between (Fig. 1) the first member (12) and the second member (13), but fails to disclose the hinge as aluminum.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson wherein the hinge is aluminum in order to use an inexpensive, formable, readily available, durable material, as aluminum is very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 20, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 19, further comprising: a plurality of additional inner rails (8), but fails to disclose wherein a first of the plurality of additional inner rails is steel and a second of the plurality of additional inner rails is wood.
In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson wherein a first of the plurality of additional inner rails is steel in order to use an inexpensive, formable, readily available material, as steel is very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson with a second of the plurality of additional inner rails is wood in order to use an inexpensive, formable, readily available material, as wood is very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 21, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 1, the interior corner bracket (1) further comprising a spanner member (18), wherein the spanning member (18) is attached (Col 2 line 65-Col 3 line 5) to the first member (12) and is attached to the second member (13), but fails to disclose the attachment as removably attached.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson with the attachment as removably attached in order to allow the system to be broken down into smaller units for shipping and/or transportation. It has been held that making seperable is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522.
Re claim 22, Carlson as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 11, the interior corner bracket (1) further comprising a spanner member (18), wherein the spanning member (18) is attached (Col 2 line 65-Col 3 line 5) to the first member (12) and is attached to the second member (13), but fails to disclose the attachment as removably attached.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Carlson with the attachment as removably attached in order to allow the system to be broken down into smaller units for shipping and/or transportation. It has been held that making seperable is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered and are persuasive. Rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112 (for the reasons stated in the previous rejection) are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102/103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended language of claim 1. This language is addressed in view of Plough in the above.
Applicant argues the amended language of claim 11. This language is addressed in view of Plough in the above.
Regarding claims 21-22, Applicant argues that Carlson does not disclose the attachment as being removably attached. Applicant argues that in this instance, a person of ordinary skill would not modify the teachings of Carlson to make 18 separately because it states that 18 is welded to the hinge strips which cannot be made removable. Nothing in Carlson states that 18 cannot be made removable. It is well within the level of ordinary skill to make elements removable and/or separable. Making 18 removable would allow the system to be broken down into smaller units for shipping and/or transportation. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would make the spanning member removably attached.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635