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, 3-11, 13-20 are pending.
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
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, 3-11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogensberger (US 2006/0157636) in view of Reilly (US 3,666,298) and Rojas Pimienta (US 2012/0286134).
Re claim 1, Bogensberger discloses a formwork panel (10; [0027]), comprising:
a side rail (12) having a first recess (108; see [0031] as applied to 12), a first inner surface (inner surface of 12), and a first outer surface (outer surface of 12), the first inner (inner surface of 12) and first outer surfaces (outer surface of 12) extending between (Fig. 2) outermost top (top surface of 12) and bottom surfaces (bottom surface of 12) of the side rail (12);
an end rail (14) having a second recess (108), a second inner surface (inner surface of 14), and a second outer surface (outer surface of 14),
a corner fitting (100) having a first arm (106) extending outwardly in a first direction (Fig. 3) and a second arm (106; see [0031]) extending outwardly in a second direction (Fig. 3); and
a form face (50) disposed on (Fig. 1) the first outer surface (outer surface of 12) and the second outer surface (outer surface of 14), the form face (50) being configured to be adjacent to poured concrete ([0002]),
wherein the corner fitting (100) is configured to couple (Fig. 3) the side rail (12) and the end rail (14) together (Fig. 2) when the first arm (106) is positioned within (Fig. 3) the first recess (108) and the second arm (106) is received by (Fig. 3) the second recess (108), and
wherein the first direction (Fig. 3 along 106) is transverse to (Fig. 3) the second direction (Fig. 3 along the other 106),
but fails to disclose the first recess extending through a length of the side rail and defined by a circumferential edge of the side rail extending around the first recess, the corner fitting as removable, and the removable corner fitting further configured to be uncoupled from and recoupled to the side rail, and a port integrated into the formwork panel, the port extending through at least the form face and being configure to receive a tie.
However, Reilly discloses the first recess (interior of 42) extending through a length (Fig. 8) of the side rail (42) and defined by a circumferential edge (edge of the recess interior to 42) of the side rail (42) extending around the first recess (interior to 42), the corner fitting (10) as removable (10; Abstract disclosing resalable joining), and), the removable corner fitting (10) further configured to be uncoupled from and recoupled to (Abstract disclosing resalable joining) the side rail (42).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date it would have been of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Bogensberger with the first recess extending through a length of the side rail and defined by a circumferential edge of the side rail extending around the first recess, the corner fitting as removable, and the removable corner fitting further configured to be uncoupled from and recoupled to the side rail as disclosed by Reilly in order to provide releasable joining (Abstract), provide a press-fit connection (Col 1 lines 44-45), and/or to provide a slide-in connection which aids in alignment during assembly.
In addition, Rojas Pimienta discloses a port (Fig. 2, which receives 3; 9) integrated into the formwork panel (1), the port (which receives 3; 9) extending through at least the form face (8) and being configure to receive a tie (3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date it would have been of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Bogensberger with a port integrated into the formwork panel, the port extending through at least the form face and being configure to receive a tie as disclosed by Rojas Pimienta in order to space the formwork panel from adjacent panels a required distance ([0023]).
Re claim 3, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 1, wherein the removable corner fitting (100) couples the side rail (12) to the end rail (14) at a ninety degree angle (Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
Re claim 4, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 1, wherein the removable corner fitting (100) is screwed, riveted (42) or bolted to the side rail (12) and/or the end rail (14).
Re claim 5, Bogensberger as modified the formwork panel as recited in claim 1, wherein the removable corner fitting (100) is connected to (Fig. 1, Fig. 3; [0031]) the side rail (12).
Re claim 6, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 5, wherein the removable corner fitting (100) comprises steel ([0031]).
Re claim 7, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 5, wherein the removable corner fitting (100) connects the side rail (12) to the end rail (14) at a ninety-degree angle (Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
Re claim 8, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 1, further comprising: at least one additional removable corner fitting (100, see Fig. 1 showing 100 at each corner), wherein at least one of the removable corner fittings (100) is a cast, a forged, a molded or a pressed fitting (as this language is product by process).
It should further be noted that the language “cast, a forged, a molded or a pressed fitting” 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 9, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one additional removable corner fitting is connected to another side rail via a third recess on the another side rail receiving a third arm from the at least one additional removable corner fitting.
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 panel of Bogensberger wherein the at least one additional removable corner fitting is connected to another side rail via a third recess on the another side rail receiving a third arm from the at least one additional removable corner fitting in order to create a larger tubular structure. In addition, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 10, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 9, wherein the at least one additional removable corner fitting (100) comprises steel ([0031]).
Re claim 11, Bogensberger discloses a formwork system (10; [0027]), comprising:
a formwork panel (10; [0027]), comprising:
a side rail (12) having a first recess (108; see [0031] as applied to 12), a first inner surface (inner surface of 12), and a first outer surface (outer surface of 12), the first inner (inner surface of 12) and first outer surfaces (outer surface of 12) extending between (Fig. 2) outermost top (top surface of 12) and bottom surfaces (bottom surface of 12) of the side rail (12);
an end rail (14) having a second recess (108), a second inner surface (inner surface of 14), and a second outer surface (outer surface of 14),
a corner fitting (100) having a first arm (106) extending outwardly in a first direction (Fig. 3) and a second arm (106; see [0031]) extending outwardly in a second direction (Fig. 3); and
a form face (50) disposed on (Fig. 1) the first outer surface (outer surface of 12),
wherein the corner fitting (100) is configured to couple (Fig. 3) the side rail (12) and the end rail (14) together (Fig. 2) when the first arm (106) is positioned within (Fig. 3) the first recess (108) and the second arm (106) is received by (Fig. 3) the second recess (108), and
wherein the first direction (Fig. 3 along 106) is transverse to (Fig. 3) the second direction (Fig. 3 along the other 106),
but fails to disclose the first recess extending through a length of the side rail and defined by an edge of the side rail extending around the first recess, the corner fitting as removable, and the removable corner fitting further configured to be uncoupled from and recoupled to the side rail, and a port integrated into the formwork panel, the port extending through at least the form face and being configure to receive a tie.
However, Reilly discloses the first recess (interior of 42) extending through a length (Fig. 8) of the side rail (42) and defined by an edge (edge of the recess interior to 42) of the side rail (42) extending around the first recess (interior to 42), the corner fitting (10) as removable (10; Abstract disclosing resalable joining), and), the removable corner fitting (10) further configured to be uncoupled from and recoupled to (Abstract disclosing resalable joining) the side rail (42).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date it would have been of the claimed invention to modify the formwork system of Bogensberger with the first recess extending through a length of the side rail and defined by an edge of the side rail extending around the first recess, the corner fitting as removable, and the removable corner fitting further configured to be uncoupled from and recoupled to the side rail as disclosed by Reilly in order to provide releasable joining (Abstract), provide a press-fit connection (Col 1 lines 44-45), and/or to provide a slide-in connection which aids in alignment during assembly.
In addition, 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 Bogensberger to have a plurality of formwork panels in order to provide for a larger structure and to provide more space for insertion of material to the interior of the framing structure. In addition, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
In addition, Rojas Pimienta discloses a port (Fig. 2, which receives 3; 9) integrated into the formwork panel (1), the port (which receives 3; 9) extending through at least the form face (8) and being configure to receive a tie (3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date it would have been of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Bogensberger with a port integrated into the formwork panel, the port extending through at least the form face and being configure to receive a tie as disclosed by Rojas Pimienta in order to space the formwork panel from adjacent panels a required distance ([0023]).
Re claim 13, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 11, wherein the removable corner fitting (100) couples the side rail (12) to the end rail (14) at a ninety degree angle (Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
Re claim 14, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 11, wherein the removable corner fitting (100) is screwed, riveted (42) or bolted to the side rail (12) and/or the end rail (14).
Re claim 15, Bogensberger as modified the formwork system as recited in claim 11, wherein the removable corner fitting (100) is connected to (Fig. 1, Fig. 3; [0031]) the side rail (12).
Re claim 16, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 15, wherein the removable corner fitting (100) comprises steel ([0031]).
Re claim 17, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 15, wherein the removable corner fitting (100) connects the side rail (12) to the end rail (14) at a ninety-degree angle (Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
Re claim 18, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 11, but fails to disclose further comprising: at least one additional removable corner fitting (100, see Fig. 1 showing 100 at each corner), wherein at least one of the removable corner fittings (100) is a cast, a forged, a molded or a pressed fitting (as this language is product by process).
It should further be noted that the language “cast, a forged, a molded or a pressed fitting” 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 19, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 18, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one additional removable corner fitting is connected to another side rail via a third recess on the another side rail receiving a third arm from the at least one additional removable corner fitting.
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 Bogensberger wherein the at least one additional removable corner fitting is connected to another side rail via a third recess on the another side rail receiving a third arm from the at least one additional removable corner fitting in order to create a larger tubular structure. In addition, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 20, Bogensberger as modified discloses the formwork system as recited in claim 19, wherein the at least one additional removable corner fitting (100) comprises steel ([0031]).
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 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Reilly fails to disclose the amended language concerning the claimed port. Reilly is no longer relied upon as a primary reference, and is not relied upon in the above as disclosing the claimed port. This feature is instead disclosed by Rojas Pimienta.
Applicant argues that Bogensberger also fails to disclose the amended language concerning the claimed port. Bogensberger is not relied upon in the above as disclosing the claimed port. This feature is instead disclosed by Rojas Pimienta.
Applicant’s arguments concerning dependent claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights