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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/26 has been entered.
In addition, per Applicant’s 2/19/26 Remarks concerning the Supplemental Response, the Supplemental Response is entered and the claims being treated are those as presented therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter type rejection.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites that the side rail has a first recess, a first inner surface, a first outer surface, an outermost top surface, and a bottom surface. Thus, the side rail requires at least four distinct surfaces. It is not readily apparent which surfaces these correspond to in the figures. However, there are two scenarios the Examiner can determine. The first is that the four surfaces are all surfaces on the outside of the recess, forming a rectangular or square body. The second is that the outer surface is the entire outside of the body, the inner surfaces is the surface defining the recess on the inside of the body, and the top and bottom surfaces are top and bottom surfaces of the body. In this situation, the outer surface of the body requires at least three distinct surfaces. In addition, claim 1 recites, that the recess is defined by “a circumferential edge.” A “circumferential edge” requires at least a degree of curvature of the edge of the recess. However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this combination of features. The combination of features requires (1) a curved edge recess and a rectangular or square body or (2) a curved edge recess and a three sided body. The closest support found is Fig. 6E. Fig. 6E shows a curved edge recess. However, it shows only one curved outer surface defining the exterior of 604. Thus, there appears to be no support as originally filed for the limitation. In the event that the Applicant is of the opinion that this language is supported as originally filed, the Examiner requests Applicant to please cite to where the language is supported as originally filed.
Claims 3-10 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 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.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites that the side rail has a first recess, a first inner surface, a first outer surface, an outermost top surface, and a bottom surface. Thus, the side rail requires at least four distinct surfaces. It is not readily apparent which surfaces these correspond to in the figures. However, there are two scenarios the Examiner can determine. The first is that the four surfaces are all surfaces on the outside of the recess, forming a rectangular or square body. The second is that the outer surface is the entire outside of the body, the inner surfaces is the surface defining the recess on the inside of the body, and the top and bottom surfaces are top and bottom surfaces of the body. In this situation, the outer surface of the body requires at least three distinct surfaces. In addition, claim 1 recites, that the recess is defined by “a circumferential edge.” A “circumferential edge” requires at least a degree of curvature of the edge of the recess. However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this combination of features. The combination of features requires (1) a curved edge recess and a rectangular or square body or (2) a curved edge recess and a three sided body. The closest support found is Fig. 6E. Fig. 6E shows a curved edge recess. However, it shows only one curved outer surface defining the exterior of 604. Thus, it is unclear how the side rail as defined includes a circumferential edge. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be instead interpreted as “a perimeter edge.”
Claims 3-10 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 1, 3, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Reilly (US 3,666,298).
Re claim 1 in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 above, Reilly discloses a formwork panel (Fig. 8, “formwork” being directed to the intended use of the panel), comprising:
a side rail (42) having a first recess (interior to 42), a first inner surface (right surface of 42), and a first outer surface (right surface of 42), the first inner (left surface of 42) and first outer surfaces (left surface of 42) extending between (Fig. 8) outermost top (top surface of 42) and bottom surfaces (bottom surface of 42) of the side rail (42), 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);
an end rail (43) having a second recess (interior to 43), a second inner surface (right surface of 43), and a second outer surface (left surface of 43),
a removable corner fitting (10; Abstract disclosing resalable joining) having a first arm (12; proximate 42) extending outwardly in a first direction (Fig. 8 along 42) and a second arm (12; proximate 43) extending outwardly in a second direction (Fig. 8 along 43); and
a form face (47) disposed on the first outer surface (right surface of 42) and the second outer surface (left surface of 43), the form face (47) being configured to be adjacent to poured concrete (47 is capable of being adjacent poured concrete, as this is a statement of intended use),
wherein the removable corner fitting (10) is configured to couple (Fig. 8) the side rail (42) and the end rail (43) together (Fig. 8) when the first arm (12 proximate 42) is positioned within (Fig. 8) the first recess (interior to 42) and the second arm (12 proximate 43) is received by (Fig. 8) the second recess (interior to 43), the removable corner fitting (10) further configured to be uncoupled from and recoupled to (Abstract disclosing resalable joining) the side rail (42), and
wherein the first direction (along 42) is transverse to (Fig. 8) the second direction (along 43).
Re claim 3, Reilly discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 1, wherein the removable corner fitting (10) couples (Fig. 8) the side rail (42) to the end rail (43) at a ninety degree angle (Fig. 8).
Re claim 5, Reilly the formwork panel as recited in claim 1, wherein the removable corner fitting (10) is connected to (Fig. 8) the side rail (42).
Re claim 7, Reilly discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 5, wherein the removable corner fitting (10) couples (Fig. 8) the side rail (42) to the end rail (43) at a ninety degree angle (Fig. 8).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly (US 3,666,298) in view of Aspenwall (US 3,859,767).
Re claim 4, Reilly discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the removable corner fitting is screwed, riveted or bolted to the side rail and/or the end rail.
However, Aspenwall discloses wherein the removable corner fitting (S) is screwed (24’), riveted or bolted to the side rail (E1) and/or the end rail (E2).
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 Reilly wherein the removable corner fitting is screwed, riveted or bolted to the side rail and/or the end rail as disclosed by Aspenwall in order to provide additional strength and rigidity to the connection.
Claim(s) 6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly (US 3,666,298).
Re claim 6, Reilly discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the removable corner fitting comprises steel.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Reilly wherein the removable corner fitting comprises steel in order utilize a durable, long lasting material. 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, Reilly discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 1, wherein at least one of the removable corner fittings is a cast, a forged, a molded or a pressed fitting (as this language is product by process), but fails to disclose further comprising: 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 Reilly further comprising: 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.
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, Reilly 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 Reilly 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, Reilly discloses the formwork panel as recited in claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one additional removable corner fitting comprises steel.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Reilly wherein the at least one additional removable corner fitting comprises steel in order utilize a durable, long lasting material. 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.
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).
Re claim 1 as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 above, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Any arguments directed to the amended language concerning, for example, the circumferential edge, are addressed in view of Reilly above.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Bogensberger have been considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Argument A:
Applicant first argues that Bogensberger teaches an arrangement in which a bracket and corner bracket reinforce the corner formed at the intersection of the top rail and the bottom rail, and that such arrangement does not lend itself to be removable, or need to be removable. Bogensberger itself is not relied upon as disclosing any removability. Reilly discloses such. Even though Bogensberger does not contemplate removability, the addition of such a feature, through Reilly, would be beneficial for those reasons stated above.
Response to Argument B 1:
Applicant argues that Bowden cannot be relied upon to cure any deficiencies in Bogensberger. Bowden is no longer relied upon, rendering this argument moot. In anticipated of application of these arguments to Reilly, it is noted that Applicant effectively argues that no modification to Bogensberger for such removability can be made. Applicant contends that the corner bracket structure of Bogensberger is to reinforce the panel. The primary object thereof is to provide a reinforcement, where components are welded together, and such a structure is permanent. First, utilizing a removable corner bracket instead of a permanent corner bracket does not preclude reinforceability of the structure. Second, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Third, the primary objective of Bogensberger is to provide a panel for concrete panel forming systems ([0002]). Modification of Bogensberger with the removability of Reilly does not preclude use as a panel for a concrete panel forming system. Thus, the proposed modification does not fundamentally change the principles of operation of Bogensberger.
Response to Argument B 2:
Next, Applicant contends that the combination of Bogensberger and Bowden continues impermissible hindsight. Bowden is no longer relied upon, rendering this argument moot. In anticipated of application of these arguments to Reilly, it is noted that Applicant effectively contends that modifying Bogensberger with the removability of Bowden (and potentially Reilly) constitutes impermissible hindsight because Bogensberger teaches a permanent structure whereas Bowden (and potentially Reilly) disclose removability. However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Removability is knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill, as evidenced by Reilly. A person having ordinary skill would look to Reilly to modify Bowden for those reasons provided above.
Response to Argument C:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11, 3-10 and 13-20 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
Prosecution Insights