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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III (figs. 6, 8, 9) in the reply filed on 4/24/26 is acknowledged.
As noted in the non-final action mailed on 5/14/26, claims 4, 5, 6 and 12 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected species/groups. It is noted that for claim 12, although the preamble of the claim recites the spacer carrier plate of claim 1, the body of the claim appears to be claiming method steps. Accordingly, claim 12 is treated as a method claim and is withdrawn from consideration for the reasons noted in the restriction requirement mailed on 2/26/26.
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 8 is 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.
In regard to claim 8, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how many cover plates
are being claimed. For examining purposes, it is assumed one cover plate is claimed as the claim recites the plate "is arranged on the second surface of the carrier plate".
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De La Cruz US 7,886,114 B2 (hereinafter ‘Cruz’).
Regarding claim 1, Cruz teaches a spacer carrier plate (100) for receiving fastening means when positioning spacers on reinforcement of concrete structures (see MPEP 2114),
comprising a planar carrier plate (120) or a carrier frame having a first surface (fig. 4) and a second surface (fig. 5) opposite the first surface,
a plurality of mandrel-like fastening extensions (140) having gradations (see fig. 8) or toothings are arranged on the first surface (see figs. 2-4) and distributed uniformly thereon (fig. 4), the fastening extensions configured to be received in a spacer (fully capable of being received by a spacer, per MPEP 2114),
and at least one of engagement receptacles or engagement surfaces (top surface of 110’) for fastening means is arranged on the second surface of the carrier plate (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Cruz teaches the claimed invention wherein the at least one of engagement receptacles or engagement surface is in the form of at least one of eyelets, hook-like engagement extensions, extension channels (see channel 110 in fig. 3), receiving notches, or receiving rails integrally arranged on the second surface of the carrier plate.
Regarding claim 3, Cruz teaches the claimed invention wherein the second surface of the carrier plate is profiled, said profile having at least one of a depression (see profile on fig. 3 having a depression at 110) or a tooth profile.
Regarding claim 10, Cruz teaches the claimed invention wherein the spacer carrier plate is made of plastic (see col. 4, ln. 63) and/or metal,
wherein, when made of metal, it is a punched part and/or sheet metal bent part.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macris US 6,554,232 B1 (hereinafter ‘Macris’).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Macris teaches a spacer carrier plate that is fully capable of being used for positioning spacers on reinforcement of concrete structures (see MPEP 2114), comprising a planar carrier plate or a carrier frame (26) having a first surface (bottom surface) and a second surface (top surface at 40 -fig. 2) opposite the first surface,
mandrel-like fastening extensions (42) having gradations (at 58, 59 and 60 forming a gradation) or toothings are arranged on the first surface and configured to be received in a spacer (see MPEP 2114),
engagement receptacles (24) in the form of engagement channels integrally formed for fastening means is arranged on the second surface of the carrier plate.
Macris does not explicitly teach engagement receptacles or a plurality of fastening extensions (it only teaches one) neither it, however, it would have been a matter of design choice to provide more than one because doing so involves mere duplication of parts and one of ordinary skill in the art would have prefer to provide a more secure attachment means (if one fails, the device continues to be attached via the other).
Regarding claim 7, Macris teaches the claimed invention wherein a receiving notch (28) as an engagement surface formed from a distance portion and a cover plate (86) running parallel to the carrier plate is arranged on the second surface of the carrier plate (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Macris teaches the claimed invention wherein a receiving rail (where tubing 100 sits) which is accessible via an opening, as engagement receptacles formed from the lateral distance portions (68 and 74) and cover plates (86) running parallel to the carrier plate is arranged on the second surface of the carrier plate (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Macris teaches a spacer (96) comprising the claimed spacer carrier plate (see claim 1 rejection), wherein
the spacer carrier plate is fixedly inserted by its fastening extensions on its first surface into the spacer (see col. 3, ln. 67),
wherein the first surface lies flat against the spacer or at least partially recessed into the spacer (see fig. 6 showing the spacer lies flat against the carrier plate 26).
It is noted that the spacer of claim 11 lacks any specific structure in the claim, and the bracket of Macris is fully capable of being used as a spacer (see MPEP 2114) thus meeting the claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cruz and Macris fail to disclose a plurality of mandrel-like fastening extensions having gradations or footings are arranged on the first surface and distributed uniformly thereon, the fastening extensions configured to be received in a spacer” and adds that “Cruz’s legs 140 do not have gradations or toothings and are not designed to anchor into a spaced body such as concrete”.
Firstly, it is noted that the features and functions upon which applicant relies (i.e., designed to anchor into concrete, or, anchored within a spacer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Secondly, since neither the claim nor the specification provides additional description to the “mandrel-like” shape of the fastening extensions, Cruz’s legs 140 are interpreted as being “mandrel-like” because they are shaft-shaped and tapered. The head 42 of Macris is interpreted as being “mandrel-like” because it’s cylindrical, shaft-shaped and tapered.
Further, the Examiner maintains that, per MPEP 2114, the legs of Cruz and the head of Macris are capable of being received in a spacer, should a spacer be provided. Note that the spacer is not being positively claimed nor has any structure in the claim.
It is also maintained, as noted in the above rejection, that the legs of Cruz have gradations as shown in fig. 8. And the fact that they are placed at the corners of the plate make them to be uniformly distributed because they are placed at the same distance from the center and in a symmetrical arrangement.
For the head of Macris, the examiner maintains that the surfaces 58, 59 and 60 form gradations since each surface is at an angle with another one thus creating a steady change of angles.
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 PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights