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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al., German Patent Publication DE4423737A1.
Regarding claim 1, Ritter discloses a machine comprising: automatically positioning a plurality of rebar (L) such that they are spaced apart from one another to form an array (mutually spaced, paragraph 6); using an array interval spacing means (31, 32) to maintain the spatial relationship of the rebar in the array; wherein the array interval spacing means comprises a plurality of clamps (32) spaced at intervals on a lifting frame (31) and guiding means (means by which 31 translates between 31a and 31b) configured to guide the lifting frame; but does not specifically disclose wherein the clamps are configured to not project below the underside of a rebar; releasing the array from the array interval spacing means such that the array is placed in a target location and orientation for casting into concrete; removing the array interval spacing means. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the clamps would release the longitudinal elements, thereby removing the clamps from the elements, as they are a component of the fabrication machine and not component of the finished product. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the clamps, depending on their size as well as a rebar size, be capable of not projecting below the underside of a rebar to allow for grasping of a rebar, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The phrases “to form an array,” “for casting into concrete,” “configured to guide the lifting frame,” and “configured to not project below the underside of a rebar” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Ritter discloses a machine wherein the array interval spacing means is any of: a rotary cassette or a bar cassette (31).
Regarding claim 5, Ritter discloses a machine further comprising: using a splitting apparatus to automatically split a single rebar from a bundle of rebars (separating device, paragraph 7); using automated moving means to move and position the single rebar into a location in the array (delivery device, paragraph 9); but does not specifically disclose repeating the use of the splitting apparatus and automated moving means for each rebar of the array. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the process until each longitudinal element has reached a desired position, as this is the purpose of the machine.
Regarding claim 6, Ritter discloses a machine where the automated moving means is any one or more of: a conveyor belt or a cassette loader (conveyor belt, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ritter discloses a machine wherein the splitting apparatus is a hopper and a means for lifting a base of the hopper in order to tip one of a plurality of rebar in the hopper over an edge of the hopper (paragraphs 7-8).
Regarding claim 9, Ritter discloses a machine further comprising receiving the plurality of rebar into one or more receivers (29), each receiver configured to hold a plurality of rebar. The phrase “configured to hold a plurality of rebar” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Ritter discloses a machine comprising engaging the array interval spacing means with a lifting apparatus (31) and using the lifting apparatus to move the array and the array interval spacing means to the target position and orientation (see figures).
Regarding claim 11, Ritter discloses a machine activating holding means to hold the array in the target position and orientation; releasing the array from the lifting apparatus (Fig. 6, generally).
Regarding claim 13, Ritter discloses a machine comprising using a robot to perform one or more of the steps of the method (the apparatus is a machine carrying out tasks).
Regarding claim 14, Ritter discloses a machine but does not specifically disclose wherein the cassette is configured to only release a rebar which is in a bottom dead centre of the cassette. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to release when/where desired as that is the purpose of the machine.
Regarding claim 15, Ritter discloses a machine wherein the array interval spacing means is a bar cassette (31) and the bar cassette comprises a plurality of [clamps] (32), each clamp sized and shaped to hold a rebar, but does not disclose hooks, and where the hooks are rotatable between a first position in which rebar are held in the hooks and a second position where rebar roll out of the hooks and come to rest against an immediately preceding hook of the bar cassette. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize hooks rather than clamps as they would be an effective means for lifting and holding the bars similar to the function of the clamp. The hooks would then be rotatable between a first position in which rebar are held in the hooks and a second position where rebar roll out of the hooks and come to rest against an immediately preceding hook of the bar cassette. The phrases “sized and shaped to hold a rebar” and “rotatable between a first position in which rebar are held in the hooks and a second position where rebar roll out of the hooks and come to rest against an immediately preceding hook of the bar cassette” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Ritter discloses a machine using a single apparatus having a splitting apparatus, array interval spacing means and automated moving means (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Ritter discloses a machine where the automated moving means is a conveyor belt (paragraph 1) having a deep pile surface configured to hold individual rebar in a fixed position (26).
Regarding claim 19, Ritter discloses a machine using a plurality of receivers, and wherein the automated moving means comprises a first conveyor belt (paragraph 1) for conveying individual rebar from the plurality of receivers to a release gate which releases individual rebar onto a second conveyor belt such that the space between individual rebar on the second conveyor belt is controlled, but does not disclose each receiver for a different type of rebar. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the machine includes receivers which adapt to different types of rebar, as rebar can vary vastly in size. The phrase “for conveying individual rebar from the plurality of receivers to a release gate which releases individual rebar onto a second conveyor belt such that the space between individual rebar on the second conveyor belt is controlled, but does not disclose each receiver for a different type of rebar” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 21, Ritter discloses a machine wherein the clamps are movable across the width of the lifting frame (see Fig. 2) in order to align with rebars on the deep pile surface (25/26). The phrase “movable across the width of the lifting frame in order to align with rebars on the deep pile surface” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 22, Ritter discloses a machine comprising using a bumper (39) to generally align the lifting frame over the deep pile surface but does not disclose using a dowel to finely align the frame over the deep pile surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the outermost longitudinal element (or dowel) to guide the alignment of the machine elements.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al., German Patent Publication DE4423737A1 in view of Tokiwa et al., U.S. Patent 5,427,490.
Regarding claim 8, Ritter discloses a machine but does not specifically disclose wherein the splitting apparatus has a rotary receiver to receive one of the plurality of rebar which tips over the edge of the hopper. Tokiwa teaches a rotary device in a machine (65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a rotary device as a space saving means.
Claim(s) 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al., German Patent Publication DE4423737A1 in view of Tokiwa et al., U.S. Patent 5,427,490 and Bailey, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0285586.
Regarding claim 12, Ritter discloses a machine wherein the automated moving means is a cassette loader (see Fig. 1), and wherein a bar riser is used to raise individual ones of the rebar towards a bar harvest mechanism which fills individual bars into the cassette, and wherein the method comprises placing the cassette onto a pair of drive bogies on pre-positioned rails (see 31 components in Fig. 1), but does not disclose specifically wherein the cassette is a rotary cassette and using a remote control mechanism to release individual rebar from the cassette at intervals as the cassette is driver along the rails by the drive bogies and driving the bogies along the rails via remote control. Tokiwa teaches a rotary device in a machine (65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a rotary device as a space saving means. Bailey teaches use of a remote device for controlling a machine (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a remote control device to operate the machine for safety of a user.
Regarding claim 16, Ritter as modified discloses a machine but does not specifically disclose comprising placing one rebar into each hook and lifting the bar cassette using an overhead crane and moving the bar cassette to the target position and orientation, and using a remote control to release the hooks to the second position. Tokiwa teaches lifting via a crane is known in the art (col. 1, lines 43-47). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a crane in such an industrial application due to the extreme loads of multiple rebar. Bailey teaches use of a remote device for controlling a machine (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a remote control device to operate the machine for safety of a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument towards the clamps not being sized to not project below the underside of a rebar, the examiner wishes to point out that a specific size of rebar vs clamp is not disclosed by the prior art, and it is well known that rebar is manufactured in varying sizes. As shown on page 3 of the figures, the clamp disclosed by Tokiwa operates by adjusting a space between two arms via a hinge which, although not specifically stated, will allow for a varied space between the arms. Tokiwa is silent to the relation of sizing requirements between bar and clamp. Therefore, it is obvious a clamp may be utilized in a clamping position which does not enclose a rebar. Further, “configured to not project below the underside of a rebar” is a statement of intended use. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As shown in Fig. 4b, the clamp, in an open position, is capable of accepting a larger sized rebar than what is shown in the figures, which would result in the clamp not extending fully to the bottom of a rebar. Additionally, referring to figures 5a-5c, three instances in which the clamp is not positioned beneath an underside of a rebar are illustrated. As such, the clamp if fully capable of not extending below a lower surface of a rebar.
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 GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights