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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-6,13, 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/05/2026.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 14-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other elements of the shuttering system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what component is referred to. The examiner will examine as best understood with the other elements being the shuttering panel. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, in line 5, antecedent basis has previously been established for a building part. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how the abutment surfaces can abut both the shuttering frame and the shuttering shell as these components are disposed at different surfaces of the sealing body. The examiner will examine as best understood with abutment surfaces abutting one of the shuttering frame or shuttering shell. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end faces" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what comprises an end face. The examiner will examine as best understood with the end face being one of the abutting surfaces. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how the shuttering frame edge differs from the edge extending around the shaped surface. The examiner will examine as best understood with the components one in the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction of the shuttering shell" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what direction is referred to as the shuttering shell is a three-dimensional component. The examiner will examine as best understood with a direction of a surface plane of the shuttering shell. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation a surface of the frame edge oriented in the direction of the shuttering shell is arranged at an angle other than 90 with respect to the contact surface and/or the edge is arranged at an angle other than 90 with respect to the contact surface as the limitations appear to be the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the direction of a plane defined by the contact surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first abutment surface" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second abutment surface" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, in lines 4 and 5, it is unclear what comprises the guide surface, as multiple guide surfaces have previously been established. The examiner will examine as bets understood with one of the previous guide surfaces. Appropriate correction is required.
The claim set is replete with indefinite issues such as those exemplified in the rejections above. For brevity, each of the 35 USC 112 rejections will not be listed. Appropriate correction is required to provide clarity to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 4, 9-11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonin et al., U.S. Patent 3,137,909.
Regarding claim 1, Bonin discloses a concrete forming system comprising: a shuttering frame (components 22) which supports the other elements (20) of the shuttering element and, in use, absorbs loads acting on the shuttering element (as the structural limitations have been met), at least one shuttering shell (20) which is connected to the shuttering frame (see Fig. 3) and which, in use, rests with a shaped surface (upper surface of 20) against a building part to be erected, wherein an edge (edge of 20, see Fig. 3) extends around the shaped surface, at least one sealing profile (34) which is located between the shuttering shell and the shuttering frame (see Fig. 3), wherein the sealing profile which extends along a direction of extension (see Fig. 2) comprises the following elements: at least one sealing body (L-shaped body, or alternatively, vertical portion of 34; see Fig. 3) which, at least in portions, is made of an elastic material (col. 4, lines 36-41), wherein the sealing body has at least two abutment surfaces (vertical surface adjacent to 28, vertical surface adjacent to 20) which, at least in portions, abut on the shuttering frame and/or the shuttering shell (as best understood, see Fig. 3), wherein the abutment surfaces are disposed on opposite sides of the sealing body and respectively extend parallel to the direction of extension (see Figs. 2, 3), and wherein each of the abutment surfaces is larger than the end faces of the sealing body disposed between the abutment surfaces (see Fig. 3, as best understood in light of the specification), wherein the sealing body has at least two sealing surfaces (inner and outer surfaces of 42) respectively one of which forms a portion of an abutment surface (see Fig. 3, it is an extension of abutment surface abutting the frame) at least one mounting element (62, or alternatively, flange 40) which is connected to the shuttering frame or the shuttering shell (shuttering shell, see Fig. 3), wherein the mounting element is connected to the sealing body (Fig. 3), wherein the shuttering frame has a contact surface (upper surface of 32) on which, in use, the shuttering shell rests in portions (see Fig. 3), and the shuttering frame also has a frame edge (edge of 20) which is located next to the contact surface and extends around said contact surface at least in regions (see Fig. 2, as best understood), wherein the frame edge protrudes beyond the contact surface in a direction perpendicular to the contact surface (at 28), and wherein the sealing profile is located, at least in regions, between the frame edge and the edge of the shuttering shell extending around the shaped surface (see Fig. 3), and a surface (lower surface of 32 as shown in Fig. 3) of the frame edge oriented in the direction of the shuttering shell is arranged at an angle other than 90 with respect to the contact surface and/or the edge is arranged at an angle other than 90 with respect to the contact surface (see Fig. 3, generally).
Regarding claim 2, Bonin discloses a concrete forming system wherein the thickness of the sealing profile varies in size starting from a plane defined by the shaped surface in the direction of a plane defined by the contact surface (see Fig. 3, thickness of 22 as shown is greater at the uppermost surface).
Regarding claim 4, Bonin discloses a concrete formwork system wherein the mounting element is formed by an adhesive surface which is disposed on a portion of one of the abutment surfaces or on the second end face (col. 5, lines 7-20), as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 9, Bonin discloses a concrete formwork system wherein the first abutment surface abuts on the frame edge, and the second abutment surface abuts on the edge of the shuttering shell (see Fig. 3, generally), and/or the first end face is disposed between the shaped surface and the frame edge in a plan view of the shaped surface, and/or the second end face abuts on the contact surface or a surface of the shuttering frame disposed adjacent to it, as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 10, Bonin discloses a concrete formwork system wherein the sealing body, at least in portions, is elastically deformed between the shuttering frame and the shuttering shell in use (col. 2, lines 17-45).
Regarding claim 11, Bonin discloses a concrete formwork system wherein the mounting element (40) is disposed on the first abutment surface and connected to the frame edge (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Bonin discloses the concrete formwork system of claim 1 comprising: providing a shuttering frame (22) which has a contact surface (upper surface of 32) which, in use, the shuttering shell (20), in portions, abuts on, and the shuttering frame also has a frame edge (edge of 20, see Fig. 3) which is disposed adjacent to and, at least in portions, extends around the contact surface (see Fig. 3), wherein the frame edge protrudes beyond the contact surface in a direction perpendicular to the contact surface (see Fig. 3), providing a shuttering shell (20) which, with a shaped surface (the upper surface), abuts on a building part (concrete wall formed between components 22) to be erected in use, and which has a force transmission surface disposed opposite of the shaped surface (as best understood as the structural limitations have been met), wherein an edge extends around the shuttering shell and connects the shaped surface to the force transmission surface (lower surface, see Fig. 3), attaching a sealing profile (34) to the frame edge of the shuttering frame or to the edge of the shuttering shell, introducing the shuttering shell into the frame edge of the shuttering frame (see Fig. 3), wherein the sealing profile positions, particularly centres, the shuttering shell with respect to the shuttering frame until the force transmission surface of the shuttering shell, in portions, abuts on the contact surface of the shuttering frame, attaching the shuttering shell to the shuttering frame (as shown in Fig. 3), as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 16, Bonin discloses a concrete formwork system wherein the at least one sealing profile connects the edge of the shuttering shell extending around the shaped surface to the shuttering frame in a sealing manner (via mounting element 62).
Regarding claim 17, Bonin discloses a concrete formwork system wherein the mounting element is disposed on one of the abutment surfaces (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Bonin discloses wherein the thickness of the sealing profile is a distance between the abutment surfaces in a direction perpendicular to the direction of extension and parallel to the contact surface (see Fig. 3), as best understood in light of the specification.
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) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonin et al., U.S. Patent 3,137,909 in view of Sobolev et al., Russian Patent Document RU2152564.
Regarding claim 3, Bonin discloses a concrete forming system but does not disclose wherein the sealing body, at least in portions, has a wedge-shaped design in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to the direction of extension, wherein at least one guide portion of the first abutment surface is arranged at an angle with respect to at least one guide portion of the second abutment surface, wherein the guide portion forms a portion of the first abutment surface, and the guide portion forms a portion of the second abutment surface. Sobolev teaches a wedge-shaped, in cross-section taken perpendicular to the direction of extension, sealing body (41; see Fig. 3), wherein at least one guide portion of the first abutment surface (upper portion of outer surface) is arranged at an angle with respect to at least one guide portion of the second abutment surface (upper portion of inner surface), wherein the guide portion forms a portion of the first abutment surface, and the guide portion forms a portion of the second abutment surface (as best understood in light of the specification). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the sealing body as a wedge shape, depending on the framing member sections to be used/available, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 12, Bonin dislcoses a concrete formwork system wherein the surface of the frame edge oriented in the direction of the shuttering shell is arranged perpendicular to the contact surface (as shown in Fig. 3), but does not disclose a first guide portion of the sealing profile is arranged at an angle with respect to a second guide portion of the sealing profile so that the sealing body, at least in portions, has a wedge-shaped design, and wherein the edge of the shuttering shell, at least in portions, is arranged at the angle + 90°) with respect to the force transmission surface. Sobolev teaches a wedge-shaped, in cross-section taken perpendicular to the direction of extension, sealing body (41; see Fig. 3), wherein at least one guide portion of the first abutment surface (upper portion of outer surface) is arranged at an angle with respect to at least one guide portion of the second abutment surface (upper portion of inner surface), wherein the guide portion forms a portion of the first abutment surface, and the guide portion forms a portion of the second abutment surface (as best understood in light of the specification). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the sealing body as a wedge shape, depending on the framing member sections to be used/available, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. The edge of the shuttering shell, at least in portions, will then be arranged at 90° with respect to the force transmission surface, as best understood in light of the specification as the structural limitations have been met.
Claim(s) 7-8, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonin et al., U.S. Patent 3,137,909 in view of Koegel, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0090089.
Regarding claim 7, Bonin discloses a concrete formwork system but does not disclose wherein the sealing profile includes at least one sensor which is implemented as a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a pressure sensor, a force sensor, or an expansion sensor. Koegel teaches a formwork system integrating a pressure sensor (paragraph 100). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate a pressure sensor into the sealing profile for safety of any users of the system.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art as modified discloses a concrete formwork system wherein the sensor, at least in portions, is enclosed by the sealing body, and/or the sensor, at least in portions, is disposed in one of the end faces or one of the sealing surfaces and interrupts one of these surfaces (see Koegel Fig. 6, generally).
Regarding claim 14, Bonin discloses a concrete formwork system but does not disclose wherein the sealing profile comprises at least one sensor, wherein the thickness of the sealing body is larger in a position in which, in the direction of extension, a sensor is disposed, than the thickness of the sealing body in a position in which, in the direction of extension no sensor is disposed, and the shuttering shell or the frame edge has a recess in the position in which the thickness of the sealing profile is larger due to the arrangement of a sensor, wherein this recess, starting from the edge, extends into the shaped surface of the shuttering shell or, starting from a surface of the frame edge facing the shuttering shell extends into a surface of the frame edge arranged parallel to the contact surface. Koegel teaches a formwork system integrating a pressure sensor (paragraph 100). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate a pressure sensor into the sealing profile for safety of any users of the system. It would also have been obvious that, at the portion of the sealing profile where the sensor is located the width will be wider to accommodate for the sensor width, 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).
Regarding claim 19, Bonin discloses wherein the thickness of the sealing profile is between the abutment surfaces (see Fig. 3, generally).
Conclusion
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