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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because “comprises of” should be --comprises--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-7 and 10-19 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.
Claim 3 recites “the spacer cover” extending into the concrete product is “substantially equal to” a diameter of the continuous length of material, which is confusing. Is this the first, second, or both spacer covers? How can the spacer cover, which is specification defined as the “material of the spacer that protrudes into the concrete cover”, be equal to the material diameter? Is it a spacer cover diameter that is equal to the material diameter?
Claim 7 recites the spacer cover configured according to “safety standards and less than the concrete cover of the concrete product”, which is confusing. What safety “standards”? What structural does this limitation add to the claimed spacer? What does it mean that the spacer cover is configured less than the concrete cover of the concrete product?
Claim 10 recites the first and second spacer covers “being less than a distance between respective reinforcement cages and spaced apart inner surface of the form”, which is confusing. The spacer cover is specification defined as the material of the spacer that protrudes into the concrete cover. This is understood to mean the spacer cover is the portion or part of the spacer that protrudes into the concrete cover. As such, how can the first and second portions of the spacers that protrudes into the concrete cover be less than a distance between respective reinforcement cages and spaced apart inner surface of the form? Is it the, for example, the width of the first and second portions of the spacers that protrudes into the concrete cover that is less than a distance between respective reinforcement cages and spaced apart inner surface of the form? It is assumed the claim recites the first and second spacer covers extending at least the diameter of the continuous length of material and less than or equal to a maximal protrusion into the concrete cover defined by a distance between the outer cage and the inner surface of the respective sides of the form.
Claim 13 recites that the first spacer cover and second spacer cover “is substantially equal to a diameter of the continuous length of material”, which is confusing. The spacer cover is specification defined as the material of the spacer that protrudes into the concrete cover. This is understood to mean the spacer cover is the portion or part of the spacer that protrudes into the concrete cover. As such, how can the first and second portions of the spacer that extend into the concrete cover be equal to a diameter of the spacer wire material? Which part of the first and second portions of the spacer that extend into the concrete cover are equal to a diameter of the spacer wire material? A spacer cover diameter? A spacer cover width? It assumed the claim recites that the first spacer cover and second spacer cover width is substantially equal to a diameter of the continuous length of material.
Claim 17 recites that the first spacer cover is substantially less than the concrete cover. The spacer cover is specification defined as the material of the spacer that protrudes into the concrete cover. This is understood to mean the spacer cover is the portion or part of the spacer that protrudes into the concrete cover. As such, how can the portion or part of the spacer that protrudes into the concrete cover be less than the concrete cover? What dimension, if any, of the part of the spacer that protrudes into the concrete cover is less than the concrete cover? Also, how much less is “substantially” less?
Claim 18 recites the first spacer cover is “substantially equal to” a diameter of the continuous length of material, which is confusing. How can the spacer cover, which is specification defined as the “material of the spacer that protrudes into the concrete cover”, be equal to the material diameter? Is it a spacer cover diameter that is equal to the material diameter?
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the first spacer cover being less than the concrete cover”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the first spacer cover being less than the concrete cover. And in any case, it is unclear in what way the spacer is less than the concrete cover.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-13, and 17-19 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmigdall (4,999,965) in view of Toyoda (11,098,488).
1. Schmigdall, figs. 1-2, teaches a spacer for positioning an inner cage 10 with respect to an outer cage 12 for reinforcing a concrete product, the inner cage and the outer cage each have a plurality of parallel spaced-apart horizontal wires 16 joined to a plurality of parallel spaced-apart vertical wires 14 and the inner cage and the outer cage are positioned in a form that has spaced-apart inner surfaces, said spacer, fig. 2, comprising:
a continuous length of material (round metal wire) comprising a diameter, a first end portion (the left portion, fig. 1), a second end portion (the left portion, fig. 1), and an intermediate portion 18 therebetween;
an inner cage, first wire lock formed by a first bend 20 in the first end portion of the continuous length of material wherein the first bend in the first end portion is defined by a first radius (as show in figs. 1-2, loop 20 has a radius) having a first center (essentially the center of horizontal wire 16, fig. 4) and a first circumference (the extents of the partial circle formed by loop 20);
an inner cage, second wire lock formed by a second bend 26 in the first end portion of the continuous length of material, wherein the inner cage, first wire lock and the inner cage, second wire lock are attachable by torsion on to the inner cage, wherein the second bend in the first end portion is defined by a second radius (as show in figs. 1-2, and 4 hook 26 has a radius) having a second center (essentially the center of horizontal wire 16, fig. 4) and second circumference;
a first spacer cover (upwardly extending loop sc that is connected to 20 and 26) connecting the inner cage, first wire lock and the inner cage, second wire lock of the first end portion, figs. 2 and 3, with the first spacer cover extending outward (toward the associated form board) from the first circumference of the first radius of the first bend a distance at least the diameter of the continuous length of material (the distance is significantly greater than the material diameter, fig. 1, 2 or 4);
an outer cage, first wire lock formed by a first bend 20 in the second end portion of the continuous length of material wherein the first bend in the second end portion is defined by a first radius having a first center and a first circumference; and
an outer cage, second wire lock formed by a second bend 26 in the second end portion of the continuous length of material, wherein the outer cage, first wire lock and the outer cage, second wire lock are attachable by torsion on to the outer cage, wherein the second bend in the second end portion is defined by a second radius having a second and second circumference;
a second spacer cover connecting the outer cage, first wire lock and the outer cage, second wire lock of the second end portion, with the second spacer cover extending outward from the first circumference of the first radius of the second bend a distance at least the diameter of the continuous length of material.
Schmigdall does not teach that the spacer covers extend less than or equal to a pre-determined maximal protrusion into a concrete cover defined by a distance between the inner/outer cage and the inner surface of the form sides because the spacer covers extend more than the pre-determined maximal protrusion into the concrete cover defined by a distance between the inner/outer cage and the inner surface of the form sides. Toyoda, fig. 3, teaches a spacer cover (the radiused portion of the wire that partially surrounds rebar 4 and is in the concrete cover) extends less than or equal to a pre-determined maximal protrusion into a concrete cover defined by a distance between the inner/outer cage and the inner surface of the form sides, col. 6, lines 60-67 continuing to col. 7, lines 1-7, Toyoda teaching the benefit of keeping the concrete cover free of corrosive metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Schmigdall spacer covers to extend less than or equal to a pre-determined maximal protrusion into a concrete cover defined by a distance between the inner/outer cage and the inner surface of the form sides (by modifying Schmigdall spacer cover sc such that it does not extend significantly into the concrete cover) so “a structure is obtained in which only concrete or mortar is present in the “cover” protecting the rebar from rust” and by use such a minimized spacer cover “a minimum covering depth…can be realized”.
The claim is understood to be drawn to, in combination, a spacer, cage and concrete cover because the applicant has positively recited claim elements other than the apparatus (spacer). The claim recites the spacer first spacer cover “connecting” the cages and “extending…into” the concrete cover. In re Larsen, 10 Fed. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
PNG
media_image1.png
136
135
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2
2. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda teaches the spacer of claim 1, Schmigdall further teaching the first bend and the second bend in the first end portion have a common axis (essentially wire 16 axis, fig. 4) extending through the respective first center and the second center transverse to an orientation of the intermediate portion to allow the inner cage, first wire lock and the inner cage, second wire lock to lock on opposite sides of a wire on the inner cage.
3. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda teaches the spacer of claim 1, Toyoda further teaching, as best understood, the spacer covers (the wire material radially bent around rebar 4) each extending, in use, into the concrete product is substantially equal to a diameter of the continuous length of material (the wire diameter).
7. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda teaches the spacer of claim 1, Schmigdall in view of Toyoda further teaching, as best understood, the spacer cover configured to protrude, in use, minimally into the concrete cover (this is taught by Toyoda).
8. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda teaches the spacer of claim 1, Schmigdall further teaching the intermediate portion of the continuous length of material is substantially straight, wherein a distance between the inner cage and the outer cage is defined by the distance between the inner cage, first wire lock on the first end portion and the outer cage, first wire lock on the second end portion of the continuous length of material, fig. 4.
10. Schmigdall, figs. 1-2, teaches a spacer for combining two reinforcement wire mesh cages in a concrete product inside a form with two spaced-apart inner surfaces and having a concrete cover defined by a distance between respective reinforcement wire mesh cages and their corresponding spaced-apart inner surfaces, the spacer comprising:
a continuous length of material (round metal wire) comprising a f first portion (the left portion, fig. 1), a second end portion (the left portion, fig. 1), and an intermediate portion 18 therebetween;
a first lock formed on the first end portion configured for attachment by torsion (abstract) to a first reinforcement wire mesh cage of the two reinforcement wire mesh cages with a first spacer cover sc extending from the first lock away from the intermediate portion;
a second lock formed on the second end portion configured for attachment by torsion (abstract) to a second reinforcement wire mesh of the two reinforcement wire mesh cages with a second spacer cover sc extending from the second lock away from the intermediate portion. Schmigdall does not teach, as best understood, the first and second spacer covers extending at least the diameter of the continuous length of material and less than or equal to a maximal protrusion into the concrete cover defined by a distance between the outer cage and the inner surface of the respective sides of the form. Toyoda, fig. 3, teaches a spacer cover (the radiused portion of the wire that partially surrounds rebar 4 and is in the concrete cover) extends less than or equal to a pre-determined maximal protrusion into a concrete cover defined by a distance between the inner/outer cage and the inner surface of the form sides, col. 6, lines 60-67 continuing to col. 7, lines 1-7, Toyoda teaching the benefit of keeping the concrete cover free of corrosive metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Schmigdall spacer covers to extend less than or equal to a maximal protrusion into a concrete cover defined by a distance between the inner/outer cage and the inner surface of the form sides (by modifying Schmigdall spacer cover sc such that it does not extend significantly into the concrete cover) so “a structure is obtained in which only concrete or mortar is present in the “cover” protecting the rebar from rust” and by use such a minimized spacer cover “a minimum covering depth…can be realized”.
11. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda teaches the spacer of claim 10, Schmigdall in view of Toyoda further teaching the first lock further comprises: an inner cage, first wire lock 20 and an inner cage, second wire lock 26 formed on the first end portion configured for attachment by torsion to a wire of an inner cage; wherein the first spacer cover is positioned between the inner cage, first wire lock and the inner cage, second wire lock and is bent in a configuration to reduce an amount of material extending into the distance between the inner cage and one of the inner surfaces of the form (this is the Toyota teaching); and wherein the second lock further comprises: an outer cage, first wire lock 20 and an outer cage, second wire lock 26 formed in the second end portion each of which configured for attachment by torsion to a wire of an outer cage; and wherein the second spacer cover is positioned between the outer cage, first wire lock and the outer cage, second wire lock and is bent in a configuration to reduce an amount of material extending into the distance between the outer cage and the other inner surface of the form (this is the Toyota teaching).
The claim is understood to be drawn to, in combination, a spacer and cage because the applicant has positively recited claim elements other than the apparatus (spacer). The claim recites the spacer cover “extending into” the distance between the inner cage and one of the inner surfaces of the form. In re Larsen, 10 Fed. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
12. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda teaches the spacer of claim 11, Schmigdall in view of Toyoda further teaching the first bend and the second bend in the first end portion have a common axis (essentially the axis of wire 16) transverse to an orientation of the intermediate portion of the continuous length of material to allow the inner cage, first wire lock and the inner cage, second wire lock to lock on opposite sides of a wire on the inner cage.
13. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda teaches the spacer of claim 11, Toyoda further teaching, as best understood, the first spacer cover and second spacer cover width is substantially equal to a diameter of the continuous length of material (the Toyoda spacer cover extends about the width of the wire into concrete cover, fig. 3).
17. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda teaches the spacer of claim 10, Toyoda further teaching, as best understood, the first spacer cover width is less than the concrete cover (the spacer cover is less than the concrete cover at least because Toyoda teaches minimizing intrusion into the concrete cover).
18. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda teaches the spacer of claim 10, Toyoda further teaching, as best understood, the spacer cover (the wire material radially bent around rebar 4) width is, in use, substantially equal to a diameter of the continuous length of material (the wire diameter), fig. 3.
19. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda teaches the spacer of claim 10, Schmigdall further teaching, as best understood, the first lock comprises a first bearing oriented in a first direction and a second bearing oriented in an opposite direction having a common axis (essentially the axis of wire 16, fig. 4) extending between, and wherein the first end portion is bent between the first bearing and the second bearing, fig. 4.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda and in further view of Schmigdal (4,989,388).
4. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda does not teach the first and second spacer covers on a plane perpendicular to the material intermediate portion because while Schmigdall alone teaches spacer cover 22, 24 are somewhat perpendicular to intermediate portion (the bends comprising 22 and 24 generally extend above the intermediate portion, fig. 4) and the Schmigdall spacer cover is modified so that it does not extend into the concrete cover as taught by Toyoda, the Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda spacer cover is not taught as being on a plane perpendicular. Schmigdall ‘388 teaches a portion 18 on a plane. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda spacer cover to be planar (Schmigdall ‘388 teaches planarity), and as described above, Schmigdall ‘965 already generally teaching perpendicularity and Toyoda teaching maintaining the spacer cover away from the concrete cover to “guard against” the spacer “coming loose during the casting process”, col. 3, lines 51-53.
5. Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda and in further view of Schmigdall ‘388 teaches the spacer of claim 4, Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda and in further view of Schmigdall ‘388 further teaching the spacer cover comprises a hump (the Schmigdall ‘388 close loop of hook 18) formed in the first end portion by a second bend toward a direction perpendicular to the intermediate portion (Schmigdall ‘965 teaches such perpendicularity generally) so that the hump is oriented on the plane perpendicular to the intermediate portion, as the Schmigdall ‘388 portion is planar, the Schmigdall ‘965 spacer cover is generally so perpendicular, and Toyoda teaches a spacer cover extending outward a distance at least the diameter of a continuous length of material and less than or equal to a pre-determined maximal protrusion into a concrete cover defined by a distance between an inner cage and inner surface of one side of a form.
6. Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda and in further view of Schmigdall ‘388 teaches the spacer of claim 5, the Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda and in further view of Schmigdall ‘388 hump formed from a bend around an axis parallel to (and above) the intermediate portion of the spacer.
14. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda does not teach first spacer cover is oriented on a plane perpendicular to the intermediate portion of the continuous length of material because while Schmigdall alone teaches spacer cover 22, 24 are somewhat perpendicular to intermediate portion (the bends comprising 22 and 24 generally extend above the intermediate portion, fig. 4) and the Schmigdall spacer cover is modified so that it does not extend into the concrete cover as taught by Toyoda, the Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda spacer cover is not taught as being on a plane perpendicular. Schmigdall ‘388 teaches a portion 18 on a plane. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda spacer cover to be planar (Schmigdall ‘388 teaches planarity), and as described above, Schmigdall ‘965 already generally teaching perpendicularity and Toyoda teaching maintaining the spacer cover away from the concrete cover to “guard against” the spacer “coming loose during the casting process”, col. 3, lines 51-53.
15. Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda and in further view of Schmigdall ‘388 teaches the spacer of claim 14, Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda and in further view of Schmigdall ‘388 further teaching the first spacer cover comprises a hump (the Schmigdall ‘388 close loop of hook 18) formed in the first end portion by a second bend toward a direction perpendicular to the intermediate portion (Schmigdall ‘965 teaches such perpendicularity generally) so that the hump is oriented on the plane perpendicular to the intermediate portion, as the Schmigdall ‘388 portion is planar, the Schmigdall ‘965 spacer cover is generally so perpendicular, and Toyoda teaches a spacer cover extending outward a distance at least the diameter of a continuous length of material and less than or equal to a pre-determined maximal protrusion into a concrete cover defined by a distance between an inner cage and inner surface of one side of a form.
16. Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda and in further view of Schmigdall ‘388 teaches the spacer of claim 15, the Schmigdall ‘965 in view of Toyoda and in further view of Schmigdall ‘388 hump formed from a bend around an axis parallel to (and above) the intermediate portion of the spacer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmigdall in view of Toyoda and in further view of Tolliver (4,467,995).
9. Schmigdall in view of Toyoda does not teach the first bend in the first end portion of the continuous length of material comprises of a center which is positioned above the intermediate portion of the continuous length of material. Tolliver, fig. 5, teaches a bend 115 in a first end portion of a continuous length of material (wire) comprises of a center which is positioned above (or to the right in this case, fig. 5) an intermediate portion 112 of the continuous length of material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first bend in the first end portion of the continuous length of material to comprise a center which is positioned above the intermediate portion of the continuous length of material to better secure wire 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/Examiner, Art Unit 3633