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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending and subject to examination in this Office action.
Priority
According to the ADS filed on 06/21/2024, the present application is said to claim the benefit of Provisional Application No. 63/460,594. However, please note that this provisional application number appears to contain a typographical error. In this regard, it appears to the Examiner that the correct application number is 63/460,954. Applicant is encouraged to take the appropriate corrective action to address this issue.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 06/21/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. To expedite prosecution, the Examiner has cited these foreign patent documents on the attached PTO-892. In all other respects, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for at least the following reason:
Figures 1-10 have a line quality that is too light or pixelated to be reproduced (weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction).
Corrected drawing sheets (i.e., line drawings) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, as presently drafted, several of the structural elements set forth therein are recited in laundry list fashion. Accordingly, the structural cooperative relationship of the base, exterior housing, adjustable arm and upper and lower U-shaped brackets with respect to one another is unclear. Clarification is therefore requested.
Regarding claim 4, the terms “the engagement” and “the retraction” are recited. These terms lack proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “can be” is recited. Is this phrase intended to define a required or optional condition? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 7, the term “the height” is recited. This term lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “can be” is recited. Is this phrase intended to define a required or optional condition? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “can be” is recited. Is this phrase intended to define a required or optional condition? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “can be” is recited three times. Is this phrase intended to define a required or optional condition? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 11, the term “the outside” is recited. This term lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “can be” is recited. Is this phrase intended to define a required or optional condition? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 14, the word “it” is recited. To what previously recited structure is this word referring? Clarification is requested.
Accordingly, the pending claims will be interpreted as best understood.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Gillman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0233999), in view of Toone (U.S. Patent No. 6,637,171).
Regarding independent claim 1, as best understood, Gillman describes an adjustable tool (Figs. 11A and 11B) comprising
a base (1118), an exterior housing (1116), an internal latching mechanism (1178) having a latch release arm (1180), a latch tooth (1182), and an adjustable arm (1102), said internal latching mechanism being disposed with said exterior housing (Fig. 11A).
Gillman does not appear to expressly describe an upper U-bracket member and a lower U-bracket member wherein each of said upper U-bracket member and said lower U-bracket member is capable of holding and retaining a rebar rod. As evidenced by Toone, it was old and well-known in the art to utilize upper and lower U-shaped brackets (122) capable of holding and retaining a rebar rod (210) in such reinforced concrete constructions (Figs. 1, 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize upper and lower U-shaped brackets capable of holding and retaining a rebar rod with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have bolstered the structural integrity of the system. Such combination of known prior art elements that merely yields predictable results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16.
Accordingly, Gillman as modified by Toone results in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, wherein said internal latching mechanism is capable of manual adjustment by extending and retracting said adjustable arm (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, wherein said adjustable arm comprises a plurality of ratchet grooves which are configured to engage said latch tooth (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the engagement of said latch tooth with one of said plurality of rachet grooves prevents the retraction of said adjustable arm (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, wherein said adjustable rebar cage tool is adjustable in height from about twelve inches (12″) when said adjustable arm is fully retracted to about twenty-four (24″) when said adjustable arm is fully extended (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 6, which can be utilized to assemble a rebar cage sized from about twelve inches (12″) to about twenty-four (24″) (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the height of said adjustable rebar cage tool can be modified to assemble a cage bar sized at about four inches (4″) to a cage bar sized at about thirty inches (30″) (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, wherein said base can be mounted to a flat surface (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, further comprising pneumatic means to adjust said internal latching means (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 10, further comprising hydraulic means to adjust said internal latching means (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, wherein a rebar cage can be assembled by utilizing a plurality of adjustable rebar cage tools positioned in such a manner that a first set of rebar rods can be held and retained by said lower U-bracket members and a second set of rebar rods can be held and retained by said upper U-bracket members and wherein a plurality of rebar rings are positioned over the outside of the rebar rods and secured thereto by metal wire, thereby assembling said rebar cage (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, wherein said plurality of rebar rings are in the form of square rings and wherein the assembled rebar cage is in the form of a square rebar cage (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 13, wherein said plurality of rebar rings are in the form of circular rings and wherein the assembled rebar cage is in the form of a circular rebar cage (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, wherein each of the plurality of adjustable rebar cage tools utilized in the assembling of a rebar cage can be removed from the rebar cage once it is assembled (see e.g., Gillman Figs. 11A and 11B; Toone Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EST.
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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635