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 § 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) 11, 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robertson (2,121,303)
Regarding claim 11, Robertson teaches a tie-bar pocket (10) for a first concrete slab (2) and a second concrete slab (3), the tie-bar pocket comprising: an attaching wall (6) configured to be attached to a concrete form (4); a first pocket (10) connected to and extending from the attaching wall (6) and configured to receive a first tie-bar (14); and a second pocket (9) connected to and extending from the attaching wall (6) and configured to receive a second tie-bar (14) insertable.
Regarding claim 12, Robertson teaches the first pocket (10) is configured to receive the first tie-bar (14) and the second pocket (9) is configured to receive the second tie-bar (14).
Regarding claim 17, Robertson teaches the second pocket (9) is configured to secure the second tie-bar (14).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl (2024/0384535) in view of Witschi (5,578,916).
Regarding claim 1, Dahl teaches a tie-bar assembly comprising: a tie-bar pocket (1-1); a first tie-bar (21) is insertable in the tie-bar pocket (1-1); and a second tie-bar (22) insertable in the tie-bar pocket wherein the tie-bar pocket and the first tie-bar are configured to be positioned in a first concrete slab (5), wherein the second tie-bar is configured to be positioned in the tie-bar pocket and in an adjacent second concrete slab (10), wherein the second tie-bar is configured to be coupled to the first tie-bar in the tie-bar pocket, and wherein the second tie-bar is configured to be positioned in the tie-bar pocket after the first concrete slab is poured (first slab 5 is precast) but fails to teach it is positioned in the tie bar pocket before the adjacent second concrete slab is poured. Witschi teaches a tie bar pocket (1) with a tie bar (2) and wherein the second tie-bar is configured to be positioned in the tie-bar pocket after the first concrete slab is poured and before the adjacent second concrete slab is poured. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to install the tie bar in the pocket of Dahl after the first slab is poured but before the second is as taught by Witschi as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, Dahl as modified by Witschi teaches the tie-bar assembly is configured to be attached to a leave-in-place form for continuous pouring of the first concrete slab and the second concrete slab.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (2,121,303) in view of Reed (2014/0150356).
Regarding claim 18, Robertson teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach snap fit ribs. Reed teaches a rebar bracket (82) with a pocket that includes snap fit ribs (134) configured to secure the tie-bar (paragraph [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include snap fit ribs in the pockets of Robertson as taught by Reed to secure the rebar in the pocket.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (2,121,303) in view of McDonald (2015/0204026).
Regarding claim 19, Robertson teaches the invention as described above. McDonald teaches a tie bar pocket which includes one or more alignment tabs (22a, 22b) configured to align the tie-bar pocket with an adjacent element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include alignment tabs on the pocket of Robertson as taught by McDonald to effectively align the pocket with neighboring elements to facilitate correct installation.
Regarding claim 20, Robertson as modified by McDonald teaches the one or more alignment tabs includes two sets of alignment tabs alignable with an adjacent flat plate dowel pocket.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Webb teaches a dowel bracket with two tie bar sections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights