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
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, 2, 4-7, 16-17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiscock et al. US 2012/0085047 A1 (hereinafter ‘Hiscock’) in view of Chevis US 2022/064968 A1 (hereinafter ‘Chevis’).
In regard to claims 1 and 16, Hiscock teaches a collapsible concrete form (1) comprising:
a pair of inner panels (401, 402) hingedly coupled to one another (by live hinge 2);
a pair of outer flanges (403, 404) configured to about a pair of adjacent form sections (see [0065]), such that the pair of outer flanges and the pair of inner panels are disposed between the pair of adjacent form sections (see [0066]).
Hiscock further teaches a handle in one of the pair of inner panels (see handle created between openings 5) operable to move the pair of inner panels and the pair of outer flanges between a deployed arrangement in which the pair of inner panels are colinear and a collapsed arrangement in which the pair of inner panels are askew. Note that, per MPEP 2114, that portion of material between the openings is capable of being a handle because the panel can be held from there by a worker to bring the device from the configuration shown in fig. 4A to the one in fig. 4B).
Hiscock does not explicitly teach a first one of the pair of outer flanges hingedly coupled to a first one of the pair of inner panels and a second one of the pair of outer flanges hingedly coupled to a second one of the pair of inner panels.
Chevis teaches a collapsible concrete form comprising a pair of inner panels (202, 204) hingedly coupled to one another (by hinge 207) and a pair of outer flanges (206, 208) such that a first one of the pair of outer flanges is hingedly coupled (at 209) to a first one of the pair of inner panels and a second one of the pair of outer flanges is hingedly coupled (at 211) to a second one of the pair of inner panels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide the outer flanges of Hiscock respectively hinged to the inner panels, as taught by Chevis, so as to provided a degree of adjustability of the form’s panels and also because doing so facilitates storage and transport of the forms.
Although the handle of the combination is not explicitly taught as protruding from one of the pair of inner panels or a hinge coupling the pair of inner panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a protruding handle that permits a worker get a quicker hold of the form to collapse it or deploy it. And because providing a handle in a construction element is notoriously well known in the art and therefore obvious because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143).
In regard to claim 2, Chevis teaches a locking brace (210, 212) protruding from one of the pair of inner panels.
It would have been obvious to provide a locking brace in the combination of Hiscock/Chevis as taught by Chevis so as to reinforce the panel and provide stability to the form.
In regard to claims 4 and 17, the combination of Hiscock/Chevis teaches a pair of waler backet mounting holes (6) configured to receive a waler bracket (note that waler brackets are known for being installed in holes like holes 6 of Hiscock). Since the actual waler brackets or the rigid members are not being positively claimed, and waler brackets in general are well known for being capable to support additional elements such as the locking brace, and providing a waler bracket in addition to the locking brace would prevent the inner panel from moving from the deployed arrangement.
In regard to claim 5, the combination of Hiscock/Chevis teaches the claimed invention further comprising a pair of side hinges (Chevis 209, 211); and
wherein a first and second one of the pair of outer flanges and a first and second one of the pair of inner panels collectively form the first and second pair of side hinges respectively (see Chevis fig. 2A) and the pair of inner panels collectively form the hinge coupling the pair of inner panels (see live hinge 2 of Hiscock).
In regard to claims 6 and 20, the combination of Hiscock/Chevis teaches the claimed invention wherein in the deployed arrangement, the pair of inner panels are configured to define a planar boundary of confined spaces in which concrete is poured. Since the device of the combination can form a planar surface between the two inner panels, then it meets the claim because it is capable of being used for forming a confined space for concrete (see MPEP 2114).
In regard to claim 7, the combination of Hiscock/Chevis teaches the claimed invention further comprising a coupling hole (6) extending through one of the pair of outer flanges (See Hiscock fig. 4A) configured to receive a fastener for coupling respecting form sections (see Hiscock [0065]).
In regard to claims 19, the combination teaches a handle in one of the pair of inner panels (see handle created between openings 5 of Hiscock) operable to move the pair of inner panels and the pair of outer flanges between a deployed arrangement and a collapsed arrangement.
Although the handle of the combination is not explicitly taught as protruding from one of the pair of inner panels or a hinge coupling the pair of inner panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a protruding handle that permits a worker get a quicker hold of the form to collapse it or deploy it. And because providing a handle in a construction element is notoriously well known in the art and therefore obvious because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143).
Claims 8-9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiscock et al. US and Chevis and in further view of Schimmel US 4,210,306 (hereinafter ‘Schimmel’).
In regard to claim 8, Hiscock teaches a collapsible concrete form (1) comprising:
a pair of inner panels (401, 402) hingedly coupled to one another (by live hinge 2);
a pair of outer flanges (403, 404) configured to about an adjacent form section (see [0065]), such that the pair of outer flanges and the pair of inner panels are disposed between the pair of adjacent form sections (see [0066]);
a pair of waler bracket mounting holes (6) configured to receive a waler bracket extending through the first and second of the pair of outer flanges, respectively.
Hiscock further teaches the pair of inner panels are configured to move between a deployed arrangement in which the pair of inner panels are colinear (fig. 4A) and a collapsed arrangement in which the pair of inner panels are askew (fig. 4B).
Hiscock does not explicitly teach a first one of the pair of outer flanges hingedly coupled to a first one of the pair of inner panels and a second one of the pair of outer flanges hingedly coupled to a second one of the pair of inner panels, neither does it teach a pair of waler brackets.
Chevis teaches a collapsible concrete form comprising a pair of inner panels (202, 204) hingedly coupled to one another (by hinge 207) and a pair of outer flanges (206, 208) such that a first one of the pair of outer flanges is hingedly coupled (at 209) to a first one of the pair of inner panels and a second one of the pair of outer flanges is hingedly coupled (at 211) to a second one of the pair of inner panels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide the outer flanges of Hiscock respectively hinged to the inner panels, as taught by Chevis, so as to provided a degree of adjustability of the form’s panels and also because doing so facilitates storage and transport of the forms.
Schimmel teaches a concrete form system comprising a pair of waler brackets (54/52, see fig. 3, see fig. 1 for the pair) inserted into a pair of waler bracket mounting hole (36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a pair of waler brackets in the forms of the combination, as taught by Schimmel, so as to provide a support for walers that keep the forms in alignment.
In regard to claim 9 and 11, Chevis teaches a locking brace (210, 212) protruding from one of the pair of inner panels.
It would have been obvious to provide a locking brace in the combination as taught by Chevis so as to reinforce the panel and provide stability to the form.
The combination further teaches a rigid element (see Schimmel 40) supported by the waler brackets and the locking brace. Note that the waler brackets, and the outer flanges abut the rigid member and maintain the assembly in the deployed configuration (see Schimmel fig. 1).
In regard to claims 12, the combination teaches a handle in one of the pair of inner panels (see handle created between openings 5 of Hiscock) operable to move the pair of inner panels and the pair of outer flanges between a deployed arrangement and a collapsed arrangement.
Although the handle of the combination is not explicitly taught as protruding from one of the pair of inner panels or a hinge coupling the pair of inner panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a protruding handle that permits a worker get a quicker hold of the form to collapse it or deploy it. And because providing a handle in a construction element is notoriously well known in the art and therefore obvious because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143).
In regard to claim 13, it is noted that the combination teaches a form is coupled to the collapsible form (see Hiscock fig. 7) but doesn’t teach the specifics of how is this attachment accomplished.
Chevis teaches a form coupling hole (308) extending through one of the outer flanges; it also includes a form section (105) including a panel, a frame coupled to the panel and disposed along a perimeter of the form panel; and a form section coupling hole extending through the frame; and a fastener configured to be inserted in the holes, coupling the collapsible form and the form section (see [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the forms including a frame and panel, and a hole in the flange of the combination, as taught by Chevis to as to enable the secure assembly of the form system.
In regard to claim 14 and 15, the combination teaches the collapsible form and the form section are coupled (see Chevis fig. 1B) and form a confined space in which concrete is poured.
Although the combination does not explicitly teach the pair of inner walls and the form section panel are colinear, it would have been obvious to install them being colinear in instances when not constructing a corner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10, 18 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.
In regard to claims 3, 10 and 18, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the collapsible concrete form recited in claim 2 (9, 17 for claims 10 and 18, respectively) with the locking brace having the specific structure of a pair of projections extending from one of the panels and a bearing panel extending between the projections and disposed parallel to one of the pair of inner panels, as recited within the context of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights