DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 8/25/2026. Currently, claims 1-19 are pending. No claims have been withdrawn. No claims have been cancelled. New claims 16-19 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BE 877045 A (‘BE ‘045’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 1, BE ‘045 provides a safety device (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2 of BE ‘877 shown below in Examiner’s Notes) for a ceiling formwork structure (note that the ceiling formwork structure is not positively recited, but is nonetheless disclosed in BE ‘045; “ceiling formwork structure” in annotated Fig. 1), the safety device comprising:
a first grid (“first grid” annotated Fig. 2) wherein a projection (“projection” annotated Fig. 1) is arranged along a first edge of the first grid (annotated Fig. 1), wherein the projection protrudes in relation to a plane which is spanned by the first grid (annotated Fig. 1), in order to form a stop member for formwork panels of the ceiling formwork structure against the safety device (note that a stop member, formwork panels and ceiling formwork structure are not positively recited and thus not required, but that the projection of the safety device is suitable to form a stop member for formwork panels of the ceiling formwork structure against the safety device, as exceedingly broadly claimed; “formwork panels” in annotated Fig. 1).
Claim 12, BE ‘045 provides a ceiling formwork arrangement (annotated Figs. 1 and 2) comprising formwork support beams (“formwork support beams” annotated Fig. 2) and at least one safety device (annotated Figs. 1 and 2) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 as above), wherein at least one of the at least one safety device and the formwork support beams are constructed and arranged in such a way that the projection of the at least one safety device can come into abutment with formwork panels of the ceiling formwork (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least one of the at least one safety device and the formwork support beams are constructed and arranged in such a way that the projection of the at least one safety device is suitable to come into abutment with formwork panels of the ceiling formwork, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 19, BE ‘045 further provides wherein the at least one safety device rests on an upper side of at least two formwork support beams (annotated Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 1, DE ‘157 provides a safety device (see annotated Figs. 1-2 of DE ‘157 shown below in Examiner’s Notes) for a ceiling formwork structure, the safety device comprising:
a first grid (one of the “grid” members cited in annotated Figs. 1-2) wherein a projection (note that several different elements shown in annotated Figs. 1-2 could be considered a projection, such as element “b”, or alternatively an element below element “a” such as “e”, the portion of the first grid that engages “e”, or 1, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Figs. 1-2) is arranged along a first edge of the first grid (note that several different edges shown in annotated Figs. 1-2 could be considered a first edge, along which the various possible projections extend; annotated Figs. 1-2), wherein the projection protrudes in relation to a plane which is spanned by the first grid (note that various possible projections protrude with respect to a plane which is spanned by the first grid; annotated Figs. 1-2), in order to form a stop member for formwork panels of the ceiling formwork structure against the safety device (under the broadest reasonable interpterion, a stop member, formwork panels and a ceiling formwork structure are not positively recited and thus not required, and various projections are suitable to form a stop member for formwork panels, including any of the protruding portions of the grids shown in annotated Figs. 1-2, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Figs. 1-2).
Claim 2, DE ‘157 further provides a second grid (an adjacent “grid” to the first grid; annotated Figs. 1-2), wherein the first grid is pivotably connected to the second grid along a second edge (it is understood that the grids are connected to each other by the hook structure between adjacent grids; abstract; “without establishing a fixed connection between the matting and the frame” see English translation, page 3, lines 65-66; annotated Figs. 1-2), which is located opposite to the first edge (annotated Figs. 1-2) and which extends at least substantially parallel to the first edge (it is understood that the second edge extends at least substantially parallel to the first edge; annotated Figs. 1-2).
Claim 4, DE ‘157 further provides guide elements (note that several different elements could be considered guide elements, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Figs. 1-2) which are arranged on a side of the plane which faces away from the projection (such as a bottom side of the plane, or a right side of the plane, as exceedingly broadly claimed as shown in annotated Figs. 1-2), which plane is spanned by at least one of the first grid and the second grid (annotated Figs. 1-2).
Claim 5, DE ‘157 further provides wherein the guide elements are profiles (note that several of the elements that could be considered guide elements, such as element b are round profiles; annotated Figs. 1-2), which extend at least substantially perpendicular to the first edge (note that several of the elements that could be considered the guide elements, such as element b extend at least substantially perpendicular to several elements that could be considered the guide element, such as element e; annotated Figs. 1-2).
Claim 6, DE ‘157 further provides wherein at least one of the first grid and the second grid comprises at least two layers of grid bars (a, b and/or the bars that extend through the loops could be considered grid bars, as exceedingly broadly claimed), wherein at least grid bars of a layer which is arranged on a side which faces away from the projection are round (note that each of a, b and the bars that extend through the loops are each round, and could each be considered to be arranged on a side which faces away from the projection, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Figs. 1-2).
Claim 7, DE ‘157 further provides wherein at least one of the first grid and the second grid comprises at least two layers of grid bars (a, b and/or the bars that extend through the loops could be considered grid bars, as exceedingly broadly claimed), wherein at least grid bars of a layer which is arranged on a side which faces away from the projection (elements b and/or the bars that extend through the loops could be considered to be arranged on a side which faces away from the projection, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Figs. 1-2) are oriented at least substantially parallel to the first edge (3).
Claim 17, DE ‘157 further provides wherein the guide elements are rails or round profiles (English Machine Translation page 2, lines 49-52; annotated Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
EP 3231961 A1 (‘EP ‘961’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 1, EP ‘961 provides a safety device (Figs. 1-3) for a ceiling formwork structure, the safety device comprising:
a first grid (one grid members 8 in Figs. 1-3) wherein a projection 9 is arranged along a first edge of the first grid (Figs. 1-3), wherein the projection protrudes in relation to a plane which is spanned by the first grid (Figs. 1-3), in order to form a stop member for formwork panels of the ceiling formwork structure against the safety device (under the broadest reasonable interpterion, a stop member, formwork panels and a ceiling formwork structure are not positively recited and thus not required, and element 9 is suitable to form a stop member for formwork panels of the ceiling formwork structure against the safety device, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-3).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BE 877045 A (‘BE ‘045’) (as provided by applicant) in view of DE 1068880 (‘DE ‘880’) (as provided by applicant).
Claims 3 and 16, BE ‘045 further teaches wherein the projection has, in a direction perpendicular to the plane, a greater extent than a thickness of a formwork panel 3 which is meant to come into abutment with the projection (annotated Fig. 2). BE ‘045 does not teach in particular an extent of about twice the thickness. However, DE ‘880 teaches a safety device comprising a projection 2 that has, in a direction perpendicular to a plane (generally horizontal plane as shown in Fig. 1), a greater extent than a thickness of a formwork panel 5 which is meant to come into abutment with the projection (Fig. 1), in particular an extent of about twice the thickness (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the projection of 2 is about twice the thickness of the formwork panel; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the proportion of the projection relative to the formwork panel such that the projection has, in a direction perpendicular to the plane, a greater extent than a thickness of a formwork panel which is meant to come into abutment with the projection, in particular an extent of about twice the thickness, with the reasonable expectation of forming the projection having a height that is reasonably visible to workers using the safety device, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 8, DE ‘157 further teaches wherein at least one of the first grid and the second grid are rectangular (annotated Figs. 1-2), and at least one of the first edge and the second edge has an edge length (annotated Figs. 1-2), wherein, each of the two edges of at least one of the first grid and the second grid, which extend at least substantially perpendicular to the first edge, have an edge length (annotated Figs. 1-2). DE ‘157 does not specify that the edge length of the first edge and/or the second edge being about 2.00 m, and the two edges of the first grid and/or the second grid having an edge length of 1.00 m. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the respective lengths, such that at least one of the first edge and the second edge has an edge length of about 2.00 m, and each of the two edges of at least one of the first grid and the second grid, which extend at least substantially perpendicular to the first edge, have an edge length of about 1.00 m, with the reasonable expectation of success of using the safety device on corresponding sizes of openings or gaps on the ceiling formwork structure, while permitting ease of movement and installation, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art).
Claims 10 and 18, DE ‘157 teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as above. DE ‘157 does not specify that the mesh width is preferably about 12 cm to about 17 cm, or at most 15 centimeters. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the first and second grid mesh width such that the mesh width is preferably about 12 cm to about 17 cm, or wherein the mesh width is at most about 15 centimeters, with the reasonable expectation of success of further ensuring that a person does not fall through the grids, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant) in view of EP 3231961 A1 (‘EP ‘961’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 9, DE ‘157 teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as above. DE ‘157 does not teach wherein at least one of the first grid and the second grid have running channels on each of the two edges which are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to the first edge, in order to connect the safety device to further safety devices. However, EP ‘961 teaches first and second grids having running channels 11on each of two edges which are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to a first edge (edge at 9), in order to connect the safety device to further safety devices (Figs. 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the safety device such that the first grid and/or the second grid have running channels on each of the two edges which are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to the first edge, in order to connect the safety device to further safety devices, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to connect the safety device.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant) in view of EP 2402000 A1 (‘EP ‘000’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 9, DE ‘157 teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as above. DE ‘157 does not teach wherein at least one of the first grid and the second grid have running channels on each of the two edges which are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to the first edge, in order to connect the safety device to further safety devices. However, EP ‘000 teaches first and second grids having running channels (3 and/or 5) on each of two edges (Figs. 2-3) which are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to a first edge (edge at top or bottom; Figs. 2-3), in order to connect the grids to additional grids to another grid (Figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the safety device such that the first grid and/or the second grid have running channels on each of the two edges which are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to the first edge, in order to connect the safety device to further safety devices, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to connect the safety device.
Claim 11, the combination of DE ‘157 and EP ‘000 teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as above, and further teaches a safety device system (DE ‘157 see annotated Figs. 1-2 of DE ‘157 shown below in Examiner’s Notes), which comprises a plurality of safety devices (DE ‘157 it is understood that a plurality of such safety devices are used on a structure) according to claim 9, wherein adjacent safety devices are connected along the edges which are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to the respective first edge. In the event that applicant disagrees that a plurality of such safety devices are taught, the examiner takes the position that incorporating additional safety devices would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the safety device by incorporating a plurality of safety devices according to claim 9, wherein adjacent safety devices are connected along the edges which are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to the respective first edge, in particular at running channels, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing safety by preventing people from falling through openings in a structure in a larger area of the structure, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis. See also In re Harza, 274 F2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
EP 4026962 A1 (‘EP ‘962’) (as provided by applicant) in view of DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 14, EP ‘962 teaches a method of deploying formwork panels of a ceiling formwork structure, the method comprising the following process steps:
placing an arrangement of a plurality of formwork support beams 5 which are oriented at least substantially in parallel (Fig. 1A);
positioning a first formwork panel 6; and
slidingly moving the first formwork panel in the longitudinal direction of the formwork support beams until the first formwork panel can be placed or has been placed on the formwork support beams (Fig. 1A).
EP ‘962 does not teach the method including placing a safety device as claimed.
However, DE ‘157 teaches a safety device (see annotated Figs. 1-2 of DE ‘157 shown below in Examiner’s Notes; see also the rejection of claim 1 as above) for a ceiling formwork structure, which comprises a planar first grid (annotated Figs. 1-2), wherein a projection (see rejection of claim 1) is arranged along a first edge of the first grid (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the projection protrudes with respect to a plane which is spanned by the first grid in accordance with claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1; annotated Figs. 1-2), a first edge is oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the formwork support beams (g; Figs. 1-2) and that the projection points upwards and is oriented towards the side of the formwork support beams (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of EP ‘962 by providing a safety device comprising a planar first grid, wherein a projection is arranged along a first edge of the first grid, wherein the projection protrudes with respect to a plane which is spanned by the first grid in accordance with claim 1, on an arrangement of a plurality of formwork support beams which are oriented at least substantially in parallel, in such a way that the first edge is oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the formwork support beams and that the projection points upwards and is oriented towards the side of the formwork support beams from which the formwork panels are intended to be deployed, positioning a first formwork panel in such a way that an edge of the first formwork panel comes into abutment with the projection of the safety device, and slidingly moving the first formwork panel together with the safety device in the longitudinal direction of the formwork support beams until the first formwork panel can be placed or has been placed on the formwork support beams, with the reasonable expectation of success of preventing a person from falling through an opening in the structure while formwork panels are being installed.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
EP 4026962 A1 (‘EP ‘962’) (as provided by applicant) in view of DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant) and further in view of EP 2402000 A1 (‘EP ‘000’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 15, EP ‘962 teaches a method of deploying formwork panels of a ceiling formwork structure, the method comprising the following process steps:
providing a plurality of support beams 5 which are oriented at least substantially in parallel (Fig. 1A);
positioning a first formwork panel (Fig. 1A);
slidingly moving the first formwork panel in the longitudinal direction of the formwork support beams until the first formwork panel can be placed or has been placed on the formwork support beams (Fig. 1A);
positioning a second formwork panel (Fig. 1A); and
slidingly moving the second formwork panel in the longitudinal direction of the formwork support beams until the second formwork panel can be placed or has been placed on the formwork support beams (Fig. 1A).
EP ‘962 does not teach the method including placing a safety device system as claimed.
However, DE ‘157 teaches placing a safety device system which comprises a first safety device and a second safety device (see annotated Figs. 1-2 of DE ‘157 shown below; see also rejection of claims 1, 9 and 11 as above) for a ceiling formwork structure, each of which comprises a planar first grid wherein a projection is arranged along a first edge of the first grid, wherein the projection protrudes with respect to a plane which is spanned by the at least one first grid (see rejection of claims 1, 9 and 11 as above), a first edge being oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the formwork support beams and the projection pointing upwards and is oriented towards the side of the formwork support beams from which the formwork panels that are intended to be deployed, positioning the first formwork panel in such a way that an edge of the first formwork panel comes into abutment with the projection of the first safety device, slidingly moving the first formwork panel together with the first safety device in the longitudinal direction of the formwork support beams until the first formwork panel can be placed or has been placed on the formwork support beams, positioning the second formwork panel in such a way that an edge of the second formwork panel comes into abutment with the projection of the second safety device, and slidingly moving the second formwork panel together with the second safety device in the longitudinal direction of the formwork support beams until the second formwork panel can be placed or has been placed on the formwork support beams, with the reasonable expectation of success of preventing a person from falling through an opening in the structure while formwork panels are being installed.
Regarding safety devices having channels, EP ‘000 teaches a method of providing lattice structure comprising first grids having running channels (3 and/or 5) at respective two edges (Figs. 2-3) which are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to a first edge (Figs. 2-3), wherein the two safety devices are connected at the running channels (Figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate running channels at the respective two edges which are arranged at least substantially perpendicular to the first edge, wherein the two safety devices are connected at the running, on an arrangement of a plurality of formwork support beams which are oriented at least substantially in parallel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to connect adjacent lattices or safety devices.
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
454
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of BE 877045 A (‘BE ‘045’)
Examiner’s Notes (cont.)
PNG
media_image2.png
628
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of BE 877045 A (‘BE ‘045’)
Examiner’s Notes (cont.)
PNG
media_image3.png
569
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 1 and 2 of DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or disclose, alone or in combination, all the elements and features of the claimed invention as a whole, as claimed in claim 13. Regarding claim 13, BE 877045 A (‘BE ‘045’) teaches the ceiling formwork arrangement of claim 12, in addition to formwork supports (“framework supports” annotated Fig. 1) and the formwork panels (“formwork panels” annotated Fig. 1), wherein the formwork support beams are supported by the formwork supports (annotated Figs. 1 and 2), and at least one of the formwork panels (annotated Figs. 1 and 2) and the first grid of the at least one safety device lie on at least two of the formwork support beams (annotated Figs. 1 and 2) such that the projection extends upwardly away from the at least two of the formwork support beams (annotated Fig. 1), wherein the at least one safety device is arranged in such a way that, the first edge is oriented at least substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the formwork support beams (annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
BE ‘045 does not teach the projection being located between the at least one of the formwork panels and the first grid, the at least one of the formwork panels abuts the projection, and the at least one safety device is slidable along the at least two formwork support beams in response to a force applied to the projection by the at least one of the formwork panels in the longitudinal direction, as recited in claim 13. It would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill to modify or combine BE ‘045 with any other cited prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claim(s) 1, 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BE 877045 A (‘BE ‘045’) (as provided by applicant).
Re claim 1, applicant argues that BE ‘045 allegedly does not teach, “a first grid wherein a projection is arranged along a first edge of the first grid, wherein the projection protrudes in relation to a plane which is spanned by the first grid, in order to form a stop member for formwork panels of the ceiling formwork structure against the safety device”. Applicant’s reasoning is that BE ‘045 allegedly teaches a product used for something other than formwork panels. Applicant’s argument specifically hinges on the claim limitation, “in order to form a stop member for formwork panels of the ceiling formwork structure against the safety device”, which is a statement of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this rejection, BE ‘045 meets all the structural requirements, as exceedingly broadly claimed, and is suitable to perform the function of forming a stop member for formwork panels as claimed. Thus, BE ‘045 reads on the claim, regardless of whether applicant believes the reference allegedly is used for a different utility of application. MPEP 2111.
Re claim 13, applicant argues that BE ‘045 allegedly does not teach, the projection "is located between the at least one of the formwork panels and the first grid". This is a newly added limitation in the claim amendment filed on 8/25/2026 and is accordingly addressed in the rejection of claim 13 set forth in this instant Office action.
Rejection of claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant).
Re claim 1, applicant argues that DE ‘157 allegedly does not teach, “a first grid wherein a projection is arranged along a first edge of the first grid, wherein the projection protrudes in relation to a plane which is spanned by the first grid, in order to form a stop member for formwork panels of the ceiling formwork structure against the safety device”. Applicant’s reasoning is similar to that above with respect to BE ‘045 in that DE '157 allegedly teaches a product used for something other than formwork panels. Applicant’s argument specifically hinges on the claim limitation, “in order to form a stop member for formwork panels of the ceiling formwork structure against the safety device”, which is a statement of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this rejection, DE ‘157 meets all the structural requirements, as exceedingly broadly claimed, and is suitable to perform the function of forming a stop member for formwork panels as claimed. Thus, DE ‘157 reads on the claim, regardless of whether applicant believes the reference allegedly is used for a different utility of application. MPEP 2111.
Next, applicant argues that DE ‘157 allegedly does not teach a “projection” as recited in claim 1. Applicant’s reasoning is that the allegedly cited “hook ends” in the previous Office action filed on 6/16/2026 do not constitute projections as claimed. However, the previous Office action cited several different elements that could be reasonably construed as projections, as exceedingly broadly claimed, including elements “b”, “a”, “e”, “the portion of the first grid that engages ‘e’” or “1” (previous Office action, page marked 8). Applicant’s argument only addresses one of the possible cited projections, which applicant refers to as, “hook ends”. The fact that DE ‘157’s “hook ends” are bent does not preclude such structure from being considered a projection, under the plain meaning and in light of applicant’s specification. The fact that DE ‘157’s “hook ends” are intended to prevent displacement does not preclude such structure from serving the purpose of being stop members.
In response to applicant's argument that DE ‘157 is allegedly nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the instant invention and DE ‘157 are each drawn to wire mats used in construction. As such, DE ‘157 is analogous art and DE ‘157 meets the claim.
Re claim 2, applicant argues that DE ‘157 allegedly does not teach, “the first grid is pivotably connected to the second grid along a second edge”. However, the DE ‘157’s first and second grids are held together with an eyelet engaging a rod. The English translation of DE ‘157 recites that while relative displacement of the matting and the frame is prevented, a fixed connection is not established between the matting and the frame (Machine Translation page 3, lines 63-67, and that “the longitudinal wires, in the region of one of their ends, form mutually aligned loops accommodating a transverse rod, over which the hook-like bent ends of the longitudinal wires of a mesh section to be connected engage” (Machine Translation claim 1). It is understood that the hook and rod connection permits such pivotable connection as claimed, especially in light of the claim being drawn to merely a safety device without requiring any connection or attachment to a roof or ceiling. Thus, DE ‘157 meets the claim.
Claims 4 and 7 stand or fall with claim 2 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
EP 3231961 A1 (‘EP ‘961’) (as provided by applicant).
Re claim 1, applicant argues that EP ‘961 allegedly does not teach, “a first grid wherein a projection is arranged along a first edge of the first grid, wherein the projection protrudes in relation to a plane which is spanned by the first grid, in order to form a stop member for formwork panels of the ceiling formwork structure against the safety device”. Applicant’s reasoning is that EP '961 teaches a safety structure positioned entirely below the formwork panels where no panel can abut it. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., panels abutting a safety structure, the safety structure lying above the formwork panels, and something pushed forward by a panel) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Rejection of claim(s) 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
BE 877045 A (‘BE ‘045’) (as provided by applicant) in view of DE 1068880 (‘DE ‘880’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 3 stands or falls with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant).
Claims 8-10 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant) in view of EP 3231961 A1 (‘EP ‘961’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 9 stands or falls with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant) in view of EP 2402000 A1 (‘EP ‘000’) (as provided by applicant).
Claims 9 and 11 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
EP 4026962 A1 (‘EP ‘962’) (as provided by applicant) in view of DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant).
Re claim 14, applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine EP ‘962 and DE ‘157. In response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Rejection of claim(s) 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
EP 4026962 A1 (‘EP ‘962’) (as provided by applicant) in view of DE 1763157 U (‘DE ‘157’) (as provided by applicant) and further in view of EP 2402000 A1 (‘EP ‘000’) (as provided by applicant).
Re claim 15, applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine EP ‘962, DE ‘157 and EP ‘000. In response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 15 stands or falls with claim 1 as above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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 at 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights