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 .
The amendment filed on 25 September 2025 in response to the non-final rejection mailed on 30 May 2025 has been considered. Claim(s) 1-16 and 25-30 is/are pending. Claim(s) 17-24 has/have been canceled. Claim(s) 25-30 has/have been added. Claim(s) 1-16 and 25-30 has/have been examined in this action.
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 1-16 and 25-30 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claims continue to encompass both a “fully constructed” material and an intermediate material. The claim is examined based on the final product; therefore it is unclear how the claim can be directed to a “fully constructed reinforced cementitious composite material” yet still include an “extrudable cementitious material” and further include a “partially constructed reinforced composite material” which “cures over time”.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is also deemed indefinite based on “a fully constructed…composite material”. This recitation renders the question, is the claim directed to the material itself or to the structure in which the material is forming? Can a “material” be “fully constructed” or is a full construction made from the material? It appears certain terms are being used interchangeably which is rendering the claims confusing and indefinite. The claims should either be directed to the material or to the construction. The material would include the “extrudable cementitious material”. The final construction would include the cured filaments and the reinforcement member. The term “material” is defined as “a basic matter from which the whole or greater part of something physical is made; therefore the cementitious materials bonded to reinforcement members of barbed wires would not necessarily be deemed “a material”.
Please clarify between a material and a final product. Please clarify what it means to be a “fully constructed…composite material”. Pleasure ensure all definitions are derived from the disclosure as originally filed.
Regarding claim 1, lines 21-22, the recitation “such that a tensile bond strength…is enhanced” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the limitation entails. The tensile bond strength is enhanced compared to what? Enhanced in what way? Enhanced to what extent?
Regarding claim 1, lines 24-25, the recitation “the tensile bond strength…is sufficient to prevent tears or cracks” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the recitation entails. What does “sufficient” mean? What forces are being applied which cause tears and cracks? What value of tensile bond strength is “sufficient”? And is this same value “sufficient under all circumstances?
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 2 are already included within claim 1 from which it depends.
The remainder of the claims depend from and therefore fall with claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0370546 A1 to Mayer in view of JP H0629805 U (hereafter JP).
Regarding claim 1, Mayer discloses a fully constructed reinforced cementitious composite material (Fig.2) comprising: an extrudable cementitious material (concrete; Paragraph [0028]) comprising a plurality of printed filaments (2, 3) deposited onto a surface (ground or other supporting surface, Fig.1) including a first extruded filament (3) and a second extruded filament (2) that is directly bonded with the first filament such that the second filament is conformed with the first filament (the second filament is directed printed onto the first filament, thereby concrete when cured will be directly bonded therewith); a reinforcement member (10, Fig.2) disposed onto the cementitious material (Fig.2) between the first extruded filament and the second extruded filament (10a, on top of 3 and beneath 2) when in a flowable state (Fig.2), thereby forming a partially constructed reinforced composite material that cures over time to form the fully constructed reinforced cementitious composite material (Fig.2; material cures over time), the reinforcement member comprising: (i) at least one elongate wire (rods, threads, chains, cables; Paragraph [0032]) at least partially embedded in and extending along at least one of the first extruded filament and the second extruded filament (Fig.2; a reinforcement laid upon the extruded filament and under the next filament will be embedded within).
Mayer discloses reinforcements being a metal material (Paragraph [0028]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the reinforcements (10) are metallic. Mayer also discloses rods, chains, threads, etc. but does not specifically disclose a plurality of barbs extending from the elongate metal wire in a transverse direction to the elongate metal wire so that a first barb of the plurality of barbs extends into the first filament and second barb of the plurality of barbs extends into the second filament, wherein the plurality of barbs are configured to mechanically engage the filaments, enhance a tensile bond strength between the material and the reinforcement member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the invention to have formed the reinforcements of Mayer from metal since reinforcements within cement and concrete are known to be formed from steel which an extremely strong and durable material which greatly adds to the strength of the structure.
JP discloses providing barbed wire (25) as a reinforcement within a structural material (Fig.9), the barbed wire comprising an elongate metal wire (longitudinal wire of 25, Fig.9) and a plurality of barbs (barbs extending from elongate wires, Fig.9) extending from the elongate wire in a transverse direction, the barbs extending into both of the first and second structural layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided reinforcements within the material of Mayer having barbs as taught by JP so to provide a reinforcements which have projections which have the ability to engage both filaments and has the ability to create a greater hold within the concrete/cement material of the structure.
The elongated barbed wires of JP installed within the filaments of Mayer will in fact extend into the filaments due to the weight and force of the cementitious material, and therefore will grab and engage the material of the structure and prevent slippage of the reinforcement within the material. This engagement will naturally “enhance” the tensile bond strength between the filaments. Further, the reinforcement is capable of preventing tears and cracks.
Regarding claim 2, Mayer discloses wherein the reinforcement member is disposed between the printed filaments in the cementitious material (Fig.2; Paragraph [0032] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 4, JP discloses wherein the reinforcement member comprises a plurality of barbs (each barb along 25, Fig. 7 and 9) along the length of the at least one elongate metal wire.
Regarding claim 5, Mayer discloses wherein the reinforcement member is disposed between a first printed filament (2) and a second printed filament (3) in the cementitious material (Fig.2), wherein the second printed filament is configured adjacent to the first printed filament (Fig.2).
Mayer discloses the reinforcement between the filaments. JP discloses providing barbed wire as a reinforcements; therefore the barbs of the barbed wire will engage both the first and second filaments.
Regarding claim 6, although JP shows what one would assume to be barbs having spacing between 1 cm and 50 cm, JP does not specifically disclose the distances between barbs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the optimal spacing of the barbs to minimalize the amount of material used while maximizing the strength of the structure in which the barbed wire was inserted.
Regarding claim 7, JP discloses wherein the barbs at least partially wrap around the at least one elongate metal wire (Fig.9).
Regarding claim 8, JP discloses wherein the reinforcement member comprises at least two elongate metal wires helically twisted along the length of the elongate metal wires (Fig.9).
Regarding claim 9, JP discloses wherein the at least two elongate metal wires comprise from 2 to 50 nodes between the barbs (Fig.9).
Regarding claim 10, JP discloses wherein some or all the barbs wrap between the at least two elongate metal wires (Fig.9).
Regarding claim 11, Mayer appears to disclose wherein the reinforcement extends from 5% to 100% of the length (10a, Fig.2; the reinforcement is shown all the way to the ends of 2/3, Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have ensured the reinforcements extended substantially the entire length of the material so to provide reinforcement along the entire length and reducing weak spots in the fully constructed material.
JP does not specifically disclose wherein some or all of the barbs wrap around the outside of the at least two elongate metal wires.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the barbs being wrapped around individual wires of the wire as well as around the exterior of the multiple wires making up the barbed wire such that the barbs stay in place between nodes of the intertwined wire as well as aide in securing the intertwined wires together.
Regarding claim 12, Mayer discloses wherein the cementitious material completely surrounds the at least one elongate metal wire; therefore Mayer would surround the metal wire and the barbs as taught by JP.
Regarding claim 13, Mayer discloses wherein the cementitious material comprises a plurality of the reinforcement members disposed therein (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 15, Mayer discloses having one or more configuration selected from:(i) from 2 to 500 rows of reinforcement members disposed within the composite material (Fig.2).
JP also discloses providing rows within each layer (Fig.7).
Regarding claim 16, Mayer discloses wherein the reinforcement members in the rows are discontinuous as the reinforcement members extend along the length of the composite material (each row is its own wire and does not continue to the next row).
JP discloses providing discontinuous rows within the same layer (Fig.7).
Claim(s) 3, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0370546 A1 to Mayer in view of JP H0629805 U (hereafter JP) in view of US 9,416,052 B2 to Feldman et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 28, Mayer discloses a concrete material but does not disclose the specifics of the cementitious material.
Feldman et al. disclose wherein the cementitious material comprises a cement binder, an aggregate, at least one pozzolanic additive (3%wt to 20%wt; Table 4, Column 11; approx.. 6% fly ash), an accelerator, water, and nanoclay (Table; Column 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the desired materials as taught by Feldman et al. to be used in the structure of Mayer so to provide the desired strength, workability, set time, etc.
Regarding claim 27, Mayer does not disclose specific times for a final set time or curing time.
Feldman et al. disclose a cementitious material which is provided with retarding agents or accelerating agents which can either speed up set times or slow down set times (Column 5, lines 24-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the material of Mayer with a final set time less than 300 minutes so to enable the final structure to be formed without the worry of slumping of the material or the filaments not holding up under pressure or stress.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0370546 A1 to Mayer in view of JP H0629805 U (hereafter JP) in view of US 2020/0149269 A1 to Crump et al.
Regarding claim 14, Mayer does not disclose wherein the reinforcement member comprises a curved structure within the cementitious material.
Crump et al. disclose providing reinforcements having a curved structure (Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided curved reinforcements within with material as taught by Crump et al. so to increase the bond and strength between reinforcement and the material since the surface area engaged between the materials is increased and the bends provide a means to increase the pull out strength since the material would have to be straightened while pulling to pull out of the material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 26, 29, and 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 fails to disclose the specifics of the structure of the composite material in combination with the requirements for specific tensile bond strengths or modulus of rupture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments of “Burden of Proving Obviousness”, the arguments rehash form paragraphs but do not point specifically from anything lacking in the previous rejection; therefore the arguments are deemed moot.
Applicant argues that Mayer fails to teach or suggest any reinforced cementitious material having a first filament, a second filament, and a reinforced member as specifically claimed. This is true in the idea that Mayer does not specifically disclose the barbs which was stated in the rejection. Mayer does teach the reinforcement being rods, threads, chains, cables.
Applicant argues that JP does not support the rejection since JP teaches the use of a barbed wire reinforcement in a pressed structure wherein the layers are not in the flowable state. This is not found to be persuasive. Mayer teaches filaments being extruded/printed with reinforcements embedded within. JP teaches the use of barbed wire as a reinforcement. At the very least, it would have been obvious to try the barbed wire reinforcement embedded within the extruded filaments. Using the barbed wire reinforcement in lieu of the members 10a of Mayer, will then cause the barbs to embed within the filaments since the filaments are in a flowable state. Further since the reinforcement does in fact have protrusions/barbs, the pull out strength of the tensile bond strength will be enhanced.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635