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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 51-54 are allowed.
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 1-11, 14-15, 19-21, 28, 32, 34, 37-39 and 49-50 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 phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crawford (EP 3415672) or in the alternative rejected under 35 USC 103 over Crawford (EP 3415672) in view of Schlusslbauer et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0246460).
Regarding claim 55, Crawford teaches an expandable porous framework (cloth) with the framework containing a dry cementitious powder fill that when exposed to an aqueous media will expand against the constraint of the formwork and set to form a solid hard and coherent material [0012-0025, 0051 and claims 1, 12-13 and 24]. The formwork is porous to liquids but substantially impermeable to the cementitious powder fill. Crawford is silent regarding the claimed toroidal formwork with rectangular or square cross-section with radiused corners. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any shape including rectangular or square cross-section with radiused corners as is known in the art and also to suit to end use requirements.
In the alternative, Crawford teaches any shape can be used for a formwork and Schlusselbauer et al. teach a toroidal shape in order to form a tubular product. It would have been obvious to use the toroidal shape of Schlusselbauer et al. in Crawford in order to obtain a tubular shape and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, as evidenced by PG Pub. 2017/0368713 & WO 2013/076464, it is known not only in the art to use a toroidal shape, but also to use a knit spacer fabric in such formwork in a toroidal shape. Therefore, the present claim and limitation of toroidal is obvious.
Crawford is silent regarding the claimed multiple torus rings arranged adjacent to each other. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange multiple torus rings (and thus has groups of one) adjacent to each other as is known in the art. It further would have been obvious to provide different formwork (i.e. different diameter rings and therefore have at least one group having different formwork material) which would provide different properties along the length of the formwork and arrive at the claimed invention. It is noted that the present claim language is broad and merely recited different formwork.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robisson (PG Pub. 2013/0161006) or in the alternative rejected under 35 USC 103 over Robisson (PG Pub. 2013/0161006) in view of Schlusslbauer et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0246460).
Regarding claim 55, Robisson et al. teach an expandable porous framework (membrane) with the framework containing a dry cementitious powder fill that when exposed to an aqueous media will expand against the constraint of the formwork and set to form a solid hard and coherent material [Abstract, 0026]. The formwork is porous to liquids but substantially impermeable to the cementitious powder fill.
Robisson et al. is silent regarding the claimed toroidal formwork with rectangular or square cross-section with radiused corners. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any shape including rectangular or square cross-section with radiused corners as is known in the art and also to suit to end use requirements.
In the alternative, Schlusselbauer et al. teach a toroidal shape in order to form a tubular product. It would have been obvious to use the toroidal shape of Schlusselbauer et al. in Crawford in order to obtain a tubular shape and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, as evidenced by PG Pub. 2017/0368713 & WO 2013/076464, it is known not only in the art to use a toroidal shape. Therefore, the present claim and limitation of toroidal is obvious.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed multiple torus rings arranged adjacent to each other. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange multiple torus rings (and thus has groups of one) adjacent to each other as is known in the art. It further would have been obvious to provide different formwork (i.e. different diameter rings and therefore have at least one group having different formwork material) which would provide different properties along the length of the formwork and arrive at the claimed invention. It is noted that the present claim language is broad and merely recited different formwork.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not moot as the claims are now rejected under 35 USC 112(b) and new claim 55 is rejected.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789