DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 17/670,950. Receipt of the RCE, amendments, and arguments filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16, 21, and 23-27 are pending.
Claims 10, 15, 17-20, and 22 are cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16, 21, and 23-27 are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/01/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-9, 12-14, 21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secrest (U.S. Publication 2012/0180412) in view of Manos et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0255251) and Rhino Carbon Fiber (Rhino Carbon Fiber, Technical Data Sheet for Rhino Carbon Fiber Unidirectional, 07/25/2019, obtained from https://web.archive.org/web/20211018125737/https://www.rhinocarbonfiber.com/content/files/technical-info/tds/RCF_TDSUndirectionalCF7_21.pdf)).
Regarding claim 1, Secrest discloses a wall reinforcement system, comprising:
a wall structure (#100) having a top end and a bottom end (the top and bottom ends of figure 6);
a carbon fiber strap (#207) adhered to the wall structure between the top end and a bottom end (paragraph 44 discloses epoxy is used to adhere the strap to the wall, where the strap extends between the top and bottom ends of the wall as depicted in figure 9), the CFS having a first end, a second end, and an intermediate portion disposed between the first end and the second end (the strap #207 comprises of longitudinal terminal ends and an intermediate portion between the ends);
a top bracket (#214) fixedly secured to a support member (#213) located above the top end of the wall structure (see figures 6 and 7), the top bracket comprises a substantially planar plate (Plate #527 of the top bracket #214 is substantially planar, as depicted in figure 5. Alternatively, if Applicant is arguing that prongs #425 are part of the plate #527, paragraph 36 discloses that such prongs can be connected to the sill plate bracket #214 separately and do not necessarily need to be formed from the plate #214 itself, thus forming a completely planar plate when such an embodiment is used.) including a central body portion (the portion between cutouts #424 as depicted in figure 4); and
wherein the intermediate portion of the CFS being wrapped and overlapped upon itself defining a double-ply section of CFS, and wherein at least a portion of the double-ply section is directly or indirectly clamped between the central body portion of the top bracket and the support member to define a clamped-double-ply portion of the CFS (paragraph 43 discloses the strip #207 is folded upon itself and such a folded, double ply portion can be clamped by the bracket #214 to the support member #213).
However, Secrest does not disclose the use of a support-lock element located above the top bracket and the top end of the wall such that the CFS is wrapped around the SLE to form the double ply section clamped by the top bracket, where the clamped-double-ply portion of the CFS is contacted only by the substantially planar plate. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Manos et al., that structures can be reinforced using a fiber reinforcing sheet #3 bonded to the surface of the structure using adhesives or epoxy, where the sheet #3 is wrapped around a support lock element #1 that is positioned above a top bracket #9 that clamps a double ply portion of the sheet to a top portion of the structure to be reinforced. See figures 8-10. Furthermore, figures 8-10 of Manos et al. depict the fiber reinforcing sheet #3 is double clamped so that the double clamping portion is contacted only by the planar plate #9 and the support member #5. Moreover, paragraph 63 of Manos et al. disclose the diameter of the SLE #1 can fall within the range of 10mm and 200mm, according to overall capacity that is demanded by the design of the strengthening scheme, where such a ranges overlaps and thus teaches the range as presently defined. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Secrest to comprise of support-lock elements which are located above the top bracket so that the CFS wraps around the SLE to form a double ply section that is clamped by the top bracket so that the double ply section contacts only the planar plate and support member, as taught in Manos et al., in order to provide tension and further strength in the reinforcing sheet of Secrest to strengthen the structure it is attached to.
Furthermore, though Secrest and Manos et al. do not specifically disclose the basis weight for the CFS is at least 300 gsm, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Rhino Carbon Fiber, that unidirectional carbon fiber sheets used to form a reinforced polymer to strength structural concrete elements can comprise of an areal weight of 300 gsm. See page 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the basis weight of the CFS of Secrest to comprise of 300 gsm, as taught in Rhino Carbon Fiber, in order to provide the assembly with specific structural, yet cost effective characteristics as needed by the end user.
Regarding claim 2, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the wall structure comprises a concrete block wall (paragraphs 3 and 4 of Secrest disclose and figure 9 depicts the wall can be a concrete block wall).
Regarding claim 3, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the CFS comprises a unidirectional CFS or a bidirectional CFS (paragraph 31 of Secrest discloses a unidirectional CFS can be used).
Regarding claim 4, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the first end and the second end of the CFS extend away from the SLE in the same direction (see figure 10 of Manos et al., where such features would be provided within Secrest as well).
Regarding claim 5, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the CFS adhered to the wall structure via an epoxy-based adhesive (see paragraph 44 of Secrest).
Regarding claim 6, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the intermediate portion of the CFS is adhesively bonded to the central body portion of the top bracket (paragraph 43 of Secrest discloses adhesive can be used to attach the top bracket and strip #207 to one another as well).
Regarding claim 7, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the double-ply section of the CFS includes a first ply section adjacent the wall structure and adhesively bonded to the wall structure and/or adjacent the support member, and a second ply section adjacent the central body portion of the top bracket; wherein the second ply section is located directly or indirectly between the first ply section and the central body portion of the top bracket (see figure 10 of Manos et al., where the strip is to comprise of first and second ply sections, with the first, left section abutting the surface of the structure to be reinforced and the second, right abutting the bracket, where such features would be provided within Secrest as explained above).
Regarding claim 8, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the second ply section is adhesively bonded to the central body portion of the top bracket (see paragraph 43 of Secrest, where Secrest discloses such a second ply section that is to contact the bracket #214 can also be bonded thereto).
Regarding claim 9, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the second ply section is adhesively bonded to the first ply section (paragraph 43 of Secrest discloses all sides of the strip #207 are applied with an epoxy so as to ensure a bond between the strip and itself and all of the other elements of the system).
Regarding claim 12, Secrest discloses a method of reinforcing a wall structure (#100) having a top end and a bottom end (the top and bottom ends of figure 9), comprising:
adhering a carbon fiber strap (#207) to the wall structure between the top end and the bottom end (epoxy is disclosed as adhering the strap to the wall), the CFS having a first end, a second end, and an intermediate portion disposed between the first end and the second end (the longitudinal terminal ends and intermediate portion between the ends of the strap);
securing a top bracket (#214) to a support member (#213) located above the top end of the wall structure (see figures 6 and 9), the top bracket comprises a substantially planar plate (Plate #527 of the top bracket #214 is substantially planar, as depicted in figure 5. Alternatively, if Applicant is arguing that prongs #425 are part of the plate #527, paragraph 36 discloses that such prongs can be connected to the sill plate bracket #214 separately and do not necessarily need to be formed from the plate #214 itself, thus forming a completely planar plate when such an embodiment is used.) including a central body portion (the body formed between cutouts #424 of figure 4), a first bracket end portion (the left end of figure 4) having a first aperture (#423), and a second bracket-end portion (the right portion of figure 4) having a second aperture (#423);
clamping at least a portion of a double-ply section directly or indirectly between the central body portion of the top bracket and the support member to provide a clamped-double-ply portion of the CFS (paragraph 43 discloses the top end of the strap is to be folded so as to form a double ply portion that can be clamped by the top bracket).
However, Secrest does not disclose the use of a support-lock element located above the top bracket and the top end of the wall such that the CFS is wrapped around the SLE to form the double ply section clamped by the top bracket, where the clamped-double-ply portion of the CFS is contacted only by the substantially planar plate. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Manos et al., that structures can be reinforced using a fiber reinforcing sheet #3 bonded to the surface of the structure using adhesives or epoxy, where the sheet #3 is wrapped around a support lock element #1 that is positioned above a top bracket #9 that clamps a double ply portion of the sheet to a top portion of the structure to be reinforced. See figures 8-10. Furthermore, figures 8-10 of Manos et al. depict the fiber reinforcing sheet #3 is double clamped so that the double clamping portion is contacted only by the planar plate #9 and the support member #5. Moreover, paragraph 63 of Manos et al. disclose the diameter of the SLE #1 can fall within the range of 10mm and 200mm, according to overall capacity that is demanded by the design of the strengthening scheme, where such a ranges overlaps and thus teaches the range as presently defined. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Secrest to comprise of support-lock elements which are located above the top bracket so that the CFS wraps around the SLE to form a double ply section that is clamped by the top bracket so that the double ply section contacts only the planar plate and support member, as taught in Manos et al., in order to provide tension and further strength in the reinforcing sheet of Secrest to strengthen the structure it is attached to.
Furthermore, though Secrest and Manos et al. do not specifically disclose the basis weight for the CFS is at least 300 gsm, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Rhino Carbon Fiber, that unidirectional carbon fiber sheets used to form a reinforced polymer to strength structural concrete elements can comprise of an areal weight of 300 gsm. See page 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the basis weight of the CFS of Secrest to comprise of 300 gsm, as taught in Rhino Carbon Fiber, in order to provide the assembly with specific structural, yet cost effective characteristics as needed by the end user.
Regarding claim 13, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious wrapping the intermediate portion of the CFS around the SLE further comprises configuring the CFS with the first end and the second end of the CFS extend away from the SLE in the same direction (see figure 10 of Manos et al., where such features would be provided within Secrest as well).
Regarding claim 14, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious adhering the CFS to the wall structure between the top end and the bottom end comprises adhesively bonding the CFS to the wall structure with an epoxy-based adhesive (Secrest discloses in paragraph 44 the use of an epoxy to adhere the strip to the wall structure), and further comprising adhesively bonding the central body portion of the top bracket to the intermediate portion of the CFS (paragraph 43 of Secrest discloses adhesive can be used to attach the top bracket and strip #207 to one another as well).
Regarding claim 21, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the first end is located below the top bracket (As taught in figure 10 of Manos et al., both ends of the CFS extend away from the top bracket such that both ends extend below the top bracket, where such features would be provided within Secrest as explained above).
Regarding claim 23, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber teach the SLE has a cylindrical shape, as taught in Manos et al., and not specifically that the SLE has a polygonal cross-section. Paragraph 27 of the present application teaches that such a shape of the SLE is not critical and circular or polygonal cross-sections can be used in place of one another. Paragraph 56 of Manos et al. teaches that the SLE #1 is a shaft that is preferably circular but does not teach away from other shapes. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the SLE to have a polygonal shape instead of a circular shape within Secrest in view of Manos et al. since such a shape is not critical and since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed SLE was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 24, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the SLE is formed from a metal (paragraph 63 of Manos et al. discloses the SLE can be constructed from steel, where such features would be provided within Secrest as explained above) and has a diameter from about 0.25 to about 1.5 inches (paragraph 63 of Manos et al. disclose the diameter of the SLE #1 can fall within the range of 10mm and 200mm, according to overall capacity that is demanded by the design of the strengthening scheme, where such a ranges overlaps and thus teaches the range as presently defined, where it would have similarly been obvious to have constructed the SLE diameter of Secrest in view of Manos et al. to fall within the range as defined and as taught in Manos et al. in order to provide the assembly with an overall capacity as needed by the final design parameters where the assembly is used).
Regarding claim 25, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber teach the SLE is constructed from a metal, such as steel as taught in paragraph 63 of Manos et al. and thus do not specifically teach the SLE is formed from a polymer, a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon fiber. Paragraph 27 of the present application teaches that metal, a polymer, a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon-fiber can be used for the material of the SLE and thus such materials are not critical for the construction of the SLE. Furthermore, paragraphs 34 and 36 of Secrest and paragraph 53 of Manos et al. disclose that metals and composites are commonly used in place of one another and can provide the same needed strength as one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a polymer in place of a metal for the SLE of Secrest in view of Manos et al. since such materials are known substitutes of one another to yield the same predictable result of a strong element and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 26, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the wall structure comprises a concrete block wall including at least an uppermost row of concrete blocks defining a top end of the wall structure and a second row of concrete blocks located adjacent and below the uppermost row of concrete blocks (see figure 9 of Secrest, where wall #100 is constructed from a plurality of rows of cinder blocks, where the top two rows of figure 9 are considered the rows of concrete blocks as defined), and wherein the double-ply section of the CFS extends below and terminates at a location below the uppermost row of concrete blocks (As depicted in figures 8-10 of Manos et al., the double-ply section of the fiber reinforcement strap extends the entire length of the strap and thus when such features are applied to the invention of Secrest, the double ply section of Secrest in view of Manos et al. would extend below the uppermost row of concrete blocks since such straps of Secrest are to extend the entire height of the wall. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Manos et al. as teaching the strap as overlapping over the entire length of the strap, it would have been obvious to have extended the double ply section of the strap of Secrest in view of Manos et al. below the uppermost row of the concrete blocks, such as by extending the double ply portion over the entire length of the wall, in order to increase the strength of the connection between the ends of the ply to prevent failure of the double ply portion at the SLE by increasing the surface area of the connection between the ends of the strap.).
Regarding claim 27, Secrest discloses a wall reinforcement system, comprising:
a wall structure (#100) having a top end and a bottom end (the top and bottom ends of figure 6);
a carbon fiber strap (#207) adhered to the wall structure between the top end and a bottom end (paragraph 44 discloses epoxy is used to adhere the strap to the wall, where the strap extends between the top and bottom ends of the wall as depicted in figure 9), the CFS having a first end, a second end, and an intermediate portion disposed between the first end and the second end (the strap #207 comprises of longitudinal terminal ends and an intermediate portion between the ends);
a top bracket (#214) fixedly secured to a support member (#213) located above the top end of the wall structure (see figures 6 and 7), the top bracket comprises a substantially planar plate (Plate #527 of the top bracket #214 is substantially planar, as depicted in figure 5. Alternatively, if Applicant is arguing that prongs #425 are part of the plate #527, paragraph 36 discloses that such prongs can be connected to the sill plate bracket #214 separately and do not necessarily need to be formed from the plate #214 itself, thus forming a completely planar plate when such an embodiment is used.) including a central body portion (the portion between cutouts #424 as depicted in figure 4), a first bracket-end portion (the left half portion of the plate of figure 7) having a first aperture (the left aperture that is to receive fastener #740 as depicted in figure 7), and a second bracket-end portion (the right half portion of the plate of figure 7) having a second aperture (the right aperture that is to receive the fastener #740 as depicted in figure 7); and
wherein the intermediate portion of the CFS being wrapped and overlapped upon itself defining a double-ply section of CFS, and wherein at least a portion of the double-ply section is directly clamped between the central body portion of the top bracket and the support member to define a clamped-double-ply portion of the CFS (paragraph 43 discloses the strip #207 is folded upon itself and such a folded, double ply portion can be clamped by the bracket #214 to the support member #213).
However, Secrest does not disclose the use of a support-lock element located above the top bracket and the top end of the wall such that the CFS is wrapped around the SLE to form the double ply section clamped by the top bracket, where the clamped-double-ply portion of the CFS is contacted only by the substantially planar plate. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Manos et al., that structures can be reinforced using a fiber reinforcing sheet #3 bonded to the surface of the structure using adhesives or epoxy, where the sheet #3 is wrapped around a support lock element #1 that is positioned above a top bracket #9 that clamps a double ply portion of the sheet to a top portion of the structure to be reinforced. See figures 8-10. Furthermore, figures 8-10 of Manos et al. depict the fiber reinforcing sheet #3 is double clamped so that the double clamping portion is contacted only by the planar plate #9 and the support member #5. Such a planar plate #9 is considered to comprise of a top bracket consisting of a substantially planar plate #9 including a central body portion and left and right bracket end portions with respective apertures to receive a fastener #2 as depicted in figure 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Secrest to comprise of support-lock elements which are located above the top bracket so that the CFS wraps around the SLE to form a double ply section that is clamped by the top bracket so that the double ply section contacts only the planar plate and support member and the top bracket consists only of such features as defined, as taught in Manos et al., in order to provide tension and further strength in the reinforcing sheet of Secrest to strengthen the structure it is attached to.
Furthermore, though Secrest and Manos et al. do not specifically disclose the basis weight for the CFS from 300 to 600 gsm, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Rhino Carbon Fiber, that unidirectional carbon fiber sheets used to form a reinforced polymer to strength structural concrete elements can comprise of an areal weight of 300 gsm. See page 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the basis weight of the CFS of Secrest to comprise of 300 gsm, as taught in Rhino Carbon Fiber, in order to provide the assembly with specific structural, yet cost effective characteristics as needed by the end user.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secrest in view of Manos et al., Rhino Carbon Fiber, and Ching (U.S. Patent 8,955,282).
Regarding claim 11, Secrest in view of Manos et al. and Rhino Carbon Fiber render obvious the wall structure comprises a concrete block wall including at least a first row of concrete blocks defining a bottom end of the wall structure, a second row of concrete blocks located above and adjacent the first row of concrete blocks (see figure 9 of Secrest, where rows of concrete blocks are used to construct the wall), and wherein the wall reinforcement system further comprises a support element (Secrest; #212) located at an inside portion of the wall structure and extending through an internal cavity (Secrest; #630) and a filler material at least partially surrounding the support element and at least partially filling the internal cavity (paragraph 46 of Secrest discloses the use of epoxy within the cavity #630 to surround the pin #212).
However, Secrest does not disclose an internal cavity is formed within the first and second row blocks as defined so as to internally couple such blocks to one another. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Ching, that such concrete blocks used to form a wall can comprise of cavities in such blocks which are to be aligned with the cavities of the blocks in the rows above and below. In order to reinforce certain areas of the wall, a steel rod #14 is inserted vertically within one set of aligned holes and concrete #15 is filled therein in order to strengthen such an area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to ha person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have constructed the wall of Secrest to comprise an internal cavity extending between blocks in first and second rows thereof which is filled with a support element and filler material, as taught in Ching, in order to strengthen the wall in such an area to form a door or window frame or wall transition as needed.
Regarding claim 16, Secrest in view of Manos et al., Rhino Carbon Fiber, and Ching render obvious (i) the filler material comprises concrete, (ii) the support element comprises one or more bars of steel, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (Ching discloses the fill material can be a concrete material #15 and Ching discloses bars #14 are constructed from steel, where such features would be provided within Secrest as explained above and thus such prior art of record meet each portion of the “or” clause).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are with respect to the Secrest and Manos et al. references not meeting the newly added limitations defining the basis weight of the CFS is at least 300 gsm, or between 300 and 600 gsm. Though Secrest and Manos et al. do not specifically disclose the basis weight for such a CFS, Rhino Carbon Fiber teaches that it is highly well known in the art to use carbon fiber reinforcement sheets with an areal weight of 300 gsm and it would have been obvious to use such a CFS weight within Secrest to provide an appropriate amount of strength to the concrete structure being reinforced. The rejections are considered proper and are upheld.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights