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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 03 September 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03 September 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 01 November 2025 and 05 January 2023 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file.
The references have been made of record on the attached PTO-892, and copies of the references have been placed in the electronic file.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “of” has been omitted between “thickness” and “1.0”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brindza et al. (US 8,450,707 B1) in view of Heppes (EP 2894272 A2).
The rejection below cites to the paragraph numbering in the translation of Heppes that accompanies this action.
As to claims 1 and 3, Brindza et al. teaches a neutron shielding concrete (corresponding to a concrete layer), and the concrete contains at least 54% by weight boron. See the abstract. This range overlaps the range recited in claim 1, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Once formed, the concrete will necessarily for a panel.
Brindza et al. teaches incorporating the concrete in buildings. See col. 1, lines 44-48.
Brindza et al. fails to disclose the inclusion of glass fibers (claim 1) or a woven glass fiber (claim 3) embedded in the concrete.
Heppes teaches embedding a textile reinforcement into a precast concrete for use in construction and housing (i.e., buildings). See the abstract and paragraphs [0011] and [0018]. The precast concrete is easy to produce and does not segregate during forming. See paragraphs [0004]-[0005]. The textile reinforcement completely removes the tensile forces acting on the concrete. See paragraph [0008]. The textile may be made of glass fibers. See paragraph [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have employed the concrete of Brindza et al. in a preformed panel, and to have added a textile reinforcement such as glass to the concrete of Brindza et al. as suggested by Heppes in order to remove the tensile forces from the concrete.
As to claim 2, Brindza et al. teaches the boron carbide is mixed into the concrete formulation. See the abstract. Therefore, the boron will be evenly dispersed in the concrete article.
As to claims 4 and 5, Heppes et al. teaches mounting means comprising bolts (11 and 11’) which form apertures in the concrete. See paragraph [0151].
As to claim 6, Figures 7a, 7b and 8 of Heppes et al. show the apertures formed by the bolts (20 and 20’) extend through the concrete (10 and 10’) and the textile (2 and 2’).
As to claims 7 and 8, the combination of references does not teach a thickness of the panel. However, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have changed the size of the prior art product suggested by the combination of Brindza et al. and Heppes et al. because it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to change the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Claim 10 is a product-by-process claim because the claim defines the product in terms of the process steps involved in making the product. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure of a concrete formed of Portland cement, fly ash, boron carbide, plasticizer, and water having a glass fabric embedded therein. The composition of Brindza et al. contains Portland cement, fly ash, boron carbide, plasticizer, and water (see the figure of Brindza et al.) and Heppes teaches a glass textile (2) embedded therein (see Figures 1, 5 and 6 and paragraph [0011]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brindza et al. (US 8,450,707 B1) and Heppes (EP 2894272 A2) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Dubey et al. (US 2012/0148806 A1).
Brindza et al. and Heppes render obvious claim 1 for the reasons recited above. The references fail to teach the tensile strength of the glass textile.
Dubey et al. teaches commercially available woven fiberglass mesh for use in reinforcing cement. See paragraph [0016]. Dubey et al. discloses the tensile strength of Bayex 00040/286 has a minimum tensile strength of 150 to 200 pounds per inch. Id. This converts to a tensile strength of 1300 to 1800 Newtons per 5 cm.
150 Lbs x 1.97 (1 inches) x 4.45 N = 1300 N/5 cm
1 inch 5 cm 1 lbs
200 Lbs x 1.97 (1 inches) x 4.45 N = 1800 N/5 cm
1 inch 5 cm 1 lbs
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed a fiberglass mesh having a tensile strength of 1300 to 1800 Newtons per 5 cm in the concrete panel suggested by the combination of Brindza et al. and Heppes. The rationale for doing so is that it has been held to have been obvious to have selected a known material (Bayex 00040/286) based upon its suitability for its intended purpose (reinforcing concrete). See MPEP 2147.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mezel et al. (US 2021/0304911 A) teaches a neutron absorbing wall including mesh reinforcement and boron.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784