DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the RCE filed on 3/6/2026. Claims 15-37 are pending. Claims 1-14 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. No new claims have been added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amended claims filed on 3/6/2026 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) based on the following informalities:
Claim 15 has not been provided with proper text markings. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2). Claim 15 shows, in strike-through font, “and wherein tension is applied to said post tension steel strands only after the concrete has been cast” (last line). Although such text appeared in applicant’s response filed on 2/6/2026, the claims were not entered (see Advisory Action filed on 2/12/2026). Thus, the claims filed on 3/6/2026 should have been amended with respect to the claims filed on 10/17/2025, not the 2/6/2026 claims that were not entered. In order to advance prosecution, the examiner treated the claims as being amended with respect to the claim set filed on 10/17/2025.
Claim 34 has an improper status identifier. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). 37 CFR 1.121(c). Although claim 34 was amended in applicant’s response filed on 2/6/2026, the claims were not entered. Thus, claim 34 as filed on 3/6/2026 should have been amended with respect to the claims filed on 10/17/2025. In order to advance prosecution, the examiner treated claim 34 as being amended as such.
Failure to submit claim amendments in the future that comply with 37 CFR 1.121 may result in the claims being treated as non-compliant. MPEP 714.
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 15-37 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.
Claim 15, “post-tension steel strands being steel stands that have been tensioned only after casting of the concrete slab” (lines 2-3) is indefinite because the claim previously recites post-tension steel strands, which results in the second recitation of “post-tension steel strands” being a double inclusion. Does applicant intend for “post tension steel strands” to refer to the previously recited post-tension steel strands? Further, “stands” (line 3) appears to be a misspelling of “strands”. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “said post-tension steel strands being steel strands that have been tensioned only after casting of the concrete slab” or equivalent.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base claim.
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) 15-26 and 30-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khayrullin et al. (WO 2018084741 A1) (‘Khayrullin’) in view of Pratt (US 20160312464) and further in view of Lambrechts et al. (US 20130269572) (‘Lambrechts’).
Claim 15, Khayrullin teaches a concrete slab comprising conventional concrete (note that “conventional concrete” was treated as a relative term of degree meaning a known concrete material made from a mixture of binder/aggregate and water, in light of applicant’s specification and under the plain meaning, as exceedingly broadly claimed) and a combined reinforcement of both post-tension steel strands and fibres (“panels” comprising a “concrete slab”, “cables” comprising post-tension ropes, and “fiber” comprising “steel” fibers, as described throughout the English translation of the abstract, specification and claims), [said] post-tension strands being strands that have been tensioned only after casting of the concrete slab (the post-tension strands are tensioned only after concrete is cast; specification), said post-tension strands
- having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm (“12.7 mm”; English translation of specification),
- having a tensile strength (under the basic properties of materials, the post-tension strands implicitly have a tensile strength, defined by the maximum stress a material can withstand while being stretched or pulled before breaking, in light of applicant’s specification and under the plain meaning), said fibres being either steel fibres (“steel” fibers as described throughout the English translation of the abstract, specification and claims) or being macro-synthetic fibres and being present in a dosage ranging from 1.5 kg/m3 to 9.0 kg/m3 (not required by the claim due to recitation of “or”),
wherein said concrete slab is free of a vapor barrier (Khayrullin does not mention a vapor barrier in the abstract, specification or claims, and a vapor barrier is not depicted in any drawings, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Khayrullin’s concrete slab was treated as being free of a vapor barrier).
Khayrullin does not explicitly define the post-tension strands as being steel and having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa, the steel fibres being present in a dosage ranging from 10 kg/m3 to 35 kg/m3, and the steel fibres being below 1.0 times an amount recommended as rebar or steel bar replacement.
However, Pratt teaches a concrete slab (“concrete slab” as defined in the specification and claims and shown in the drawings) comprising tensioning strands 202 having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm (0.25 inch to 1.5 inches, which is equal to 6.35 mm to 38.1 mm, which overlaps the claimed range; [0034]) made of steel (such as high strength steel or high strength alloy [0034]) having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa (any desired rating [0034]; a 33,000 lb. rated cable [0037]; for a diameter of 6.35 mm: 33,000/A, where A = π (0.125 inches)2, equals 673,469 psi or 4,643 MPa; for a diameter of 20 mm: 33,000/A, where A = π (0.394 inches)2, equals 83,756 psi or 577 MPa; thus the range of 577 MPa to 4,643 MPa encompasses the claimed value of 1,700 MPa). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the concrete slab of Khayrullin such that post-tension strands are made of steel and have a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa, with the reasonable expectation of success of providing strands of a known material, diameter and tensile strength to resist bending stresses and limit crack formation in the concrete slab.
Further, Lambrechts teaches a concrete slab (“concrete slab” as described throughout the specification and claims) comprising steel fibres being present in a dosage ranging from 10 kg/m3 to 35 kg/m3 (dosage of less than1 vol % or less than 0.5 vol % or less than 0.25 vol. %, which corresponds with 20 kg/m3 [0050], [0058], [0098], [0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the concrete slab of Khayrullin to have the steel fibres present in a dosage ranging from 10 kg/m3 to 35 kg/m3, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known dosing of steel fibres to obtain the expected result of reinforcing the concrete slab, since steel reinforcing fibres perform particularly well at moderate or low dosages (Lambrechts [0050]), and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists when claimed ranges overlap with the prior art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Although Pratt further teaches an amount of steel fibres used being from about 1 times to about 4 times an amount of steel recommended as rebar replacement (Pratt [0030]), where the instant claim requires below 1 times an amount of steel recommended as rebar replacement, the examiner takes the position that the respective values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. There is substantially no demonstrable difference by applicant that Pratt’s amount of “about 1 times” and for example “0.999 times”, readable on the instant claim would result in substantially, or at all different properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05). Pratt further teaches the term “about” may refer to an amount that is within less than 10% of a stated amount (Pratt [0054]), which would result in “about 1 times” including 0.9 times, which is readable on the instant claim.
It is noted that the limitation, “[said] post-tension steel strands that have been tensioned only after casting of the concrete slab” is a product-by-process limitation. The claimed concrete slab does not depend on the process of making it. The product-by-process limitation "have been tensioned only after casting of the concrete" would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the concrete slab. Therefore, the claimed concrete is not a different and unobvious concrete slab from the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts.
In the event that applicant disagrees that the claim does not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the concrete slab, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to form Khayrullin’s concrete slab by tensioning the strands only after casting of the concrete slab. Khayrullin teaches tensioning the strands after concrete is cast (specification), and strain relief from the cables is carried out with concrete strength of at least 38 MPa (specification). Khayrullin further teaches sending or transferring the concrete slab to a construction site after having been tensioned (Examples 1 and 2, specification). However, such sending or transferring does not preclude the concrete slab from being tensioned after the concrete has been cast. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify that order in which the concrete slab is manufactured and delivered to the construction site such that the strands are tensioned only after casting of the concrete slab, with the reasonable expectation of success of obtaining the desired strength of the concrete slab (Examples 1 and 2, specification), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in sequence of adding components. A change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Claim 16, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches wherein said conventional concrete has a characteristic compressive cube strength of 30 N/mm2 (4351 psi) or higher (Pratt 2000 psi to about 6000 psi [0029]; note that a characteristic compressive cube strength was treated as being equivalent to a 28-day compressive strength, as the testing procedure would be similar and thus the results would be similar).
Claim 17, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches wherein said fibres are steel fibres (Khayrullin “steel” as described in the specification; Pratt [0030]) and/or wherein the steel fibres are present in a dosage ranging from 15 kg/m3 to 35 kg/m3, and/or wherein the amount of steel fibres used is below 1.0 times the amount of steel recommended and used for the steel bars or rebars to be replaced (Pratt “[t]he fiber component can be provided at a level that is from about 1 to about 4 times the level recommended as a rebar replacement” [0030]; see rejection of claim 15 as above with respect to Pratt’s defined “about 1 times” reading on the claim).
Claim 18, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches wherein said steel fibres comprise a straight middle portion (Lambrechts straight “middle portion” for example in Figs. 4-10e) that have a tensile strength above 1400 MPa (Lambrechts [0067]).
Claim 19, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches wherein said steel fibres comprise two ends and have anchorage ends at both of the two ends (Lambrechts anchorage ends at opposing ends of the fibres in Figs.4-9), said anchorage ends each comprise three or four bent sections (Lambrechts the anchorage ends each comprise three or four bent sections for example in Figs. 4-9).
Claim 20, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches reducing cracking (Pratt [0006]) by reducing or eliminating the buildup of crack-causing stress in the concrete slab (Pratt [0033]), for limiting the width or growth of up to about 0.5 mm (Lambrechts [0060]), such that the fibres are capable of bridging a crack with of 0.5 mm (Lambrechts [0016]). The combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts does not teach the concrete slab having a maximum crack width of 0.5 mm after hardening. However, all of the elements of the claimed invention are taught by the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts. A crack formed in the concrete slab is the result of varying the known elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the elements of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts such that the concrete slab has a maximum crack width of 0.5 mm after hardening, with the reasonable expectation of providing a strong and durable concrete slab with minimal disruptions in the continuity or surface of the concrete slab to prevent water from penetrating into the concrete slab, 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 21, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches said concrete slab having a length L greater than 100m (Pratt [0053]), said concrete slab having joints (Pratt [0008]), said joints having a distance between neighbouring joints higher than 40 m (Pratt [0008]).
Claim 22, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches wherein said concrete slab is a concrete slab on a ground surface (Pratt concrete slab placed on ground surface 306; [0039]; Fig. 3B) and/or wherein said concrete slab has a uniform average density and/or wherein said concrete slab is cast in a single casting session and/or in one go and/or be fully casted and/or wherein said concrete slab contains only the fibres and the post-tension steel strands as reinforcement elements and/or wherein conventional concrete is concrete that does not include ingredients that reduce the shrinkage during hardening and/or does not encompass low shrinkage concrete (note that recitation of “and/or” renders the limitations that follow optional and thus not required by the claim).
Claim 23, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches wherein said post-tension steel strands have a distance between neighbouring post-tension steel strands or between neighbouring bundles of post-tension steel strands higher than 0.80 m (2.62 ft) (Pratt the distance between neighboring ones of the post-tension steel strands is greater than about 10 feet [0035]) and/or wherein tension is applied to the post-tension steel strands only after the concrete has been cast and the post-tension steel strands remain in place also once the concrete is completely cured/hardened and/or wherein the post-tension steel strands have a tensile strength higher 1800 MPa and/or wherein the post-tension steel strands have a maximum breaking load of higher than 190 kN and/or wherein the post-tension steel strands comprise anchor systems and/or ducts or sheathing (note that recitation of “and/or” renders the limitations that follow optional and thus not required by the claim).
Claim 24, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches said concrete slab having a width b and a thickness h (Khayrullin it is understood that the concrete slab has a width and a thickness; Pratt it is understood that the concrete slab has a width and a thickness; [0036]; Figs. 2-10), said post-tension steel strands exercising a compression force (Pratt compressive force [0010]; [0033]; [0037]; [0038]) that is 0 % to 200 % greater than a force according to following formula: µ0 x γc x b x h x L/2, where µ0 is the coefficient of friction between the concrete slab and a subbase; and where γc is the specific weight of the conventional concrete and/or wherein the thickness h of the slab is between 4 cm (1.57 inch) and 75 cm (29.53 inch) (Pratt the thickness of the concrete slab can be any standard or non-standard thickness, such as about 4 to 5 inches, or about 5 to 6 inches, or about 6 to 8 inches, or about 8-10 inches [0036]). The combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts does not teach the post-tension steel strands exercising a compression force that is 0 % to 200 % greater than a force according to following formula: µ0 x γc x b x h x L/2, where µ0 is the coefficient of friction between the concrete slab and a subbase; and where γc is the specific weight of the conventional concrete. However, all of the elements of the claimed invention are taught by the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the concrete slab by modifying the coefficient of friction between the concrete slab and a subbase based on the materials of the concrete and/or the subbase selected, a specific weight of the conventional concrete based on the materials of the concrete selected, base, the height or the length of the concrete slab, such that the post-tension steel strands exercise a compression force that is 0 % to 200 % greater than a force according to following formula: µ0 x γc x b x h x L/2, where µ0 is the coefficient of friction between the concrete slab and a subbase; and where γc is the specific weight of the conventional concrete, with the reasonable expectation of success of forming a strong and durable concrete slab with minimal disruptions in the continuity or surface of the concrete slab to prevent water from penetrating into the concrete slab, 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 25, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 22, and further teaches a construction comprising the concrete slab according to claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 as above), said construction further comprising a plastic slip sheet between said concrete slab and said ground (Pratt; a plastic slip sheet can optionally be present between the concrete slab and the ground surface; [0041]).
Claim 26, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 22, and further teaches a construction comprising the concrete slab according to claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 as above), a plastic slip sheet not being present between said concrete slab and said ground (Pratt; the concrete slab can be placed on a prepared base 306 [0039]; a plastic slip sheet can optionally be present between the concrete slab and the ground surface, which includes a slip sheet optionally not being present if desired [0041]).
Claim 30, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 23, and further teaches a construction comprising the concrete slab according to claim 23 (see rejection of claim 22 as above), said construction further comprising a plastic slip sheet between said concrete slab and said ground (Pratt; a plastic slip sheet can optionally be present between the concrete slab and the ground surface; [0041]).
Claim 31, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 24, and further teaches a construction comprising the concrete slab according to claim 24 (see rejection of claim 24 as above), said construction further comprising a plastic slip sheet between said concrete slab and said ground (Pratt; a plastic slip sheet can optionally be present between the concrete slab and the ground surface; [0041]).
Claim 32, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 23, and further teaches a construction comprising the concrete slab according to claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23 as above), a plastic slip sheet not being present between said concrete slab and said ground (Pratt; the concrete slab can be placed on a prepared base 306 [0039]; a plastic slip sheet can optionally be present between the concrete slab and the ground surface, which includes a slip sheet optionally not being present if desired [0041]).
Claim 33, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 24, and further teaches a construction comprising the concrete slab according to claim 24 (see rejection of claim 24 as above), a plastic slip sheet not being present between said concrete slab and said ground (Pratt; the concrete slab can be placed on a prepared base 306 [0039]; a plastic slip sheet can optionally be present between the concrete slab and the ground surface, which includes a slip sheet optionally not being present if desired [0041]).
Claim 34, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches said fibres are steel fibres (Khayrullin “steel” throughout specification; Pratt [0030]) and/or wherein the steel fibres are present in a dosage ranging from 20 kg/m3 to 30 kg/m3, and/or wherein the amount of steel fibres used is below 1.0 times the amount of steel recommended and used for the steel bars or rebars to be replaced (“and/or” limitations were treated as not required).
Claim 35, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches wherein said steel fibres comprise a straight middle portion (Lambrechts straight “middle portion” for example in Figs. 4-10e) that have a tensile strength above 1500 MPa (Lambrechts [0067]).
Claim 36, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches wherein said post-tension steel strands have a distance between neighbouring post-tension steel strands or between neighbouring bundles of post-tension steel strands higher than 0.80 m (2.62 ft) (Pratt the distance between neighboring ones of the post-tension steel strands is greater than about 10 feet [0035]) and/or wherein tension is applied to the post-tension steel strands only after the concrete has been cast and the post-tension steel strands remain in place also once the concrete is completely cured/hardened and/or wherein the post-tension steel strands have a tensile strength higher 1900 MPa and/or wherein the post-tension steel strands have a maximum breaking load of higher than 195 kN and/or wherein the post-tension steel strands comprise anchor systems and/or ducts or sheathing (note that recitation of “and/or” renders the limitations that follow optional and thus not required by the claim).
Claim 37, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and further teaches said concrete slab having a width b and a thickness h (Khayrullin and Pratt; it is understood that the concrete slab has a width and a thickness; Pratt [0036]; Figs. 2-10), said post-tension steel strands exercising a compression force (Pratt compressive force [0010]; [0033]; [0037]; [0038]) that is 0 % to 200 % greater than a force according to following formula µ0 x γc x b x h x L/2, where µ0 is the coefficient of friction between the concrete slab and a subbase; and where γc is the specific weight of the conventional concrete and/or wherein the thickness h of the slab is between 5 cm and 65 cm (Pratt the thickness of the concrete slab can be any standard or non-standard thickness, such as about 4 to 5 inches, or about 5 to 6 inches, or about 6 to 8 inches, or about 8-10 inches [0036]).
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khayrullin et al. (WO 2018084741 A1) (‘Khayrullin’) in view of Pratt (US 20160312464) and further in view of Lambrechts et al. (US 20130269572) (‘Lambrechts’) as above and further in view of EP 0964113 (‘EP ‘113’).
Claims 27-29, as modified above, the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts further teaches the post-tension steel strands being arranged in a grid formation throughout the concrete slab (Pratt [0033]). Pratt further teaches a shortest distance between post-tension steel strands being larger than 0.80 m (2.62 ft) (Pratt; a distance between neighboring ones of the post-tension steel strands is 10 feet or can be greater or less than 10 feet [0035]). Note that it is understood that the post-tension steel strands of Pratt can each include more than one individual strand, thereby forming a bundle (Pratt [0034]). The combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts does not teach [claim 27] wherein said concrete slab is a slab on concrete piles or gravel columns, [claim 28] said concrete piles or gravel columns being arranged in a regular rectangular pattern or quadrilateral shape comprising four concrete piles or gravel columns where each set of four concrete piles or gravel columns forms a rectangle, said concrete slab comprising straight zones connecting in a lengthwise and a widthwise direction, a shortest distance between areas of the concrete slab above the concrete piles or gravel columns, post-tension steel strands being present in said straight zones in bundles, the distance between neighbouring post-tension steel strands within a bundle being smaller than 0.80 m, and [claim 29] [the] post-tension steel strands being present outside said straight zones, a shortest distance between post-tension steel strands outside said straight zones and the post-tension steel strands in said straight zones being larger than 0.80 m. However, EP ‘113 teaches a concrete slab 14, wherein said concrete slab is a slab on concrete piles or gravel columns (concrete piles 12; [0009]; Figs. 1-2), said concrete piles or gravel columns being arranged in a regular rectangular pattern or quadrilateral shape comprising four concrete piles or gravel columns, where each set of four concrete piles or gravel columns forms a rectangle ([0009]; Figs. 1-2), said concrete slab comprising straight zones connecting in the a lengthwise and a widthwise direction [0008], a shortest distance between areas of the concrete slab above the concrete piles or gravel columns, steel rods being present in said straight zones in bundles (23 formed by rods 16; note that bundle was treated as two or more, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4), steel strands being present outside said straight zones (note that the claim requires the straight zones to define one rectangle, and that any steel strands present outside of the rectangle could be considered steel strands being present outside said straight zones; Figs. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the concrete slab being a slab on concrete piles or gravel columns, said concrete piles or gravel columns being arranged in a regular rectangular pattern or quadrilateral shape comprising four concrete piles or gravel columns, where each set of four concrete piles or gravel columns forms a rectangle, said concrete slab comprising straight zones connecting in a lengthwise and a widthwise direction, a shortest distance between areas of the concrete slab above the concrete piles or gravel columns, post-tension steel strands being present in said straight zones in bundles, the distance between neighbouring post-tension steel strands within a bundle being smaller than 0.80 m, post-tension steel strands being present outside said straight zones, a shortest distance between post-tension steel strands outside said straight zones and the post-tension steel strands in said straight zones being larger than 0.80 m, with the reasonable expectation of success of further reinforcing the concrete slab to obtain a desired strength based on the intended use of the concrete slab.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 and 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claim(s) 15-26 and 30-37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khayrullin et al. (WO 2018084741 A1) (‘Khayrullin’) in view of Pratt (US 20160312464) and further in view of Lambrechts et al. (US 20130269572) (‘Lambrechts’).
Claim 15, applicant argues that Khayrullin allegedly does not teach tensioning the post-tension strands only after casting the concrete slab. It is noted that a comparison of the recited process with the prior art processes does NOT serve to resolve the issue concerning patentability of the product. In re Fessman, 489 F2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). Whether a product is patentable depends on whether it is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by whether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug, 333 F2d 905, 142 USPQ 161 (CCPA 1964). In an ex parte case, product-by process claims are not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. In re Hirao et al., 535 F2d 67, 190 USPQ 15, see footnote 3 (CCPA 1976). Further, the claim does not specify how a post-tensioned cable is different than a pre-tensioned cable. Thus the claimed concrete slab is not a different and unobvious concrete slab from the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts.
Further regarding the order of tensioning the post-tension strands, Khayrullin teaches the post-tension strands being tensioned after casting the concrete slab. Although applicant confuses Khayrullin’s wording/phraseology as being Khayrullin teaches a concrete slab being “prefabricated”, and Khayrullin uses the term, “prestressed cables” to describe installing cables, Khayrullin ultimately teaches cables that are tensioned after concrete is cast (“a concrete slab reinforced with post-tensioned ropes” Examples 1 and 2, specification). Khayrullin’s method permits higher load bearing capacity (“the proposed method allows to obtain a panel having almost any necessary bearing capacity” specification). It is also noted that a concrete slab being prefabricated does not preclude the concrete slab from being post-tensioned.
Applicant argues that the prior art allegedly does not teach the steel fibres being present in a dosage ranging from 10 kg/m3 to 35 kg/m3, throughout an entirety of the concrete slab including the outer shells in addition to the core, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fibres distributed throughout an entirety of the concrete slab) 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). Thus the fibres as cited in the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts meet the claim.
Re claim 15, applicant argues that the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts allegedly does not teach the claimed dosage of steel fibres ranging from 10 kg/m3 to 35 kg/m3 and being below 1.0 times an amount recommended as rebar or steel bar replacement. Applicant’s argument hinges on “an amount recommended as rebar or steel bar replacement”. While the limitation was not treated as being indefinite under 112b, the amount of steel fibers recommended as rebar or steel bar replacement lacks significant meaning. The claim does not set forth how the recommended amount is determined. In concrete slab design, the amount of reinforcement is relatively subjective because it can be based on different factors, such as various intended loads and building codes. Applicant’s specification provides examples of replacing steel bars with fibers (as filed [0073]-[0075]). However, the examples are not read into the claims. Further, they do not define how such recommended amount is found. Does applicant intend for the claimed recommended amount to refer to an amount that is calculated based on a particular standard, for example a standard of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and/or European Committee for Standardization (CEN)? Since the claim does not limit the recommended amount to be defined by any particular standard or calculation, the recommended amount was treated as a subjective amount, and the claimed amount as taught by the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts meets the claim.
Claims 16-26 and 30-37 stand or fall with claim 15 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khayrullin et al. (WO 2018084741 A1) (‘Khayrullin’) in view of Pratt (US 20160312464) and further in view of Lambrechts et al. (US 20130269572) (‘Lambrechts’) as above and further in view of EP 0964113 (‘EP ‘113’).
Claims 27-29 stand or fall with claim 15 as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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