DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 7/8/2026. Currently, claims 15-37 are pending. Claims 1-14 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. No new claims have been added.
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”, 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; specification), wherein the post-tension steel strands comprise anchor systems (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “cables” are “placed inside the panel” and “fittings can be installed for structural purposes” and thus the cables and fittings meet the plain meaning, in light of applicant’s specification of “anchor systems”, as exceedingly broadly claimed; 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), and
wherein the concrete slab has a thickness h (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the concrete slab inherently has a thickness, as exceedingly broadly claimed; “thickness of the panel” claims 2-3; “thickness” recited throughout the specification) and the fibres are distributed over the thickness of the concrete slab (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the fibres are inherently distributed over the thickness of the concrete slab, as exceedingly broadly claimed; note that applicant’s claim does not require any specifics as to how the fibres are distributed over the thickness of the concrete slab, and thus the mere presence of the fibres in the concrete slab meets the claim, as applicant’s claim does not preclude Khayrullin’s distribution of fibres from meeting the limitation; “the fiber particle resembles a two-sided oar – the fiber is very well anchored in concrete, which improves the strength characteristics of reinforced concrete…the particles are much better and faster distributed in the concrete mix” specification).
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 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 the thickness h (Khayrullin it is understood that the concrete slab has a width, and the thickness is discussed as above in claim 15; 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 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 the thickness h (Khayrullin and Pratt; it is understood that the concrete slab has a width and a thickness, see claim 15 as above; 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 7/8/2026 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’).
Re claim 15, applicant argues that the prior art allegedly does not teach “wherein the post-tension steel strands comprise anchor systems” and “wherein the concrete slab has a thickness h and the fibres are distributed over the thickness of the concrete slab”. These features are addressed in this instant Office action in the rejection of claim 15 as above.
Regarding the concrete slab having a thickness h, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Khayrullin’s concrete slab inherently has a thickness, as exceedingly broadly claimed (“thickness of the panel” claims 2-3; “thickness” recited throughout the specification). The fact that Khayrullin’s concrete slab has multiple layers does not preclude Khayrullin’s concrete slab from meeting the claim.
Khayrullin’s fibre distribution meets the claim, as Khayrullin’s fibres are nonetheless distributed over the thickness of the concrete slab (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the fibres are inherently distributed over the thickness of the concrete slab, as exceedingly broadly claimed; note that applicant’s claim does not require any specifics as to how the fibres are distributed over the thickness of the concrete slab, and thus the mere presence of the fibres in the concrete slab meets the claim, as applicant’s claim does not preclude Khayrullin’s distribution of fibres from meeting the limitation; “the fiber particle resembles a two-sided oar – the fiber is very well anchored in concrete, which improves the strength characteristics of reinforced concrete…the particles are much better and faster distributed in the concrete mix” specification). In other words, even if Khayrullin’s fibres are distributed over just a portion of the thickness of the concrete slab, Khayrullin’s fiber distribution would meet the claim because applicant’s claim does not specify as to how the fibres are distributed over the thickness in such a manner that would distinguish over Khayrullin.
Regarding Khayrullin’s strands being post-tensioned as claimed, applicant again argues that the prior art does not teach a product-by-process limitation in a product claim – the process of post-tensioning in a product claim. 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. The term, “anchor systems” is recited once in applicant’s specification – “The tendons or post-tension steel strands may comprise anchor systems, that may especially attach the tendons or post-tension steel strands to the cast concrete of the slab” (as published [0010]). Under such broad definition, Khayrullin meets the claim. Khayrullin’s “cables” are “placed inside the panel” and “fittings can be installed for structural purposes” (specification). Such fittings attach the cables to the concrete of the slab, and thus the cables and fittings meet the plain meaning, in light of applicant’s specification of “anchor systems”, as exceedingly broadly claimed. Thus, the claimed concrete slab is not a different and unobvious concrete slab from the combination of Khayrullin, Pratt and Lambrechts.
Regarding applicant’s argument 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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