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 .
PRODUCT BY PROCESS CLAIM:
“ The subject matter present is regarded as a product by process claim in which a product is introduced by the method in which it is made. It is the general practice of this office to examine the final product described regardless of the method provided by the applicant.”
The above PBP applies to limitations of “…pouring….mixing…applying….” in claims 1-6, as the claims are article claims “ An epoxy methane barrier…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-15, 17-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Moroschan (RU2345191).
Moroschan shows an epoxy methane barrier(25) for cured concrete/shotcrete surface, comprising the steps of: (a) pouring at least one hardener into a container(see abstract of disclosure); (b) pouring at least one resin into said container; {c) mixing said at least one hardener and said at least one resin to form an epoxy mixture(25); and (d) applying at least one epoxy layer of said mixture over at least one cured concrete/shortcrete surface to prevent flow of methane from a first side to a second side of the at least one cured concrete/shortcrete surface.
Per claim 2, Moroschan shows said surface is selected from a group consisting of a wall, a blind wall, an interior wall, an exterior wall, a foundation, a foundation slab, a floor, and combinations thereof(col 2 line 11-17).
Per claim 4, Moroschan further shows at least one electromechanical device having at least one mixing means secured thereto is used to mix said at least one hardener and said at least one resin to form said epoxy mixture(the mixture is inherently mixed by a device as the polymer is sprayed out into the hardener to bond to form the mixture).
Per claim 6, Moroschan further shows said at least one layer of said mixture applied over said at least one surface is selected from a group consisting of an inside wall surface, an outside wall surface, an inside cured concrete/shotcrete floor, an inside cured concrete/shotcrete wall surface, an outside cured concrete/shotcrete floor, an outside cured concrete/shotcrete wall surface, and a cured concrete/shotcrete foundation.
Per claim 7, Moroschan further shows an epoxy methane barrier for cured concrete/shotcrete surface, comprising at least one mixture, and wherein said mixture consists of at least one hardener, and at least one resin.
Per claim 9, Moroschan further shows said at least one mixture is secured to a surface, and wherein said surface is selected from a group consisting of a wall, a blind wall, an interior wall, an exterior wall, a foundation, a foundation slab, a floor, and combinations thereof.
Per claim 10, Moroschan further shows said at least one mixture is secured to a surface, and wherein said surface is a concrete/shotcrete surface.
Per claim 11, Moroschan further shows said at least one mixture is secured to a surface, and wherein said surface is a cured concrete/shotcrete surface.
Per claim 12, Moroschan further shows said at least one mixture is secured to a surface, and wherein said surface is an uncured concrete/shotcrete surface
Per claim 13, Moroschan further shows a building structure having a methane barrier(25), comprising: (a) a foundation(building….dirt bounding…), wherein said foundation has top peripheral edges, and a bottom surface, and wherein said bottom surface is on top of earth; {b) at least three side walls(buildings inherently has at least three side walls unless circular; however, even circular buildings has east, west, south, north sides), having a top edge, and a bottom edge, and wherein said bottom edge is physically connected, and secured to said top peripheral edges of said foundation to form a room cavity; (c) at least one layer of a mixture(25) covering at least a portion of said cavity, and wherein said mixture comprises at least one hardener, and at least one resin(…hardened foam base); and (d} wherein said at least one layer of said mixture prevents the ingress of methane(hardened foam base…such as methane, …natural gas…) from entering said cavity.
Per claims 14-15, Moroschan further shows said foundation is one of concrete and shotcrete, wherein said at least three side walls are one of concrete and shotcrete.
Per claim 17, Moroschan further shows at least a portion of said cavity is one of below ground level and at ground level.
Per claim 18, Moroschan further shows at least a portion of said cavity is one of below ground level and at ground level, and wherein said at least one layer of said mixture covering said at least a portion of said cavity is one of below ground level and at ground level.
Per claim 19, Moroschan further shows at least a portion of said cavity is one of below ground level and at ground level, and wherein said at least one layer of said mixture covering said at least a portion of said cavity provides a substantially continuous methane barrier.
Per claim 20, Moroschan further shows at least a portion of a surface of said cavity is prepared to accept at least one coating of said at least one layer of said mixture(inherently so).
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) 3, 8, 16 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moroschan.
Moroschan shows all the claimed limitations except for at least one layer of mixture covering said at least a portion of said cavity has a thickness of between about 0.125 mm to about 6 mm, said at least one mixture has a thickness of between about 0.125 mm to about 6 mm.
Moroschan further discloses the mixture covering can be as thick as needed to provide the desired insulated value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Moroschan’s structure to show at least one layer of mixture covering said at least a portion of said cavity has a thickness of between about 0.125 mm to about 6 mm, said at least one mixture has a thickness of between about 0.125 mm to about 6 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve the desired insulating value for the thickness desired; furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05; one having ordinary skill in the art thus would have found it obvious to make the covering as thick as needed to provide for the needed insulation and impermeability properties.
Claim(s) 5 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moroschan.
Moroschan shows all the claimed limitations except for at least one electromechanical device having at least one mixing blade secured thereto is used to mix said at least one hardener and said at least one resin to form said epoxy mixture.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Moroschan’s structure to show at least one electromechanical device having at least one mixing blade secured thereto is used to mix said at least one hardener and said at least one resin to form said epoxy mixture with a reasonable expectation of success since using a mixing plate to mix epoxy and hardener as needed is well known in the art as it provides for ease mixing and intertwine of the epoxy and hardener together to form the impermeable barrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows formations of different gas barriers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633