DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/10/2026 has been entered.
This communication is a Non-Final rejection Office Action on the merits. Claim(s) 1 and 7 have been amended and claim(s) 16 has been cancelled. Claims 1-15 are now pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 11-15, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khayrullin et al. (WO2018084741 A1) with examiner provided Espacenet translation in view of ASTM Publication (A416/A416M-16 2016) hereinafter A416.
Regarding claim 1, Khayrullin et al. teaches a concrete strip load bearing panel; title), the strip comprising conventional concrete (paragraph 77) and a combined reinforcement of both post-tension cables (paragraph 118) and fibers (paragraph 77), said fibers being either steel fibers and being present in a dosage ranging from 5 kg/m3 to 90 kg/m3 (paragraph 82), wherein the strip has a thickness (10-20mm; paragraph 64), wherein further the length of the strip (1 to 16m; paragraph 102) is according to the formula: length of the strip > 30 times the strip thickness (30 times 10mm = 0.3m, and since 1 to 16m is greater than 0.3m, the limitation is met), and wherein tension is applied to said post-tension steel strands only after the concrete has been cast (it is understood that post-tension steel strands are by definition tensioned only after casting of the concrete).
Khayrullin et al. does not specifically disclose a reinforcement of steel strands having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm, having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa.
A416 teaches a concrete strip (prestressed concrete construction; paragraph 1.1), the strip comprising conventional concrete (paragraph 1.1) and a reinforcement of steel strands (paragraph 1.2) having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm (15.24mm; paragraph 1.2), having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa (paragraph 1.2).
Therefore, from the teaching of A416, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concrete structure of Khayrullin et al. to include a reinforcement of steel strands having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm, having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa, as taught by A416, in order to provide steel strands of a known diameter and tensile strength, to maximize the resistance to bending stresses and limiting crack formation on a long concrete slab.
Regarding claim 2, Khayrullin et al. teaches the strip is outdoors (it is understood that the strip is capable of being used outdoors).
Regarding claim 3, Khayrullin et al. teaches the strip does not contain steel nets within the body of the strip in the width direction (no steel nets are disclosed in Khayrullin et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Khayrullin et al. teaches said fibers are steel fibers (paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 5, Khayrullin et al. teaches the strip has a thickness according to the formula: length of the strip > 33 times the strip thickness (33 times 10mm = 0.33m, and since 1 to 16m is greater than 0.33m, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 7, Khayrullin et al. teaches steel fibers are present in the strip in a dosage ranging from 7 kg/m3 to 75 kg/m3 (paragraph 82).
Regarding claim 8, Khayrullin et al. teaches the post tensioning strands are arranged in the middle of the strip (paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 9, Khayrullin et al. teaches the fibers are substantially homogenously or homogeneously distributed in the strip (paragraph 83).
Regarding claim 11, Khayrullin et al. does not specifically disclose a combination of the post-tension steel strands and steel fibers increase fatigue load bearing capacity for the same number of load repetitions by 25 to 500 %, and/or the trip has a load bearing capacity of at least 20 kN/m2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein a combination of the post-tension steel strands and steel fibers increase fatigue load bearing capacity for the same number of load repetitions by 25 to 500 %, and/or the trip has a load bearing capacity of at least 20 kN/m2, 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein a combination of the post-tension steel strands and steel fibers increase fatigue load bearing capacity for the same number of load repetitions by 25 to 500 %, and/or the trip has a load bearing capacity of at least 20 kN/m2, in order to maximize the load capacity and therefore increase the life span of the concrete structure.
Regarding claim 12, Khayrullin et al. teaches a method for casting a long strip (paragraphs 76-77) comprising the steps of: using conventional concrete (paragraph 77) and a combined reinforcement of both post-tension cables (paragraph 118) and fibers (paragraph 77), said fibers being either steel fibers and being present in a dosage ranging from 5 kg/m3 to 90 kg/m3 (paragraph 82), whereby the strip has a thickness (10-20mm; paragraph 64), whereby further the length of the strip (1 to 16m; paragraph 102) is according to the formula: length of the strip > 30 times the strip thickness (30 times 10mm = 0.3m, and since 1 to 16m is greater than 0.3m, the limitation is met).
Khayrullin et al. does not specifically disclose a reinforcement of steel strands having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm, having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa.
A416 teaches a concrete strip (prestressed concrete construction; paragraph 1.1), the strip comprising conventional concrete (paragraph 1.1) and a reinforcement of steel strands (paragraph 1.2) having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm (15.24mm; paragraph 1.2), having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa (paragraph 1.2).
Therefore, from the teaching of A416, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concrete structure of Khayrullin et al. to include a reinforcement of steel strands having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm, having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa, as taught by A416, in order to provide steel strands of a known diameter and tensile strength, to maximize the resistance to bending stresses and limiting crack formation on a long concrete slab.
Regarding claim 13, Khayrullin et al. teaches the method wherein the strip is according to the formula: length of the strip > 500 times the strip thickness (500 times 10mm = 5m, and since 1 to 16m is greater than 5m, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 14, Khayrullin et al. teaches wherein the strip is outdoors (it is understood that the strip is capable of being used outdoors).
Regarding claim 15, Khayrullin et al. does not specifically disclose a combination of the post-tension steel strands and steel fibers increase fatigue load bearing capacity for the same number of load repetitions by 25 to 500 %, and/or the strip has a load bearing capacity of at least 20 kN/m2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein a combination of the post-tension steel strands and steel fibers increase fatigue load bearing capacity for the same number of load repetitions by 25 to 500 %, and/or the strip has a load bearing capacity of at least 20 kN/m2, 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein a combination of the post-tension steel strands and steel fibers increase fatigue load bearing capacity for the same number of load repetitions by 25 to 500 %, and/or the strip has a load bearing capacity of at least 20 kN/m2, in order to maximize the load capacity and therefore increase the life span of the concrete structure.
Claim(s) 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khayrullin et al. (WO2018084741 A1) with examiner provided Espacenet translation in view of ASTM Publication (A416/A416M-16 2016) hereinafter A416, and further in view of Lambrechts et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0269572).
Regarding claim 6, Khayrullin et al. as modified does not specifically disclose said steel fibers comprise anchorage ends at both ends, said anchorage ends each comprise three or four bent sections.
Lambrechts et al. teaches said steel fibers comprise anchorage ends at both ends (abstract), said anchorage ends each comprise three or four bent sections (figure 4).
Therefore, from the teaching of Lambrechts et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified concrete structure of Khayrullin et al. such that said steel fibers comprise anchorage ends at both ends, said anchorage ends each comprise three or four bent sections, in order to improve the performance of the fibers depending on the dosage required for the design requirements of the structure for enhanced efficiency.
Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khayrullin et al. (WO2018084741 A1) with examiner provided Espacenet translation in view of ASTM Publication (A416/A416M-16 2016) hereinafter A416, and further in view of in view of Kollegger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0301011).
Regarding claim 10, Khayrullin et al. as modified does not specifically disclose the post-tension steel strands are in a banded-banded steel strands configuration or in a banded-distributed steel strands configuration or in a configuration resulting from any combination thereof, and/or wherein the post-tension steel strand are used for bonded or unbonded post-tensioning.
Kollegger et al. discloses a reinforced concrete structure that includes bonded or unbonded post-tensioning (paragraph 56).
Therefore, from the teaching of Kollegger et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified concrete structure of Khayrullin et al. to include bonded or unbonded post-tensioning, as taught by Kollegger et al., in order to further prevent cracks and enable a longer span of the concrete slab, for greater structural and architectural efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Khayrullin discloses a concrete structure comprising pre-stressed cable reinforcement – not a concrete structure requiring that tension is applied to said post-tension steel strands only after the concrete has been cast, as recited in claim 1. However, this was not found persuasive since Khayrullin does not even disclose the term "pre-tensioning" but does disclose post-tensioning the cables. Khayrullin further refers to using the same process as Patent NZ 220693 (paragraph 24), which more clearly discloses post-tensioning and not pre-tensioning. With regards to the argument that Khayrullin was poorly drafted and uses contradictory terminology, the argument has been considered and is not found persuasive. The applicant may provide specific examples or present an official translation to evidence that Khayrullin contains contradictions or that the translation itself may be unreliable. With regards to the argument that Khayrullin does not disclose the recited dosage throughout the concrete slab of Khayrullin, and therefore fails to disclose having the overall steel fiber dosage claimed, the claim is not limiting to overall steel fiber dosage and furthermore, Khayrullin discloses an amount of steel fiber dosage that is within the claimed range, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed overall steel fiber dosage since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights