DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/15/26 has been entered.
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) 15-17 and 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seiji (JP 2014-70336).
With regard to claim 15: Seiji discloses a floor deck structure (figs. 1-9) comprising:
a profiled metallic sheet (adjacently joined steel decks 10) including at least a first, a second and a third upper portion (horizontal peaks surfaces including 13a, 13c) separated by a first and a second longitudinal groove (valleys of corrugation), each including a base (bottom horizontal surfaces including 14a, 14b, and 14c), a first lateral wall (right inclined surfaces including 15a and 15c) linking the base to one of the first, second and third upper portions (horizontal peaks surfaces including 13a, 13c) and a second lateral wall (left inclined surfaces including 15b and 15d) linking the base (bottom horizontal surfaces including 14a, 14b, and 14c) to an adjacent one of the first, second and third upper portions (horizontal peaks surfaces including 13a, 13c) (figs. 2 and 5; abstract; par. [0026);
a first and a second rebar truss (30) each extending longitudinally in or above, respectively, the first and second longitudinal groove (valleys) (figs. 5-8); and
a plurality of connectors (20 installed at intervals) fastening the first and second rebar trusses (20) to the profiled metallic sheet (adjacently joined steel deck 10) so that relative movement of the first and the second rebar trusses (30) with respect to the profiled metallic sheet (adjacently joined steel deck 10) is prevented in any direction (by gripping) (figs. 2, 5, and 7-8; par. [0025] and [0033]). Note that www.merriam-webster.com/ defines grip as to “seize or hold firmly.”
With regard to claim 16: Seiji discloses that the connectors (20) include a first and a second side respectively fastened to the first lateral wall and the second lateral wall (figs. 2, 5 and 7-8).
With regard to claim 17: Seiji discloses that the shape of each of the connectors (20) matches at least partially the shape of a corresponding one of the first and second longitudinal grooves (valleys) (figs. 2 and 7).
With regard to claim 21: Seiji discloses that each of the first and second rebar trusses (30) includes a plurality of longitudinal metallic rebars (steel rebar truss) (par. [0015]).
With regard to claim 22: Seiji discloses that each of the first and second rebar trusses (30) has a triangular transverse section (figs. 2, 6, and 8).
With regard to claim 23: Seiji discloses that each of the connectors (20) is designed for, and capable of, being clipped on a corresponding one of the first and second rebar trusses (30) (fig. 8).
With regard to claim 24: Seiji discloses that each of the connectors (20) is unmovingly fastened to the profiled metallic sheet (adjacently joined steel decks 10) (fig. 7; par. [0031]).
With regard to claim 25: Seiji discloses the first and second rebar trusses (30) are unmovingly fastened to the plurality of connectors (20) (figs. 7-8; par. [0031]).
With regard to claim 26: Seiji discloses a composite floor deck (figs. 1-9) comprising:
the floor deck structure as recited in claim 15 (figs. 1-9); and
a concrete structure embedding the first and second rebar trusses (30) and anchored to the profiled metallic sheet (figs. 2-8; par. [0002], [0027], and [0033]).
With regard to claim 27: Seiji discloses a process for assembling a floor deck structure (figs. 1-9), the process comprising the steps of:
providing a profiled metallic sheet (adjacently joined steel decks 10) including at least a first, a second and a third upper portion (horizontal peaks surfaces including 13a, 13c) separated by a first and a second longitudinal groove (valleys of corrugation), each including a base (bottom horizontal surfaces including 14a, 14b, and 14c), a first lateral wall (right inclined surfaces including 15a and 15c) linking the base to one of the first, second and third upper portions (horizontal peaks surfaces including 13a, 13c) and a second lateral wall (left inclined surfaces including 15b and 15d) linking the base to an adjacent one of the first, second and third upper portions (horizontal peaks surfaces including 13a, 13c) (figs. 2 and 5; abstract; par. [0026]);
providing at least a first and a second rebar truss (30) (figs. 5-8; par. [0033]);
respectively positioning the rebar trusses (30) in or above the first and second longitudinal grooves (valleys) (figs. 5-8; par. [0033]); and
fastening the first and second rebar trusses (30) to the profiled metallic sheet using connectors (20) so that relative movement of the first and the second rebar trusses (30) with respect to the profiled metallic sheet (adjacently joined steel decks 10) is prevented in any direction (by gripping) (figs. 2 and 5-8; par. [0025] and [0033]). Note that www.merriam-webster.com/ defines grip as to “seize or hold firmly.”
With regard to claim 28: Seiji discloses a process for assembling a composite floor deck, the process comprising the steps of:
providing the floor deck structure as recited in claim 15, and
pouring concrete on the profiled metallic sheet (adjacently joined steel decks 10) of the floor deck structure in order to encompass the first and second rebar trusses (30) (figs. 2-8; par. [0002], [0027], and [0033]).
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji (JP 2014-70336).
With regard to claim 19: Seiji does not disclose a height dimension between the base of the first and second longitudinal grooves and the adjacent one of the first, second and third upper portions is between thirty millimeters and eighty millimeters.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available height dimensions in order to provide desirable properties such as strength and rigidity for a the floor deck structure. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the height dimension between the base of the first and second grooves and the adjacent one of the first, second and third upper portions to be between thirty millimeters and eighty millimeters Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
The objection of claim 19 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/15/26.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the mounting jigs 20 of Seiji do not prevent the lower chords from sliding in the longitudinal direction and mounting jigs 20 do not fasten reinforcing bar trusses 30 to steel deck 10 so that relative movement of the reinforcing bar trusses 30 with respect to steel deck 10 is prevented in any direction.
As previously submitted in the Office Action of 1/26/26, par. [0033] of Seiji describes that “the lower chord members 60a and 60a grip the jig side surfaces 23a and 23b in directions approaching each other in a state of being elastically deformed.” Note that www.merriam-webster.com/ defines grip as to “seize or hold firmly.” Accordingly, the lower chord members (60a and 60b) are gripped (clamped) on the sides of the connectors (attachment jigs), therefore being capable of preventing relative movement. Examiner suggests further defining how a plurality of connectors fasten the first and second rebar trusses to the profiled metallic sheet. Regarding the mounting jigs not fastening the reinforcing bar trusses to the steel deck, Examiner respectfully submits that par. [0030] discloses the mounting jigs pressed against a valley bottom of the steel deck. Regarding the statement the that lattice members of Seiji would appear to engage connectors in a longitudinal direction, Examiner notes that the statement was a merely an observation of the figures and is not relied on for the purposes of 102.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights