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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ submissions of January 15, 2026, are noted and entered. Regarding claim 5, note that under 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c)(4)(i), “No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of 'canceled' or 'not entered'.” Future submissions to the Office including canceled claims, should only recite a status identifier of “Canceled” for the claim without any corresponding text.
Specification
Applicants’ amendments to the specification are noted and entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. A number of factors must be considered in assessing the enablement of an invention, including the following: the breadth of the claims, the amount of experimentation necessary, the guidance provided in the specification, working examples provided, predictability, and the state of the art. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites a first gap between the core and first sidewall, a second gap formed between the first sidewall and second sidewall, and a third gap formed between the second sidewall and third sidewall. Applicants’ specification at paragraphs 0022 and 0025 recites the claimed gaps. A gap is ordinarily known in the art as an opening or empty space. However, Applicants’ specification requires the gap to accommodate an adhesive material to fill and bond the portions and core together. Applicants’ specification does not appear to recite that the claimed compression member can comprise the gap (i.e. openings or empty spaces) in the final product without the presence of an adhesive filling the gap. Applicants’ specification does not provide a manner for the compression member to be formed with the presence of gaps in the final product and it is unclear how one of ordinary skill would be capable of forming the claimed compression member with the gaps being present. Such a claimed structure would require undue experimentation. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
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 1-4, 6-8, and 16-19 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.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, and 16-19, claim 1 recites that a compression member, comprising a solid core. It is unclear if the claim is requiring the core composition to be solid or if the claim is requiring the core structure to be solid. For example, it is unclear if the material forming the core is solid as compared to porous, or if the structure is solid compared to hollow.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites that the adhesive is a heat curing urethane. The claim is dependent from claim 6, which does not require an adhesive. Therefore, the claimed adhesive lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims, and it is unclear what structure was intended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0076249 to Gibson in view of USPN 4,566,247 to Overbo.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, 18, and 19, Gibson teaches a rebar structure for concrete reinforcement, including a central wall portion formed circumferentially around a core axis and including glass fibers and a resin, an inner wall portion bonded to the inside surface of the central wall portion and including glass fibers and a resin, and an outer wall portion bonded to the outside surface of the central wall portion and including glass fibers and a resin (Gibson, Abstract, paragraphs 0024-0039, Figures 1-2). Gibson teaches that the apparatus for making the structure includes a pultrusion die (Id., paragraphs 0013-0014), wherein each of the wall portions may be a pultruded structure (Id., paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0038). Gibson teaches that the inner wall portion may be formed of a single mat layer or more than one mat layer (Id., paragraph 0033). Gibson teaches that a wrapping textured material or an external purchase-enhancing structure formed on the outer surface of the outer wall portion (Id., paragraphs 0040-0044, 0080-0087). Gibson teaches that the structure may have a circular cross section (Id., paragraph 0052, Figures 1-2).
Gibson teaches that the core is hollow but does not appear to teach a solid core. As set forth above, it is unclear exactly what structure is claimed. However, Gibson establishes known advantages and disadvantages of hollow and solid products (Gibson, paragraphs 0006-0009). Note that Gibson does not establish the unsuitability of solid products. Additionally, Overbo teaches a captive column structure comprising a plurality of spaced-apart elongated column portions having a plurality of spaced-apart compression core members, wherein the members may take either the shape of flat sheets, hollow tubes, solid tubes, or square tubes (Overbo, Abstract). Overbo teaches that the compression core members may be constructed of a variety of different materials, wherein fibers and a resin are positively interconnected to the compression core (Id., Abstract, column 3 line 4 to column 4 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rebar structure of Gibson, substituting the hollow core with a solid core, as taught by Overbo, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional reinforcement structure having a core structure known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for such structures.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches that the inner wall portion, central wall portion, and the outer wall portion comprise fibers and a resin, wherein the portions are bonded (Gibson, paragraphs 0025-0037). Since the portions are formed and cured (Id., Figure 4), it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the portions are bonded by the resin, which is within the scope of the claimed adhesive.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed length. However, the prior art combination teaches that the rebar structure is for concrete reinforcement (Gibson, paragraphs 0012, 0137) having enhanced radial strength and resistance to pull-out (Id., paragraph 0011). Absent evidence of unexpected results, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to determine a suitable length of the rebar structure based on its use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rebar structure of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the length of the structure, such as within the claimed range, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine a suitable length for the rebar structure based on its suitability to its application when used.
Regarding claim 18, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, the prior art combination teaches bonding the layers. Since the claim recites first, second, and third gaps, and since Applicants’ specification teaches filling the gaps with adhesive, the bonded structure of the prior art combination would appear to be within the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, the prior art combination teaches the use of a thermoset resin such as a urethane (Gibson, paragraphs 0026, 0031), which is cured by heat (Id., paragraph 0068).
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0076249 to Gibson in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0218814 to Edoo.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, 18, and 19, Gibson teaches a rebar structure for concrete reinforcement, including a central wall portion formed circumferentially around a core axis and including glass fibers and a resin, an inner wall portion bonded to the inside surface of the central wall portion and including glass fibers and a resin, and an outer wall portion bonded to the outside surface of the central wall portion and including glass fibers and a resin (Gibson, Abstract, paragraphs 0024-0039, Figures 1-2). Gibson teaches that the apparatus for making the structure includes a pultrusion die (Id., paragraphs 0013-0014), wherein each of the wall portions may be a pultruded structure (Id., paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0038). Gibson teaches that the inner wall portion may be formed of a single mat layer or more than one mat layer (Id., paragraph 0033). Gibson teaches that a wrapping textured material or an external purchase-enhancing structure formed on the outer surface of the outer wall portion (Id., paragraphs 0040-0044, 0080-0087). Gibson teaches that the structure may have a circular cross section (Id., paragraph 0052, Figures 1-2).
Gibson teaches that the core is hollow but does not appear to teach a solid core. As set forth above, it is unclear exactly what structure is claimed. However, Gibson establishes known advantages and disadvantages of hollow and solid products (Gibson, paragraphs 0006-0009). Note that Gibson does not establish the unsuitability of solid products. Additionally, Edoo teaches a corrosion resistant concrete reinforcing member including an elongate core member (Edoo, Abstract). Edoo teaches that the reinforcing member comprises a fibre reinforced polymer including glass fibre reinforcing fibre material (Id., paragraph 0043). Edoo teaches that the elongate core can be solid or hollow (Id., paragraphs 0044, 0093, 0095, 0099). Edoo teaches that the invention is suitable for use in a range of applications and concrete structure including industrial buildings (Id., paragraphs 0104-0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rebar structure of Gibson, substituting the hollow core with a solid core, as taught by Edoo, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional reinforcement structure having a core structure known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for such structures.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches that the inner wall portion, central wall portion, and the outer wall portion comprise fibers and a resin, wherein the portions are bonded (Gibson, paragraphs 0025-0037). Since the portions are formed and cured (Id., Figure 4), it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the portions are bonded by the resin, which is within the scope of the claimed adhesive.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed length. However, the prior art combination teaches that the rebar structure is for concrete reinforcement (Gibson, paragraphs 0012, 0137) having enhanced radial strength and resistance to pull-out (Id., paragraph 0011). Absent evidence of unexpected results, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to determine a suitable length of the rebar structure based on its use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rebar structure of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the length of the structure, such as within the claimed range, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine a suitable length for the rebar structure based on its suitability to its application when used.
Regarding claim 18, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, the prior art combination teaches bonding the layers. Since the claim recites first, second, and third gaps, and since Applicants’ specification teaches filling the gaps with adhesive, the bonded structure of the prior art combination would appear to be within the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, the prior art combination teaches the use of a thermoset resin such as a urethane (Gibson, paragraphs 0026, 0031), which is cured by heat (Id., paragraph 0068).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson in view of Overbo, as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 18, and 19 above, and further in view of USPN 6,641,893 to Suresh.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the prior art combination teaches a plurality of fiber and resin layers. The prior art combination does not appear to teach the differences in modulus. However, Suresh teaches functionally-graded materials that are highly resistant to localized normal indentation, or indentation tensile stresses, against its surface, including a stacked array of at least five layer units each having local anisotropy in at least one direction (Suresh, Abstract). Suresh teaches that the stacked array may be fiber-reinforced polymeric material, i.e., prepreg (Id.). Suresh teaches that the Young’s modulus increases as a function of depth from the surface of the material (Id., column 3 lines 10-43). Suresh teaches that articles and construction having a layered configuration, each having local anisotropy, can define a much simplified construction that exhibits superior indentation resistance (Id., column 16 line 65 to column 17 line 13), wherein the layer can be curved and comprise glass fiber within a resin matrix (Id., column 17 lines 14-47). Suresh teaches that the difference in mechanical properties between layers preferably changes consistently in the z direction (Id., column 20 lines 4-42). Suresh teaches that the materials are suitable for concreted reinforcement (Id., column 17 line 61 to column 18 line 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rebar structure of the prior art combination, wherein the layers comprise moduli in a relationship, such as claimed, as taught by Suresh, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional reinforcement structure having predictably improved resistance to failure under indentation perpendicular to the layer arrangement, suitable for the intended application.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson in view of Edoo, as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 18, and 19 above, and further in view of USPN 6,641,893 to Suresh.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the prior art combination teaches a plurality of fiber and resin layers. The prior art combination does not appear to teach the differences in modulus. However, Suresh teaches functionally-graded materials that are highly resistant to localized normal indentation, or indentation tensile stresses, against its surface, including a stacked array of at least five layer units each having local anisotropy in at least one direction (Suresh, Abstract). Suresh teaches that the stacked array may be fiber-reinforced polymeric material, i.e., prepreg (Id.). Suresh teaches that the Young’s modulus increases as a function of depth from the surface of the material (Id., column 3 lines 10-43). Suresh teaches that articles and construction having a layered configuration, each having local anisotropy, can define a much simplified construction that exhibits superior indentation resistance (Id., column 16 line 65 to column 17 line 13), wherein the layer can be curved and comprise glass fiber within a resin matrix (Id., column 17 lines 14-47). Suresh teaches that the difference in mechanical properties between layers preferably changes consistently in the z direction (Id., column 20 lines 4-42). Suresh teaches that the materials are suitable for concreted reinforcement (Id., column 17 line 61 to column 18 line 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rebar structure of the prior art combination, wherein the layers comprise moduli in a relationship, such as claimed, as taught by Suresh, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional reinforcement structure having predictably improved resistance to failure under indentation perpendicular to the layer arrangement, suitable for the intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights