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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-15, as originally filed 25 OCT. 2023, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 OCT. 23 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
FIG(s) 15: are objected to because each is a photograph. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications unless the photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. These photographs are not line drawings and legibility is greatly reduced. See MPEP § 608.02.
FIG(s) 4, 13a, 13c, 14, 17a-17c, 18a, 18c: appears to be two separate figures and should be labeled as such or else FIG. should have its separated parts embraced by brackets (see 37 CFR 1.84 (h));
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 1 ln. 5: after “vertical directions” delete [[,]] (comma)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-3, 7, 11 and 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
CLAIMS PRESENTED BELOW IN ORDER OF DEPENDENCY
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examiner has attempted to address some of these below.
Cl. 1 ln. 4: after “longitudinal reinforcements” the recitation(s) of "[[so that]]" is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear as this appears to be narrative in nature, rendering the meaning of the phrase confusing. It is suggested to replace “[[so that]]” with --, wherein-- and the claim has been interpreted as such.
Cl. 1 ln. 5: the recitation(s) of "[[which is]] in [[the]] plane" should be replaced by “in --a-- plane” as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 1 ln. 6: after “the longitudinal reinforcements and” insert --the beam further-- as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 1 ln. 7: replace [[such that]] with --wherein-- as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 1 ln. 9: after “wherein at one end” insert --of the beam-- as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 1 ln. 10: after “support of the” insert --one-- before “end” as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 1 ln. 13: replace [[so that these]] with --wherein the-- as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 1 ln. 14: after “the beam” insert --further-- as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 1 ln. 15: after “the transverse direction” replace [[of]] with --with-- as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 2 ln. 1: after “wherein both ends” insert --of the beam-- because it is unclear which ends are being referred to.
Cl. 3 ln. 1: after “according to claim 1,” replace [[the other]] with --wherein a second-- and after “end” insert --of the beam-- as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 3 ln. 3: replace [[so that in]] with --wherein-- as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 3 ln. 4: after “rectangular recess” replace [[there's]] with --comprises-- as this appears to be narrative in nature.
Cl. 3 ln. 5: after “beam, and the” insert --second-- before “end” and delete [[with the longitudinal rectangular protrusion]] as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 3 ln. 7-8: after “concrete protrusions of the” insert --longitudinal-- as it is unclear as to which elements this phrase is refereeing.
Cl. 7 ln. 1-2: after “claim 1,” replace “whose” with --wherein the-- as this phrase is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear.
Cl. 11 ln. 5 and Cl. 15 ln. 3: the recitation(s) of "preferably" is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if the limitations which follow this phrase are included in the invention or not.
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 1-5, 9, 15, 11rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CENZON FRANCESCO EP 2951364 B1 (Cenzon).
CLAIMS PRESENTED BELOW IN ORDER OF DEPENDENCY
As per claim 1 Cenzon teaches a concrete beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67) in which a longitudinal direction (left to right, FIG. 64) and a transverse direction (left to right, FIG. 65) are defined, and
a vertical direction is defined that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (left to right, FIG. 64) and the transverse direction (left to right, FIG. 65),
the beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) comprising longitudinal reinforcements (elements extending upper left to lower right, FIG. 64) [[so that]] --, wherein-- the cross section of the beam,
[[which is]] in [[the]] --a-- plane defined by the transverse and vertical directions[[,]]
cuts through the longitudinal reinforcements (elements extending upper left to lower right, FIG. 64) and --the beam further-- comprises transverse reinforcements (unidentified elements extending lower left to upper right, FIG. 64; compare to beam brackets 448, FIG. 50) contained in said plane,
[[such that]] --wherein-- the transverse reinforcements (unidentified elements extending lower left to upper right, FIG. 64; compare to beam brackets 448, FIG. 50) surround the longitudinal reinforcements (elements extending upper left to lower right, FIG. 64),
wherein at one end --of the beam-- according to the longitudinal direction (left to right, FIG. 64) the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67) comprises a rectangular recess (see recess between beams 514, 516 below pillar 512, FIG. 67; compare to open space between shelves 550, FIG. 65) for the fitting and support of the --one-- end of the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67) on a column (pillar 512, FIG. 67),
the cross-section comprising at each end of the beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to the transverse direction (left to right, FIG. 65) a lower extension (portion 542, FIG. 65, 67) according to the transverse direction (left to right, FIG. 65),
[[so that these]] --wherein the-- extensions (portion 542, FIG. 65, 67) define in the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67) longitudinal flanges (see top of 542, FIG. 67) for the support of prefabricated floor elements (“wooden floors” 14:30),
the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67) --further-- being provided at each end according to the transverse direction (left to right, FIG. 65) [[of]] --with-- a steel profile (bracket 552, FIG. 67) with an L-section (upper two-thirds of bracket 552, FIG. 66) having a first flange (upper horizontal section of bracket 552, FIG. 66) arranged on the lower extension (portion 542, FIG. 65, 67) and a second flange (vertical section of bracket 552, FIG. 66) joined to the transverse reinforcements (unidentified elements extending lower left to upper right, FIG. 64; compare to beam brackets 448, FIG. 50).
As per claim 2 Cenzon teaches the concrete beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to claim 1, wherein both ends comprise a rectangular recess (recess around 512, FIG. 67) for the fitting and support on a column.
As per claim 3 Cenzon teaches the concrete beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to claim 1, [[the other]] --wherein a second-- end --of the beam-- comprises a rectangular protrusion (see “dry coupling… the casting of concrete… reference number 68” 6:56-7:2; this is recognized as a rectangular protrusion typical of FIG. 67) designed for fitting on the rectangular recess (see rectangular area beneath unidentified brackets. FIG. 67; compare to brackets 448, FIG. 50) of a beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) that has continuity in the next span (see “continuity” extending left to right, FIG. 1; this is recognized as typical of FIG. 67),
[[so that in]] --wherein-- the longitudinal rectangular recess (see rectangular area beneath unidentified brackets. FIG. 67; compare to brackets 448, FIG. 50) [[there's]] --comprises-- thick concrete protrusions in the transverse direction (left to right, FIG. 65) placed at the bottom half of the section of the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67), and
the --second-- end [[with the longitudinal rectangular protrusion]] has thick concrete protrusions in the transverse direction (left to right, FIG. 65) placed at the top half of the section of the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67) designed to fit and lay on the concrete protrusions of the --longitudinal-- rectangular recess (see rectangular area beneath unidentified brackets. FIG. 67; compare to brackets 448, FIG. 50) of a beam that has continuity in the next span,
the end of the beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) provided with the rectangular recess (see rectangular area beneath unidentified brackets. FIG. 67; compare to brackets 448, FIG. 50) comprising a rectangular through opening (see vertical space between unidentified supports, FIG. 65; compare to supports 432, FIG.55),
that may be connected with the rectangular recess (see rectangular area beneath unidentified brackets. FIG. 67; compare to brackets 448, FIG. 50),
the through opening (see vertical space between unidentified supports, FIG. 65; compare to supports 432, FIG.55) being placed at the position of the junction with the column (pillar 512, FIG. 67) to allow for the bearing of the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67) and for the passing of the vertical reinforcement of the column (pillar 512, FIG. 67).
As per claim 4 Cenzon teaches the concrete beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to claim 1, wherein the second flange (vertical section of bracket 552, FIG. 66) is arranged on the vertical surface (see FIG. 65) of the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67).
As per claim 5 Cenzon teaches the concrete beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to claim 1, wherein the second flange (vertical section of bracket 552, FIG. 66) extends to an upper surface of the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67).
As per claim 9 Cenzon teaches the concrete beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to claim 1, comprising two lower bent metal plates (lower two-thirds of bracket 552, FIG. 66) at least at one of the longitudinal ends, which protrude (see FIG. 64) inferiorly and laterally from the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67).
As per claim 15 Cenzon teaches the system according to claim 9, wherein the plate (perforated plates 528, FIG. 64; see also 13:32) is joined to vertical reinforcements (see “perforated to allow the passage of the longitudinal reinforcement” 13:33) of the column (pillar 512, FIG. 67), and [[preferably]] comprises elastomer bands on the support surfaces intended for the beams (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67).
As per claim 11 Cenzon teaches a construction system comprising a column (pillar 512, FIG. 67), a prefabricated slab element (“wooden floors” 14:30) and a beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to claim 1, the column (pillar 512, FIG. 67) comprising a steel plate (perforated plates 528, FIG. 64; see also 13:32) on which the end of the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67) rests,
the prefabricated floor element(“wooden floors” 14:30) resting on one of the longitudinal flanges (see top of 542, FIG. 67) of the beam (beams 514, 516 FIG. 67),
[[preferably]] the steel plate (perforated plates 528, FIG. 64; see also 13:32) having the shape of a rectangular ring.
Claims 4-6, 8-10, 12-14 though not particularly referenced in this section are nonetheless rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6, 7, 10 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cenzon
As per claim 6 Cenzon teaches the concrete beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to claim 1, further comprising longitudinal reinforcements arranged in an upper section (upper unidentified connecting bar extending right to left proximate elements 540, FIG. 65; compare to connecting bars 46, FIG. 1) of the beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) and in at least one central section (lower unidentified connecting bar extending right to left proximate elements 540, FIG. 65; compare to lower connecting bars 46, FIG. 1) of the beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) but fails to explicitly disclose:
that covers at least 75% of the total length of the beam.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Cenzon by making the dimension be at least twice the dimension along the vertical direction in order to impart a specific level of reinforcement and because changes in size/proportion do not constitute a patentable difference.
As per claim 7 Cenzon teaches the concrete beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to claim 1, with dimension along the transverse direction (left to right, FIG. 65), but fails to explicitly disclose:
[[whose]] --wherein the-- dimension is at least twice the dimension along the vertical direction.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Cenzon by making the dimension be at least twice the dimension along the vertical direction in order to impart a specific level of reinforcement and because changes in size/proportion do not constitute a patentable difference.
As per claim 10 Cenzon teaches the concrete beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to claim 1, having the extensions (portion 542, FIG. 65, 67) as claimed but fails to explicitly disclose:
the extensions have a depth between 3 and 10 cm.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Cenzon by making the portions to have a depth between 3 and 10 cm in order to impart a specific strength to the structure, and because changes in size/proportion do not constitute a patentable difference.
As per claim 14 Cenzon teaches the system according to claim 9, wherein the recesses (see recess between beams 514, 516 below pillar 512, FIG. 67; compare to open space between shelves 550, FIG. 65) with a rectangular floor plan have a depth along the longitudinal direction (left to right, FIG. 64), but fails to explicitly disclose:
the depth is less than half the dimension of the plate along the longitudinal direction, so that concrete can be poured between the ends of successive beams and/or there is a space for hooks arranged in the middle part of the plate.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Cenzon by making depth be less than half the dimension of the plate in order to impart a specific strength to the structure, and because changes in size/proportion do not constitute a patentable difference.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cenzon in view of Simpson et al. US 3745731 A (Simpson).
As per claim 8 Cenzon teaches the concrete beam (beam 514, 516 FIG. 67) according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
comprising an elastomeric band on each of the flanges.
Simpson teaches such a flexible bearing member, specifically:
comprising an elastomeric band on each of the flanges (see “neoprene pad 74 or the like may be inserted between the flange of the double T-member… and the support surface” 5:31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Cenzon by including the neoprene pad as taught by Simpson in order to provide cushion between contact areas which would prevent noise and unnecessary degradation of the elements.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cenzon in view of O'ROURKE RAYMOND GABRIEL et al. GB 2315287 A (O'Rourke)
As per claim 12 Cenzon teaches the construction system according to claim 11, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the plate has dimensions greater than the column in plan, and
the column comprises transition corbels between the column and the plate,
the corbels having a height ranging from 5 and 10 cm.
O'Rourke teaches such a plate and intimates corbels as claimed, specifically:
wherein the plate (plate 86, FIG. 6) has dimensions greater than the column (column 50, FIG. 6) in plan, and
the column comprises transition corbels (see widths of plate 86, wider than column 50, FIG. 6; these outer edges are recognized as corbels as broadly claimed because they projects from within a wall and support a weight) between the column (column 50, FIG. 6) and the plate (plate 86, FIG. 6),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Cenzon by including the plates as taught by O'Rourke in order to support the overlying column.
Regarding the limitation of “the corbels having a height ranging from 5 and 10 cm”, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Cenzon by making the portions to have a depth between 3 and 10 cm in order to impart a specific strength to the structure, and because changes in size/proportion do not constitute a patentable difference (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc).
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cenzon in view of Reay US 5660020 A.
As per claim 13 Cenzon teaches the construction system according to claim 9, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the plate hooks that emerge vertically from the plate and are arranged opposite to each other along the transverse direction,
so that the hooks allow vertically retaining upper longitudinal reinforcements of the beams of the system and prevent the rotation or torsion of the beam during the assembly process,
as a prefabricated floor element is placed on the beam at the opposite side to that on which the hook is arranged.
Reay teaches these hooks incorporated into a plate for engaging rebar at a node, specifically:
wherein the plate (cap 11, FIG. 3) comprises hooks (see “cap 11…positioned at the edge 10 and incorporates a bent metal strap 12” 2:27; compare also strap 12, FIG. 2) that emerge vertically from the plate (cap 11, FIG. 3) and are arranged opposite to each other along the transverse direction (see cap 11, 11, left and right sides, FIG. 3),
so that the hooks allow vertically retaining upper longitudinal reinforcements of the beams (bar 15, FIG. 3) of the system and prevent the rotation or torsion of the beam during the assembly process, as a prefabricated floor element is placed on the beam at the opposite side to that on which the hook is arranged (see “transfer loads between the concrete floor 2 and the side wall” 2:44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Cenzon by including the cap and straps as taught by Reay in order to transfer loads between the elements after construction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 D 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635