DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-4 has/have been amended and claim(s) 5 and 10 has/have been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, at line 7, the recitation “configured to prefabricate together” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. It is unclear if this is referring to a process of manufacturing or a more specific type of connection.
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) 1-4, 6, 7, and 9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coudray (U.S. Patent No. 3,424,239), in view of Azad et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0190113 A1), and in view of Phillips (U.S. Patent No. 6,519,904).
Regarding claim 1, Coudray teaches a cast-in-place composite shielding shell (pressure vessel; figure 2) comprising a concrete (prestressed concrete wall; abstract) layer (1), a reinforced concrete (RC) layer (2), and a back panel (8) configured to resist cracking (it is understood that the panel is capable of resisting cracking), and the RC layer is disposed between the concrete layer and the back panel (figure 1); and the RC layer and the concrete layer are connected and fixed to each other by means of connectors (14), the connectors comprise tension reinforcements (figures 1-2; it is understood that the connectors 14 are capable of reinforcing for tensile forces on the vessel), and the connectors are configured together with the concrete layer (figure 1).
Coudray does not specifically disclose an ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) and constructional steel reinforcements are arranged in the UHPC layer.
Azad et al. teaches an ultra-high performance concrete (abstract) and constructional steel reinforcements (steel fiber) are arranged in the UHPC layer (abstract).
Therefore, from the teaching of Azad 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 composite wall of Coudray to include an ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) and constructional steel reinforcements are arranged in the UHPC layer, as taught by Azad et al., in order to provide a strengthened concrete to the pressure vessel which may be beneficial in such environments under high pressure cycles to resist fatigue and reduce cracks.
In addition, Coudray does not specifically disclose rigid dismantling-free formworks are disposed between the UHPC layer and the RC layer.
Phillips discloses a method of forming concrete walls (title) wherein rigid dismantling-free formworks (44) are disposed between the outer concrete layers (figures 1 and 2).
Therefore, from the teaching of Phillips, 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 composite wall of Coudray to include rigid dismantling-free formworks are disposed between the UHPC layer and the RC layer, as taught by Phillips, in order to facilitate the application of concrete and at the same time provide a stay-in-place form of reinforcement via the wire mesh composition.
Regarding claim 2, Coudray teaches studs (10) are welded to the back panel (col. 4, lines 7-12), and the back panel is connected to the RC layer through the studs (figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Azad et al. in the combination teaches the UHPC layer is casted with ultra-high performance concrete (abstract).
With regards to the limitation that the product is formed by being “casted with”, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Azad et al. in the combination teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 4, Coudray teaches the RC layer is casted with normal-strength concrete (col. 4, lines 55-60) and is configured with RC layer main reinforcements (12) and RC layer tension reinforcements (16).
Regarding claim 6, Phillips in the combination teaches the rigid dismantling-free formworks are rigid formworks for industrial buildings (it is understood that the wire mesh 44 is capable of functioning as a dismantling-free rigid formwork and capable of being used for industrial buildings).
Regarding claim 7, Coudray does not specifically disclose the studs are made of high-strength carbon steel or low alloy steel.
However, Coudray does disclose the lining membrane is made of high-strength carbon steel or low alloy steel (low-carbon nickel steel; col. 6, lines 20-22). Therefore, 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 studs such that they are also made from the same carbon steel in order to reduce costs by not having to source further types of material and include the same material that will facilitate welding them together.
Regarding claim 9, Coudray as modified in view of Phillips teaches the connectors pass through the rigid dismantling-free formworks (in the combination, it is understood that connectors of Coudray would pass through the rigid dismantling-free formworks of Phillips) and are connected with the UHPC layer and the RC layer (figure 1).
Claim(s) 8 and 11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coudray (U.S. Patent No. 3,424,239), in view of Azad et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0190113 A1), in view of Phillips (U.S. Patent No. 6,519,904), and in view of Gan et al. (CN110805146 A) with Espacenet translation.
Regarding claim 8, Coudray does not specifically disclose the RC layer main reinforcements and the RC layer tension reinforcements, are hot-rolled ribbed steel reinforcements for industrial buildings, comprising HRB400E steel reinforcements.
Gan et al. discloses a concrete reinforcement (para 16) whereby reinforcements are ribbed steel reinforcements (split head rib and steel; claim 8) capable of use for industrial buildings, comprising HRB400E steel reinforcements (claim 8).
Therefore, from the teaching of Gan 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 composite wall of Coudray such that the RC layer main reinforcements and the RC layer tension reinforcements, are ribbed steel reinforcements for industrial buildings, comprising HRB400E steel reinforcements, as taught by Gan et al., in order to provide the optimal concrete reinforcement strength for the wall assembly for a high yield strength and better crack resistance.
With regards to the limitation that the product is formed by being hot-rolled, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Gan et al. teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 11, Coudray does not specifically disclose the constructional steel reinforcement are hot-rolled ribbed steel reinforcements for industrial buildings, comprising HRB400E steel reinforcements.
Gan et al. discloses a concrete reinforcement (para 16) whereby reinforcements are ribbed steel reinforcements (split head rib and steel; claim 8) capable of use for industrial buildings, comprising HRB400E steel reinforcements (claim 8).
Therefore, from the teaching of Gan 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 composite wall of Coudray such that the constructional steel reinforcement are hot-rolled ribbed steel reinforcements for industrial buildings, comprising HRB400E steel reinforcements, as taught by Gan et al., in order to provide the optimal concrete reinforcement strength for the wall assembly for a high yield strength and better crack resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference(s) Azad et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0190113 A1) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding “the connectors comprise tension reinforcements or bolts, and the connectors are configured to prefabricate together with the UHPC layer, and constructional steel reinforcements are arranged in the UHPC layer” has overcome the previous rejection, and the applicant’s argument that Coudray does not disclose such a feature was found persuasive. The new limitation is overcome in view of Azad et al. With regards to the argument that in Coudray, there are no separate components for connecting the concrete structure 1 and the heat-insulating layer 2 together. However, this is not found persuasive since this is not what is being claimed. The specific claim limitation is as follows: the RC layer and the UHCP layer are connected to each other by means of connectors. Since the connectors 145 extend into both layers, connected from one layer to the other, then under broadest reasonable interpretation they meet the limitation. There is no claim limitation that states that there are to be separate components for connecting the concrete structure. With regards to the previous 112 rejection that the prestressed concrete disclosed by Coudray as being analogous to the claimed UHPC layer of the instant application, the rejection is hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s newly submitted definition for UHPC provided in the IDS. In addition, the argument regarding “wherein the rigid dismantling-free formworks are disposed between the UHPC layer and the RC layer” as being taught by Phillips has been carefully considered. The argument is on the grounds that the wire mesh layer 44 of Phillips is not rigid, and the concrete is sprayed through the wire mesh layer 44 to form columns 42 between the units 24, covering the outer sides of the units 24. Therefore, the wire mesh layer 44 of Phillips cannot divide the concrete layers to achieve alternating pouring and is thus completely different from the claimed dismantling-free formworks of the instant application. The argument was not found persuasive since no where in Phillips is it disclosed that the wire mesh is not rigid. Simply being a wire mesh does not imply that it is not rigid. The term “rigid” is a relative term and since Phillips shows the mesh rigidly placed within the concrete layers (figure 2) without bowing, then it is understood that it is rigid at least to some degree both before and after the concrete has set. In addition, the argument that “concrete is sprayed through the mesh to form columns …[t]herefore the wire mesh layer 44 of Phillips cannot divide the concrete layers to achieve alternate pouring” is not clear. These arguments are drawn towards the method of manufacturing, and since the claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. In Phillips, it is understood that the final product results in a wire mesh layer that is rigid.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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