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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 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) 2, 5, and 10 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, and 11 are now pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.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, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9, 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), wherein 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).
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.
In addition, although Coudray does not specifically disclose “configured to be prefabricated together” 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 Coudray as modified teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
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, 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 not persuasive. Applicant argues that Coudray does not specifically disclose the limitation regarding a number of studs are welded to the back panel, and the back panel is connected to the RC layer through the studs. However, the structural limitation is clearly taught as 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). Applicant argues that “[r]ather, Coudray is directed to a nuclear reactor pressure vessel, which is the primary structural component of a nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactor pressure vessels house nuclear fuel assemblies and control rods, and maintain a high pressure required for a coolant to remove heat efficiently from the core. Nuclear reactor pressure vessels serve as the first and most critical safety barrier against the release of radioactive materials”, however, the argument is unclear as to how this pertains to what is in the claim limitation.
In addition, applicant argues that it is well known to one of skill in the art that there is a protective shell (e.g., containment or containment building) that surrounds the nuclear reactor pressure vessel in order to enclose the reactor coolant system and prevent release of radioactive materials into the environment in the event of an accident. As described in the instant application, "in order to protect a reactor from the effects of external events (impact of a large projectile, tornado, etc.), it is necessary to construct a containment (i.e., a shielding shell) outside the reactor." However, it is unclear as to which specific claim limitation this specification excerpt is pointing to. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
In addition, applicant argues that the structure of the nuclear reactor vessel in Coudray differs greatly from modern reactor pressure vessels, which are usually made of steel…[p]articularly, as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2 of Coudray… however, the claim is not limiting to being made of steel. The arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
In addition, applicant argues that “[t]he lining membrane 8 (cf. back panel) and the heat-insulating layer 2 (cf. RC layer) of Coudray differ greatly from the back panel and the RC layer, respectively, as disclosed in the instant application … Coudray discloses that "said lining membrane [is] directly in contact with the heat-transporting fluid … that is, the wall known in FIG. 1 is used in the reactor core and is not used on the periphery of the nuclear reactor”. However, it is not claimed that the back panel is not on the periphery. Thus, since Coudray teaches the claimed structural matter, the limitations are met.
In addition, applicant argues that “the heat-insulating layer 2 (cf. RC layer) of Coudray is non-load-bearing component. Rather, its function is to provide thermal insulation and prevent the prestressed concrete from coming into direct contact with the reactor circulation airflow … [i]n contrast, the RC layer of the instant application is a key load-bearing component of the composite shielding shell”. However, it is not claimed that the RC layer is load-bearing. Thus, since Coudray teaches the claimed structural matter, the limitations are met.
In addition, applicant argues that Coudray does not disclose such separate components and thus the brackets 14 of Coudray are not analogous connectors, and the structural members 10 are not analogous studs. However, a bracket 14 is capable of functioning as a connector and the structural member 10 is capable of functioning as a stud. Without further specific definition or defined shapes of the claimed elements, they are taught under broadest reasonable interpretation.
In addition, applicant argues that Azad et al. the beam is made of conventional concrete, while the UHPC is embedded as reinforcement. However, it is understood that the concrete layer of Azad as a whole, forms a UHPC layer (see paragraphs 17 and 18 of Azad et al.).
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