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 .
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (JP2004-027718, see machine translated version) in view of Horiuchi et al. (WO2021/010456, see machine translated version).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda et al. teach a structure protection sheet to be attached to a surface of a structure (paragraph [0008]), the structure protection sheet comprising in order a bonding layer (paragraph [0008]), a reinforcing layer and a protective layer that is a resin layer (paragraphs [0017], [0022]).
Ueda et al. fail to teach wherein the sheet comprises a polymer cement hardened layer. However, Horiuchi et al. teach a structure protection sheet to be attached to a surface of a structure (paragraph [0011]) comprising a polymer cement layer and a resin layer (paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer cement layer of Horiuchi et al. in the sheet of Ueda et al. in order to provide excellent conformability, compatibility and adhesion (Horiuchi et al., paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, Ueda et al. teach wherein the bonding layer comprises an acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Ueda et al. teach a structure protection sheet to be attached to a surface of a structure (paragraph [0008]), the structure protection sheet comprising in order a bonding layer (paragraph [0008]), a reinforcing layer and a protective layer that is a resin layer (paragraphs [0017], [0022]).
Ueda et al. fail to teach wherein the sheet comprises a polymer cement hardened layer. However, Horiuchi et al. teach a structure protection sheet to be attached to a surface of a structure (paragraph [0011]) comprising a polymer cement layer and a resin layer (paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer cement layer of Horiuchi et al. in the sheet of Ueda et al. in order to provide excellent conformability, compatibility and adhesion (Horiuchi et al., paragraph [0019]).
Ueda et al. and Horiuchi et al. do not disclose wherein the structure protection sheet has a punching strength of 1.5 kN or more as measured by a punching test specified in JSCE-K 533. However, Ueda et al. teach wherein a strength of 1500 N or more is desired (paragraph [0030]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in punching strength involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the punching strength of Ueda et al., as modified by Horiuchi et al., in order to provide adequate strength (Ueda et al., paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Ueda et al. teach a structure protection sheet to be attached to a surface of a structure (paragraph [0008]), the structure protection sheet comprising in order a bonding layer (paragraph [0008]), a reinforcing layer and a protective layer that is a resin layer (paragraphs [0017], [0022]).
Ueda et al. fail to teach wherein the sheet comprises a polymer cement hardened layer. However, Horiuchi et al. teach a structure protection sheet to be attached to a surface of a structure (paragraph [0011]) comprising a polymer cement layer and a resin layer (paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer cement layer of Horiuchi et al. in the sheet of Ueda et al. in order to provide excellent conformability, compatibility and adhesion (Horiuchi et al., paragraph [0019]).
Ueda et al. and Horiuchi et al. do not disclose the structure protection sheet has a bond force of 0.5 N/mm2 or more when attached to the surface of the structure via the bonding layer. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in bond force involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the bond force of Ueda et al., as modified by Horiuchi et al., in order to facilitate adhesion to the concrete surface (Ueda et al., paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claims 5, 11-13, Ueda et al. teach wherein the bonding layer has a thickness of about 50 µm to 10 mm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 20 to 500 µm (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claims 6, 14-17, Ueda et al. fail to teach wherein the polymer cement hardened layer comprises a cement component and a resin, and a content of the resin in the polymer cement hardened layer is from 10 to 40% by weight. However, Horiuchi et al. teach a structure protection sheet to be attached to a surface of a structure (paragraph [0011]) comprising a polymer cement layer and a resin layer (paragraph [0035]), wherein the polymer cement layer comprises a cement component and a resin (paragraphs [0018], [0042]), and a content of the resin in the polymer cement layer is from 20 to 100% by mass which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 10 to 40% by weight (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer cement layer of Horiuchi et al. in the sheet of Ueda et al. in order to provide excellent conformability, compatibility and adhesion (Horiuchi et al., paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claims 7, 18-20, Ueda et al. teach wherein the sheet comprises a mesh layer (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 8, Ueda et al. teach a method for producing a reinforced structure (paragraphs [0008], [0022]) comprising using a structure protection sheet to be attached to a surface of a structure (paragraph [0008], [0022]), the structure protection sheet comprising in order a bonding layer (paragraph [0008]), a reinforcing layer and a protective layer that is a resin layer (paragraphs [0017], [0022]), the method comprising attaching the structure protection sheet to a surface of a structure via the bonding layer (paragraphs [0008], [0022]).
Ueda et al. fail to teach wherein the sheet comprises a polymer cement hardened layer. However, Horiuchi et al. teach a structure protection sheet to be attached to a surface of a structure (paragraph [0011]) comprising a polymer cement layer and a resin layer (paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer cement layer of Horiuchi et al. in the sheet of Ueda et al. in order to provide excellent conformability, compatibility and adhesion (Horiuchi et al., paragraph [0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 9/16/2025