DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended, claim(s) 11-25 has/have been cancelled, claim(s) 26-32 has/have been added. Therefore, claims 1-10 and 26-32 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
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(s) 1-6, 8-10, 26, and 29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pittman (U.S. Patent No. 1,891,837).
Regarding claim 1, Pittman teaches a structural member (concrete unit; title) comprising: a first surface oriented to be substantially vertical (see annotated figure 2 below), having a first height (annotated figure 1-2), and positioned to be exposed to an exterior side of a building (it is understood that the structural member is capable of being positioned to be exposed to an exterior side of a building); a second surface oriented to be substantially vertical (annotated figure 1-2), having a second height equal to the first height (annotated figure 1-2), and positioned substantially parallel to and in a spaced-apart relationship with the first surface (annotated figure 1-2), the spaced-apart relationship defining a substantially uniform baseline thickness of the structural member (annotated figure 1-2); a recessed region (annotated figure 1-2) formed in a portion of the second surface and extending toward the first surface (annotated figure 1-2), the recessed region having a recess height (annotated figure 1-2) that is less than the second height (annotated figure 1-2), a recess width (annotated figure 1-2) that spans a horizontal distance of the second surface (annotated figure 1-2), and a recess depth (annotated figure 1-2) from the second surface that is less than the baseline thickness of the structural member (annotated figure 1-2); wherein the recessed region defines an effective thickness (annotated figure 1-2) of the structural member that is equal to a difference between the baseline thickness and the recess depth (annotated figure 1-2); and a reinforcing element (11) intermediate the first surface and the second surface (figure 5); wherein the reinforcing element is disposed intermediate the recessed region and the first surface (figure 5), supports a portion of the structural member having the effective thickness (figure 5), and is selectively positioned relative to the first surface such that a resistance to a given bending moment for the structural member as a whole is optimized (it is understood that the position of the reinforcement relative to the first surface is capable would inherently optimize a resistance to a given bending moment for the structural member as a whole) and wherein the first height and the second height are both greater than the effective thickness (annotated figure 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Pittman teaches a material used for the structural member and defining the first surface and the second surface is concrete (title).
Regarding claim 3, Pittman teaches the reinforcing element comprises a steel bar (col. 2, lines 70-75).
Regarding claim 4, Pittman teaches the reinforcing element comprises a lattice of interconnected steel bars (figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Pittman teaches the reinforcing element comprises a web structure (steel fabric 10).
Regarding claim 6, Pittman teaches the web structure comprises a steel mesh (steel fabric 10).
Regarding claim 8, Pittman teaches the recessed region is symmetrical in planar cross-section (annotated figure 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Pittman teaches the recessed region is rectangular in planar cross-section (annotated figure 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Pittman teaches the recessed region is trapezoidal in planar cross-section (annotated figure 1-2).
Regarding claim 26, Pittman teaches the reinforcing element is oriented to be substantially vertical (annotated figure 1-2 and figure 5).
Regarding claim 29, Pittman teaches an additional recessed region (annotated figure 1-2) formed in a portion of the second surface spaced from the recessed region (annotated figure 1-2) and extending toward the first surface (annotated figure 1-2), the additional recessed region having an additional recess height that is less than the second height (annotated figure 1-2), an additional recess width that spans a horizontal distance of the second surface (annotated figure 1-2), and an additional recess depth from the second surface that is less than the baseline thickness of the structural member (annotated figure 1-2); wherein the additional recessed region defines an additional effective thickness of the structural member (annotated figure 1-2) that is equal to a difference between the baseline thickness and the recess depth (annotated figure 1-2), and wherein the reinforcing element is disposed between the recessed region and the additional recessed region (annotated figure 1-2 and figure 5).
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) 27, 28, and 30-32, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittman (U.S. Patent No. 1,891,837).
Regarding claim 27, Pittman does not specifically disclose the reinforcing element is positioned at a center of the recess depth. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the reinforcing element at a center of the recess depth, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the reinforcing element positioned at a center of the recess depth in order to place reinforcements where tensile stresses are greatest, to improve the slab’s ability to resist cracking and bending under load, depending on the specific design loads of the structure.
Regarding claim 28, Pittman teaches a wall plane reinforcement element (11) disposed intermediate the first and second surface (annotated figure 1-2 and figure 5).
Regarding claim 30, Pittman does not specifically disclose the reinforcing element is positioned between the recess depth as well as between the additional recess depth. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the reinforcing element between the recess depth as well as between the additional recess depth, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the reinforcing element positioned at a center of the recess depth, in order to place reinforcements where tensile stresses are greatest, to improve the slab’s ability to resist cracking and bending under load, depending on the specific design loads of the structure.
Regarding claim 31, Pittman teaches the recess depth equals the additional recess depth (annotated figure 1-2), but does not specifically disclose the reinforcing element is positioned at the center of the recess depth and the additional recess depth. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the reinforcing element at the center of the recess depth and the additional recess depth, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the reinforcing element is positioned at the center of the recess depth and the additional recess depth, in order to place reinforcements where tensile stresses are greatest, to improve the slab’s ability to resist cracking and bending under load, depending on the specific design loads of the structure.
Regarding claim 32, Pittman teaches a wall plane reinforcement element (11) disposed intermediate the first and second surface (annotated figure 1-2 and figure 5).
Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittman (U.S. Patent No. 1,891,837) in view of Schumann (U.S. Patent No. 1,891,837).
Regarding claim 7, Pittman does not specifically disclose the web structure comprises a fibrous material.
Schumann discloses a reinforced wall (abstract) wherein the web structure comprises a fibrous material (fiber mesh; paragraph 43).
Therefore, from the teaching of Schumann, 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 concrete slab of Pittman such the web structure comprises a fibrous material, as taught by Schumann, in order to provide enhanced concrete reinforcement for optimal performance and increased strength.
PNG
media_image1.png
906
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's amendments have been considered and overcome the previous rejection in view of Anderson. The argument that Anderson does not disclose the first height and the second height are both greater than the effective thickness, was found persuasive, and the Anderson reference has been withdrawn. The new limitations are overcome in view of Pittman (U.S. Patent No. 1,891,837).
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
Prosecution Insights