DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Restriction election received on 12/17/2025 has been acknowledged. Claim(s) 1-25 are pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 12-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention Groups II and III. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/17/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “recessed region is curved” of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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, 2, 5, and 8-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 890,011).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches a structural member (reinforced concrete slab; title) comprising: a first surface oriented to be substantially vertical (see annotated figure 1/2 below), having a first height (annotated figure 2), and positioned to be exposed to an exterior side of a building (it is understood that the wall is capable of being positioned to be exposed to an exterior side of a building); a second surface (annotated figure 1) oriented to be substantially vertical (annotated figure 2), having a second height equal to the first height (annotated figure 2), and positioned substantially parallel to and in a spaced-apart relationship with the first surface (annotated figure 1), the spaced-apart relationship defining a substantially uniform baseline thickness of the structural member (annotated figure 1); a recessed region (annotated figure 1) formed in a portion of the second surface and extending toward the first surface (annotated figure 1), the recessed region having a recess height that is less than the second height (annotated figure 2), a recess width (annotated figure 2) that spans a horizontal distance of the second surface (annotated figure 2), and a recess depth (annotated figure 1) from the second surface that is less than the baseline thickness of the structural member (annotated figure 1); wherein the recessed region defines an effective thickness (annotated figure 1) of the structural member that is equal to a difference between the baseline thickness and the recess depth (annotated figure 1); and a reinforcing element (4) intermediate the first surface and the second surface (annotated figure 1); wherein the reinforcing element is disposed intermediate the recessed region and the first surface (annotated figure 1), supports a portion of the structural member having the effective thickness (annotated figure 1), 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 would inherently optimize a resistance to a given bending moment for the structural member as a whole).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson teaches a material used for the structural member and defining the first surface and the second surface is concrete (concrete; title).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson teaches the reinforcing element comprises a web structure (wire fabric; col. 2, lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson teaches the recessed region is symmetrical in planar cross-section (annotated figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson teaches the recessed region is rectangular in planar cross-section (annotated figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson teaches the recessed region is trapezoidal in planar cross-section (annotated figure 1/2).
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) 3, 4, and 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 890,011) in view of Pittman (U.S. Patent No. 1,891,837).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson does not specifically disclose the reinforcing element comprises a steel bar.
Pittman discloses a concrete unit (title) wherein the reinforcing element comprises a steel bar (11; col. 2, lines 70-75).
Therefore, from the teaching of Pittman, 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 Anderson such that the reinforcing element comprises a steel bar, as taught by Pittman, in order to provide optimal bondage between concrete and the reinforcement or enhanced performance and longevity.
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in the combination discloses the reinforcing element comprises a lattice of interconnected steel bars (10; col. 2, lines 70-75).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson does not specifically disclose the web structure comprises a steel mesh.
Pittman discloses a concrete unit (title) wherein the web structure comprises a steel mesh (10; col. 2, lines 70-75).
Therefore, from the teaching of Pittman, 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 Anderson such that the web structure comprises a steel mesh, as taught by Pittman, in order to provide optimal bondage between concrete and the reinforcement or enhanced performance and longevity.
Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 890,011) in view of Schumann (U.S. Patent No. 1,891,837).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson 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 Anderson 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.
Claim(s) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 890,011).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson does not specifically disclose the recessed region is curved in planar cross-section.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of the recessed region to be curved in planar cross-section, since such a modification would have only involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It is also common knowledge to choose a shape that has a desired aesthetic or durability and flexibility etc. for the application and intended use of that element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the recessed region to be curved in planar cross-section, in order to reduce the number of sharp edges or corners which can be more prone to chipping, deterioration, or further damage to the concrete member than smooth transitions.
PNG
media_image1.png
889
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to reinforced structures in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR 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