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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6, 9-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high performance” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “ultra-high-performance” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultra-high-performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, it is unknown what is considered the upper limit of the “ultimate strength” value.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "CM mix" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “small size aggregate” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small size aggregate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high performance” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “ultra-high-performance” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultra-high-performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high performance” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “ultra-high-performance” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultra-high-performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 20, it is unknown what is considered the upper limit of the “ultimate strength” value.
Claims 11-12, 15-18 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Clyde (US Pub. 9,097,027 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Clyde discloses a seismic protection device comprising:
a pad made of Cementitious Material (CM) (Fig. 2, foundation 204);
a sliding puck (Fig. 2, sliding plates 202) supporting a protected structure (Fig. 2, concrete slab 206);
and a slider made of sliding material between the sliding puck and the pad (Abstract, lines 7-10: “In one example, the sliding surface has a coating such as a polyester (e.g., polyester triglycidyl isocyanurate) or a low surface energy coating (e.g., silicone-epoxy coating)”).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood by the Examiner, Clyde discloses wherein the CM is a high performance concrete (Because the definition of high performance concrete is not ascertained, and the term is subjective, the concrete of Clyde can be said to be high performance).
Regarding claim 5, Clyde discloses wherein the coefficient of friction between the pad and the slider ranges from 0.3% to 40% (Col. 6, lines 56-58: “In one example, the epoxy-silicone coating EC-2600 may be used to achieve 2% friction; and the coating EC-2400 may be used to achieve 5% friction”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clyde (US Pub. 9,097,027 B2) in view of Ciuperca (US Pub. 2014/0260034 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Clyde discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Ciuperca, similarly drawn to a concrete slab, wherein the CM is polymer concrete (Pg. 12, [0106], lines 1-7: “The exterior architectural layer 202 can be sprayed or have an integrated color pigment and/or it can have any type of architectural texture or color finish. To provide greater flexural strength and impact resistance, a particularly preferred material for the exterior architectural layer 202 is polymer modified concrete, polymer modified cement plaster, polymer modified geopolymer or polymer modified mortar”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Clyde to comprise the polymer modification of Ciuperca to provide greater flexural strength and impact resistance.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood by the Examiner, Clyde discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Ciuperca, similarly drawn to a concrete slab, wherein the CM is geopolymer and ultra-high-performance concrete (Pg. 12, [0106], lines 1-7: “The exterior architectural layer 202 can be sprayed or have an integrated color pigment and/or it can have any type of architectural texture or color finish. To provide greater flexural strength and impact resistance, a particularly preferred material for the exterior architectural layer 202 is polymer modified concrete, polymer modified cement plaster, polymer modified geopolymer or polymer modified mortar”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Clyde to comprise the geopolymer modification of Ciuperca to provide greater flexural strength and impact resistance.
Regarding claim 6, Clyde discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Ciuperca, similarly drawn to a concrete slab, wherein the pad has an ultimate strength higher than 3,000 psi (Pg. 17, [0139], lines 33-37: “Nevertheless, sufficient cementitious material should be used to produce concrete with an ultimate compressive strength of at least 1,000 psi, preferably at least 2,000 psi, more preferably at least 3,000 psi, most preferably at least 4,000 psi, especially up to about 10,000 psi or more”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Clyde to contain the ultimate strength of Ciuperca to provide adequate structural integrity to the pad.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clyde (US Pub. 9,097,027 B2) in view of Tavecchio (US Pub. 8,696,205 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Clyde discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Tavecchio, similarly drawn to a sliding bearing for structural engineering applications, wherein the slider is made of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Col. 2, lines 9-14: “Considering the low values of the friction coefficient shown by PTFE, the above-mentioned polymer has been always considered the ideal sliding material for manufacturing sliding bearings and therefore the technique has been developed in order to adapt the use of PTFE to various operating conditions”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding material of Clyde to be made of PTFE for its low-friction capabilities.
Regarding claim 8, Clyde discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Tavecchio, similarly drawn to a sliding bearing for structural engineering applications, wherein the slider is made of Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) (Col. 3, lines 4-8: “The use of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) has also been recently suggested as a polymer alternative to PTFE in the manufacturing of sliding bearings for structural engineering applications, mainly due to its higher characteristics of wear resistance”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding material of Clyde to be made of UHMWPE for its wear resistance.
Claim(s) 9-11, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US Pub. 2010/0005754 A1) in view of Alfani (US Pub. 10,011,051 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Weber discloses a method of constructing a seismic protection device (Title: “SEISMIC ISOLATION TO PROTECT BUILDINGS”), the method comprising the steps of:
preparing a mix of cementitious material (CM) (Pg. 2, [0018], the slab 1 is described as being concrete);
casting a pad using the CM mix (Pg. 2, [0017]: “The top slab 2 should have restraint 7 from the sides, such as air-filled pneumatic pistons, springs, large rubber bumpers, foam fill, etc. These restraints 7 may be spaced away from the slab 2 as is shown in FIG. 1 with a gap, or they may have a pre-load on them to attempt to keep a centering force on the slab 2 at all times (not shown). The restraints 7 will be either attached at the outside end to slab 1 (e.g. bolted to slab 1-not shown), or a retaining wall portion 8 of slab 1 may be molded in place with forms to restrain the outside end of the restraint parts 7. The retaining wall 8 must extend to the full perimeter of the slab 2 and the restraints 7 should be also arrayed around the full perimeter between the wall 8 and the slab 2”);
positioning a sliding puck (Fig. 1, upper slab 2) supporting a protected structure (Fig. 1, building 4) on the pad;
and a sliding material attached to the sliding puck resides between the sliding puck and the pad (Fig. 1, grease 3).
However, Weber fails to disclose as taught by Alfani, similarly drawn to a method of obtaining a cementitious product, preparing a mix of cementitious material (CM) to produce a desired surface roughness (Col. 4, lines 19-29: “With regard to the above-mentioned requirement for the maximum diameter of the aggregate relative to the thickness of the final product, the relative percentage amount of aggregates of different dimensions is then optimised so as to obtain the desired low roughness; furthermore, said roughness contributes to conferring on the mortar rheological characteristics adapted to mould casting, in particular elevated fluidity, prolonged workability for the time necessary for casting, and absence of segregation phenomena prior to hardening, safeguarding the final mechanical properties of the hardened product”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cementitious material of Weber to adjust the material composition to optimize for roughness so as to reduce friction between the sliding puck and the pad which reduces the forces experienced on the building.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood by the Examiner, Weber as modified by Alfani discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Weber, wherein the CM mix is comprised of small size aggregate to no aggregate (What is considered “small size aggregate” is not established and therefore the aggregate of Weber meets the description as the term is highly subjective).
Regarding claim 11, Weber as modified by Alfani discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Alfani, wherein the CM mix is cast in molds with varying roughness to provide coefficient of friction from 0.3% to 40% between the pad and sliding puck (Col. 4, lines 19-29: “With regard to the above-mentioned requirement for the maximum diameter of the aggregate relative to the thickness of the final product, the relative percentage amount of aggregates of different dimensions is then optimised so as to obtain the desired low roughness; furthermore, said roughness contributes to conferring on the mortar rheological characteristics adapted to mould casting, in particular elevated fluidity, prolonged workability for the time necessary for casting, and absence of segregation phenomena prior to hardening, safeguarding the final mechanical properties of the hardened product”. The method of Alfani discloses producing concrete with a various material compositions to affect the surface roughness. The desired friction coefficient range of 0.3% to 40% is broad enough that the resulting roughness of Alfani produces the desired outcome).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, Weber as modified by Alfani discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Weber, wherein the CM mix is a high performance concrete (Because the definition of high performance concrete is not ascertained, and the term is subjective, the concrete of Weber can be said to be high performance).
Regarding claim 19, Weber discloses a method of constructing a seismic protection device (Title: “SEISMIC ISOLATION TO PROTECT BUILDINGS”), the method comprising the steps of:
preparing a mix of cementitious material (CM) (Pg. 2, [0018], the slab 1 is described as being concrete);
casting a pad using the CM mix (Pg. 2, [0017]: “The top slab 2 should have restraint 7 from the sides, such as air-filled pneumatic pistons, springs, large rubber bumpers, foam fill, etc. These restraints 7 may be spaced away from the slab 2 as is shown in FIG. 1 with a gap, or they may have a pre-load on them to attempt to keep a centering force on the slab 2 at all times (not shown). The restraints 7 will be either attached at the outside end to slab 1 (e.g. bolted to slab 1-not shown), or a retaining wall portion 8 of slab 1 may be molded in place with forms to restrain the outside end of the restraint parts 7. The retaining wall 8 must extend to the full perimeter of the slab 2 and the restraints 7 should be also arrayed around the full perimeter between the wall 8 and the slab 2”);
and positioning a slider (Fig. 1, grease 3) fixed to a sliding puck (Fig. 1, upper slab 2) against the pad within a seismic damper system.
However, Weber fails to disclose as taught by Alfani, similarly drawn to a method of obtaining a cementitious product, preparing a mix of cementitious material (CM) to produce a desired surface roughness (Col. 4, lines 19-29: “With regard to the above-mentioned requirement for the maximum diameter of the aggregate relative to the thickness of the final product, the relative percentage amount of aggregates of different dimensions is then optimised so as to obtain the desired low roughness; furthermore, said roughness contributes to conferring on the mortar rheological characteristics adapted to mould casting, in particular elevated fluidity, prolonged workability for the time necessary for casting, and absence of segregation phenomena prior to hardening, safeguarding the final mechanical properties of the hardened product”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cementitious material of Weber to adjust the material composition to optimize for roughness so as to reduce friction between the sliding puck and the pad which reduces the forces experienced on the building.
Claim(s) 12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US Pub. 2010/0005754 A1) in view of Alfani (US Pub. 10,011,051 B2), and further in view of Ciuperca (US Pub. 2014/0260034 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Weber as modified by Alfani discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Ciuperca, wherein the CM mix is comprised of polymer concrete (Pg. 12, [0106], lines 1-7: “The exterior architectural layer 202 can be sprayed or have an integrated color pigment and/or it can have any type of architectural texture or color finish. To provide greater flexural strength and impact resistance, a particularly preferred material for the exterior architectural layer 202 is polymer modified concrete, polymer modified cement plaster, polymer modified geopolymer or polymer modified mortar”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Weber in view of Alfani to comprise the polymer modification of Ciuperca to provide greater flexural strength and impact resistance.
Regarding claim 14, Weber as modified by Alfani discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Ciuperca, wherein the CM mix is comprised of geopolymer and ultra-high-performance concrete (Pg. 12, [0106], lines 1-7: “The exterior architectural layer 202 can be sprayed or have an integrated color pigment and/or it can have any type of architectural texture or color finish. To provide greater flexural strength and impact resistance, a particularly preferred material for the exterior architectural layer 202 is polymer modified concrete, polymer modified cement plaster, polymer modified geopolymer or polymer modified mortar”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Weber in view of Alfani to comprise the geopolymer modification of Ciuperca to provide greater flexural strength and impact resistance.
Regarding claim 15, Weber as modified by Alfani discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Ciuperca, wherein the CM mix is designed to have an ultimate strength higher than 3,000 psi (Pg. 17, [0139], lines 33-37: “Nevertheless, sufficient cementitious material should be used to produce concrete with an ultimate compressive strength of at least 1,000 psi, preferably at least 2,000 psi, more preferably at least 3,000 psi, most preferably at least 4,000 psi, especially up to about 10,000 psi or more”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Weber in view of Alfani to contain the ultimate strength of Ciuperca to provide adequate structural integrity to the pad.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US Pub. 2010/0005754 A1) in view of Alfani (US Pub. 10,011,051 B2), and further in view of Clyde (US Pub. 9,097,027 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Weber as modified by Alfani discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Clyde, similarly drawn to a seismic isolation system, wherein the pad surface has a range of coefficient of friction from 0.3% to 40% (Col. 6, lines 56-58: “In one example, the epoxy-silicone coating EC-2600 may be used to achieve 2% friction; and the coating EC-2400 may be used to achieve 5% friction”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Weber in view of Alfani to contain the coefficient of friction of Clyde to optimally reduce the sliding resistance of the slab.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US Pub. 2010/0005754 A1) in view of Alfani (US Pub. 10,011,051 B2), and further in view of Tavecchio (US Pub. 8,696,205 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Weber as modified by Alfani discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Tavecchio, similarly drawn to a sliding bearing for structural engineering applications, wherein the sliding material is made of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Col. 2, lines 9-14: “Considering the low values of the friction coefficient shown by PTFE, the above-mentioned polymer has been always considered the ideal sliding material for manufacturing sliding bearings and therefore the technique has been developed in order to adapt the use of PTFE to various operating conditions”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding material of Weber in view of Alfani to be made of PTFE for its low-friction capabilities.
Regarding claim 18, Weber as modified by Alfani discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Tavecchio, similarly drawn to a sliding bearing for structural engineering applications, wherein the sliding material is made of Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) (Col. 3, lines 4-8: “The use of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) has also been recently suggested as a polymer alternative to PTFE in the manufacturing of sliding bearings for structural engineering applications, mainly due to its higher characteristics of wear resistance”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding material of Weber in view of Alfani to be made of UHMWPE for its wear resistance.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US Pub. 2010/0005754 A1) in view of Alfani (US Pub. 10,011,051 B2), and further in view of Clyde (US Pub. 9,097,027 B2) and Ciuperca (US Pub. 2014/0260034 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Weber as modified by Alfani discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Ciuperca, similarly drawn to a concrete slab, wherein: the CM is either polymer concrete, high performance concrete, geopolymer, or ultra-high-performance concrete (Pg. 12, [0106], lines 1-7: “The exterior architectural layer 202 can be sprayed or have an integrated color pigment and/or it can have any type of architectural texture or color finish. To provide greater flexural strength and impact resistance, a particularly preferred material for the exterior architectural layer 202 is polymer modified concrete, polymer modified cement plaster, polymer modified geopolymer or polymer modified mortar”);
and the pad has an ultimate strength higher than 3,000 psi (Pg. 17, [0139], lines 33-37: “Nevertheless, sufficient cementitious material should be used to produce concrete with an ultimate compressive strength of at least 1,000 psi, preferably at least 2,000 psi, more preferably at least 3,000 psi, most preferably at least 4,000 psi, especially up to about 10,000 psi or more”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Weber in view of Alfani to contain the ultimate strength and composition of Ciuperca to provide adequate structural integrity to the pad.
Furthermore, Weber as modified by Alfani fails to disclose as taught by Clyde, similarly drawn to a seismic isolation system, wherein the CM has a coefficient of friction ranges from 0.3% to 40% (Col. 6, lines 56-58: “In one example, the epoxy-silicone coating EC-2600 may be used to achieve 2% friction; and the coating EC-2400 may be used to achieve 5% friction”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Weber in view of Alfani to contain the coefficient of friction of Clyde to optimally reduce the sliding resistance of the slab.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642