DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/658,123. Receipt of the Response to the Election/Restriction filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-15 are examined.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/06/2026.
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) 1-4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumann (U.S. Patent 5,606,839).
Regarding claim 1, Baumann discloses a device (#32) comprising:
a body (#32) extending along a first longitudinal axis (the x-axis of figure 3) between a first end (the left end of figure 3) and a second end (the right end of figure 3), the body comprising:
a first opening (#34), wherein the first opening comprises a first bore at the first end (see figure 3), the first bore being configured to receive a first rebar (#18) of a first concrete slab (see figure 7, where such a slab and rebar are not positively defined);
a second opening (#38), wherein the second opening comprises a second bore at the second end (see figure 3), the second bore being configured to receive a second rebar (#20) of a second concrete slab (see figure 7, where such a slab and rebar are not positively defined);
an inlet (the left port #40 of figure 3), wherein the inlet is at a second longitudinal axis, the second longitudinal axis extending in a first direction substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis (the left port #40 comprises of a vertical, longitudinal axis along the y-axis of figure 3, which is perpendicular to the first axis of the sleeve);
an outlet (the right port #40 of figure 3), wherein the outlet is at a third longitudinal axis, the third longitudinal axis extending in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis (the right port #40 of figure 3 comprises a vertical, longitudinal axis along the y-axis which is perpendicular to the x-axis longitudinal axis of the sleeve) ; and
a cavity (#36), wherein the cavity extends along the first longitudinal axis and the cavity is in fluid communication with the first opening, the second opening, the inlet, and the outlet (see figures 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 2, Baumann discloses the first bore comprises one or more threads (the threading of opening #34 as depicted in figure 3) on an inner surface (see figure 3), the one or more threads being configured to engage corresponding threads on the first rebar in response to installing the first rebar into the first bore so as to connect the device to the first rebar (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Baumann discloses the device is configured to receive a portion of the second rebar in the cavity (see figure 3), the second bore permitting the second rebar to extend therethrough into the cavity and towards the first end (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Baumann discloses the device is configured to receive a fill material (#50; see figure 7) in the cavity through one of the inlet and the outlet (see figure 7), wherein, in response to the fill material curing in the cavity, the fill material and the portion of the second rebar are retained in the cavity and connects the device to the second rebar (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 7, Baumann discloses the body comprises: a first cylindrical portion (the larger diameter cylindrical portion that starts at the left port #40 and extends to the second opening #38 in figure 3), wherein the first cylindrical portion comprises the inlet and the outlet arranged thereon (see figure 3), a second cylindrical portion (the smaller diameter cylindrical portion which comprises the threaded first opening #34), wherein the second cylindrical portion comprises the first opening axially extending therethrough (see figure 3), and an end wall, wherein the end wall is at the second end, and the end wall comprises the second opening axially extending therethrough (see figure 3, where the end wall can be considered the rightmost end of the sleeve #32 which forms the second opening #38 which is smaller in diameter than the largest diameter of the bore #36 due to the end wall).
Regarding claim 8, Baumann discloses the first bore is a conical bore (see figure 3) extending from the first opening having a first diameter to an opening to the cavity having a second diameter (see figure 3), the first diameter being wider than the second diameter (see figure 3).
Claim(s) 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hongo et al. (JP 2014051798).
Regarding claim 1, Hongo et al. disclose a device (#1) comprising:
a body (#2) extending along a first longitudinal axis (the x-axis of figure 1) between a first end (the left end of figure 1) and a second end (the right end of figure 1), the body comprising:
a first opening (#3), wherein the first opening comprises a first bore at the first end (see figure 1), the first bore being configured to receive a first rebar (#11) of a first concrete slab (see figure 5, where such a slab and rebar are not positively defined);
a second opening (#4), wherein the second opening comprises a second bore at the second end (see figure 1), the second bore being configured to receive a second rebar (#12) of a second concrete slab (see figure 5, where such a slab and rebar are not positively defined);
an inlet (#7), wherein the inlet is at a second longitudinal axis, the second longitudinal axis extending in a first direction substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis (the left port #7 comprises of a vertical, longitudinal axis along the y-axis of figure 1, which is perpendicular to the first axis of the sleeve);
an outlet (#8), wherein the outlet is at a third longitudinal axis, the third longitudinal axis extending in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis (the right port #8 of figure 1 comprises a vertical, longitudinal axis along the y-axis, which is perpendicular to the x-axis longitudinal axis of the sleeve); and
a cavity (the cavity of the sleeve #2 of figure 1), wherein the cavity extends along the first longitudinal axis and the cavity is in fluid communication with the first opening, the second opening, the inlet, and the outlet (see figures 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 9, Hongo et al. disclose the body is made of stainless steel (see the first paragraph of page 3 of the English translation).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of WU (CN 111236540).
Regarding claim 5, Baumann discloses the claimed invention except for the second bore comprises a slot having a width that is greater than a height. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Wu, that the bores #10 and #13 at the end of a splice device can comprise of circular openings, as depicted at #13, or rectangular slots, as depicted at #10, in order to allow for deviations in the positioning of the rebar and the connection between adjacent rebar elements. See figures 2 and 13. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the second bore of Baumann to comprise of a rectangular slot, as taught in Wu, in order to allow for specific movement and connection of rebar which may be misaligned with one another and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed bore was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the second bore is rectangular in geometry (see figure 13 of Wu). Though Wu discloses corners of the rectangular bore are rounded, Wu does not specifically disclose the ends of the rectangular shape are arcuate. Lines 4-7 of page 7 of the English translation of Wu disclose that the invention, including the bores, can be changed in shape, where one of ordinary skill in the art could form arcuate ends for such a rectangular shape yet still allow a rebar to fit and slide within the bore as needed in order to attach the rebar to the sleeve. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rounded the ends of the rectangular slot of Baumann in view of Wu in order to better conform the ends of the slot to the shape of the cylindrical rebar received therein and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed bore was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Baumann discloses an apparatus (#32) for splicing together rebar of concrete slabs (see figure 7), the apparatus comprising:
a splice device comprising: a cylindrical a body (#32) comprising a first end (the left end of figure 3), a second end (the right end of figure 3), and at least one sidewall (the outer cylindrical sidewall):
a first bore (#34) extending through the cylindrical body at the first end (see figure 3), the first bore comprising: one or more threads (the threads of such a bore #34 as depicted in figure 3) on an inner surface (see figure 3), the one or more threads configured to engage corresponding threads on a first rebar (#18) of a first post-tensioned concrete slab in response to installing the first rebar into the first bore (see figure 7, where such a slab and rebar are not positively defined);
a second bore (#38) extending through the cylindrical body at the second end (see figure 3), the second bore comprising: a hole (the circular hole formed by the bore #38), the hole configured to permit a portion of a second rebar (#20) of a second post-tension concrete slab to extend therethrough (see figure 7, where such a slab and rebar are not positively defined);
a third bore (the left port #40 of figure 3) extending through the at least one sidewall (see figure 3);
a fourth bore (the right port #40 of figure 3) extending through the at least one sidewall (see figure 3) ; and
a cavity (#36), wherein the cavity is in fluid communication with the first bore, the second bore, the third bore, and the fourth bore(see figures 3 and 7).
However, Baumann does not disclose the second bore is a slot as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Wu, that the bores #10 and #13 at the end of a splice device can comprise of circular openings, as depicted at #13, or rectangular slots, as depicted at #10, in order to allow for deviations in the positioning of the rebar and the connection between adjacent rebar elements. See figures 2 and 13. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the second bore of Baumann to comprise of a rectangular slot, as taught in Wu, in order to allow for specific movement and connection of rebar which may be misaligned with one another and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed bore was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 11, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the splice device is configured to receive a grout material (Baumann; #50; see figure 7) in the cavity through one of the third bore and the fourth bore (see figure 7 of Baumann); and wherein, in response to the grout material curing in the cavity, the grout material and the portion of the second rebar are retained in the cavity and connects the splice device to the second rebar (see figure 7 of Baumann, where such a grout material is not positively defined).
Regarding claim 12, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the second bore is rectangular in geometry (see figure 13 of Wu), the slot having a width that is greater than a height to permit a lateral movement of the second rebar (see figure 13 of Wu, where the width can be considered dimension G and the height can be dimension K, such as when the slot is rotated 90 degrees, where such features would be provided within Baumann). Though Wu discloses corners of the rectangular bore are rounded, Wu does not specifically disclose the ends of the rectangular shape are arcuate. Lines 4-7 of page 7 of the English translation of Wu disclose that the invention, including the bores, can be changed in shape, where one of ordinary skill in the art could form arcuate ends for such a rectangular shape yet still allow a rebar to fit and slide within the bore as needed in order to attach the rebar to the sleeve. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rounded the ends of the rectangular slot of Baumann in view of Wu in order to better conform the ends of the slot to the shape of the cylindrical rebar received therein and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed bore was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the cylindrical body comprises: a first cylindrical portion (the larger diameter cylindrical portion that starts at the left port #40 and extends to the second opening #38 in figure 3 of Baumann) comprising: a first sidewall (the outer cylindrical sidewall of the first cylindrical portion of figure 3 of Baumann), the first sidewall comprising the third bore and the fourth bore (see figure 3), a second cylindrical portion (the smaller diameter cylindrical portion which comprises the threaded first opening #34 of figure 3 of Baumann) comprising: a second sidewall (the outer cylindrical sidewall of the second cylindrical portion of figure 3 of Baumann), wherein the second cylindrical portion comprises the first bore axially extending therethrough (see figure 3 of Baumann), and an end wall, wherein the end wall comprises the second bore axially extending therethrough (see figure 3 of Baumann, where the end wall can be considered the rightmost end of the sleeve #32 which forms the second rectangular slot #38 which is smaller in size than the largest diameter of the bore #36 due to the end wall).
Regarding claim 14, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the first bore is a conical bore (see figure 3 of Baumann) extending from a first opening having a first diameter to an opening to the cavity having a second diameter (see figure 3 of Baumann), the first diameter being wider than the second diameter (see figure 3 of Baumann).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of WU, Hongo et al., and Jeong et al. (KR 10-20150031813).
Regarding claim 15, Baumann in view of Wu render the claimed invention obvious except for the splice device is made of stainless steel, wherein the splice device further comprises a coating material coating an exterior surface of the splice device to resist corrosion. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidence by Hongo et al. that such rebar splice devices can be constructed from stainless steel in order to resist corrosion during use. See the first paragraph of claim 3 of the English translation. Furthermore, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Jeong et al., that such stainless steel materials to be embedded within concrete can be coated with an epoxy resin in order to provide corrosion resistance. See the middle of page 4 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the splice device of Baumann to comprise of stainless steel coated with an epoxy resin corrosion resistant coating, as taught in Hongo et al. and Jeong et al., in order to provide a durable splice device resistant to corrosion and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (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 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635