DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/658,123. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 07/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 21-26 are pending.
Claims 5 and 16-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 21-26 are examined.
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) 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 21-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (U.S. Patent 5,606,839) in view of WU (CN 111236540).
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).
Baumann discloses the claimed invention except for the second bore comprises a slot having a width that is greater than a height, where the slot includes an upper surface and a lower surface each configured to contact an outer surface of the second rebar to permit support and movement of the second rebar. 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). Thus, such a slot of Baumann in view of Wu would comprise of upper and lower horizontal surfaces which are each configured to contact an outer surface of a second reinforcing bar and permit supporting and movement of such a second reinforcing bar, where such a configuration does not require the upper and lower surface to positively contact the outer surface of the second rebar at the same time or positively require such a direct contact since the claim is directed only to a device product and not an assembly combining the device and rebar.
Regarding claim 2, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the first bore comprises one or more threads (the threading of opening #34 as depicted in figure 3 of Baumann) on an inner surface (see figure 3 of Baumann), 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 of Baumann).
Regarding claim 3, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the device is configured to receive a portion of the second rebar in the cavity (see figure 3 of Baumann), the second bore permitting the second rebar to extend therethrough into the cavity and towards the first end (see figure 3 of Baumann).
Regarding claim 4, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the device is configured to receive a fill material (Baumann; #50; see figure 7) in the cavity through one of the inlet and the outlet (see figure 7 of Baumann), 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 of Baumann).
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 7, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious 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 of Baumann), wherein the first cylindrical portion comprises the inlet and the outlet arranged thereon (see figure 3 of Baumann), a second cylindrical portion (the smaller diameter cylindrical portion which comprises the threaded first opening #34 of Baumann), wherein the second cylindrical portion comprises the first opening axially extending therethrough (see figure 3 of Baumann), 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 of Baumann, 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 in view of Wu render obvious the first bore is a conical bore (see figure 3 of Baumann) extending from the 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).
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 having a width that is greater than a height and including upper and lower surfaces each configured to contact an outer surface of the second rebar to permit support and movement of the second rebar. 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). Thus, such a slot of Baumann in view of Wu would comprise of upper and lower horizontal surfaces which are each configured to contact an outer surface of a second reinforcing bar and permit supporting and movement of such a second reinforcing bar, where such a configuration does not require the upper and lower surface to contact the outer surface of the second rebar at the same time or positively require such a direct contact since the claim is directed only to a device product and not an assembly combining the device and rebar.
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). 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).
Regarding claim 21, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the cavity includes a plurality of ridges circumferentially formed on an inner surface of the cavity (figure 3 of Baumann depicts annular ridges that are spaced axially from one another within the chamber #36 in order to reduce the width of such a chamber at such locations and increase the filler material connection strength within the chamber).
Regarding claims 22 and 25, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the inlet and the outlet are located on a same side of the body (see figure 3 of Baumann).
Regarding claim 23, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the body further comprises a protrusion distally extending from the body at the first end, the first bore extending through the protrusion from the first end toward the second end and into the cavity (figure 3 of Baumann depicts the body comprises of a protrusion #34 that extends from the left, first end and which the first threaded bore #17 extends through toward the cavity).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of Wu and Hongo et al. (JP 2014051798).
Regarding claim 9, Baumann in view of Wu render the claimed invention obvious except for the splice device is made of stainless steel. 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. 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, as taught in Hongo 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).
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).
Claim(s) 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann in view of Wu and Jung (KR 10-2133798).
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Baumann in view of Wu render obvious the claimed invention except for the body further comprises one or more mounting portions protruding from the body at the second end in a radial direction relative to the first longitudinal axis, each mounting portion comprising an aperture extending therethrough. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Jung, that such rebar splices #100 can be constructed at one end with a flange #140 that extends radially outwardly from the body of the splice and comprises of an aperture #141 in order to mount the splice to a formwork panel or other surface. See figures 3b and 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the second end of the body of Baumann to comprise of a mounting portion that protrudes in the radial direction and comprises of an aperture extending therethrough, as taught in Jung, in order to allow the splice device to attach to a formwork or other surface and thus hold the device in place during a concrete pouring process.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 15, 21, 22, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, and 25 of copending Application No. 19/388,862 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the present application is defined in claim 20 of U.S. App. ‘862.
Claim 2 of the present application is defined in claim 21 of U.S. App. ‘862.
Claim 3 of the present application is defined in claim 21 of U.S. App. ‘862.
Claim 4 of the present application is defined in claim 21 of U.S. App. ‘862; where the invention of claim 21 of U.S. App. ‘862 comprises of the features and elements to allow for a fill material to be received therein.
Claim 6 of the present application is defined in claim 23 of U.S. App. ‘862.
Claim 9 of the present application is defined in claim 25 of U.S. App. ‘862.
Claim 10 of the present application is defined in claim 10 of U.S. App. ‘862, where the third bore and fourth bore of the present application are equivalent to the ports of claim 10 of U.S. App. ‘862 when more than one port is provided.
Claim 11 of the present application is defined in claim 10 of U.S. App. ‘862; where the fill material of claim 10 of U.S. App. ‘862 can be grout material and where such a grout is not positively defined.
Claim 12 of the present application is defined in claim 14 of U.S. App. ‘862.
Claim 15 of the present application is defined in claim 14 of U.S. App. ‘862, in view of claim 25 of U.S. App. ‘862.
Claim 21 of the present application is defined in claim 20 of U.S. App. ‘862, in view of claim 16.
Claim 22 of the present application is defined in claim 20 of U.S. App. ‘862, in view of claim 15 of U.S. App. ‘862.
Claim 25 of the present application is defined in claim 15 of U.S. App. ‘862.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7, 8, 13, 14, and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/388,862 in view of Baumann.
Claim 7 of the present application is defined in claim 20 of U.S. App. ‘862, except for the cylindrical portions and end wall for the body; however, Baumann teaches that such features are obvious for rebar splice device and it would have been obvious to provide such features within the invention of claims 10 and 20 of U.S. App. 862 in order to provide an appropriate splice that fits the shape of the rebar it is to splice together.
Claim 8 of the present application is defined in claim 20 of U.S. App. ‘862, where Baumann teaches the obviousness of providing a conical first bore that is threaded to properly threadingly attach a threaded rebar thereto.
Claim 13 of the present application is defined in claim 10 of U.S. App. ‘862, except for the cylindrical portions and end wall for the body; however, Baumann teaches that such features are obvious for rebar splice device and it would have been obvious to provide such features within the invention of claim 10 of U.S. App. 862 in order to provide an appropriate splice that fits the shape of the rebar it is to splice together.
Claim 14 of the present application is defined in claim 10 of U.S. App. ‘862, where Baumann teaches the obviousness of providing a conical first bore that is threaded to properly threadingly attach a threaded rebar thereto.
Claim 23 of the present application is defined in claim 20 of U.S. App. ‘862, where Baumann teaches the obviousness of providing a protrusion at the first end of the body which the first bore extends through in order to properly threadingly attach a threaded rebar thereto.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 24 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/388,862 in view of Jung.
Claim 24 of the present application is defined in claim 20 of U.S. App. ‘862, where Jung teaches the obviousness of providing such a radially protruding mounting portion with an aperture extending therethrough for mounting such a splice device to another surface.
Claim 26 of the present application is defined in claim 10 of U.S. App. ‘862, where Jung teaches the obviousness of providing such a radially protruding mounting portion with an aperture extending therethrough for mounting such a splice device to another surface.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “the function of Wu’s slot is dimensional alignment at assembly” and “does not disclose upper and lower surfaces that structurally bear against the outer surface of a rebar to support the weight of the splice device and the concrete slab formed around it,” the limitations of claims 1 and 10 only define that the slot opening include upper and lower surfaces and each surface is “configured to contact an outer surface of the second reinforcing bar.” Such limitations do not positively define that both of such upper and lower surfaces must contact the outer surface of the second rebar at the same time or that such a contact is positively required. Since the rectangular slot opening of Wu comprises of upper and lower horizontal surfaces and each of such surfaces is configured to contact the second rebar at some point during installation, such as due to tolerances, and allow movement of the second rebar therein and support of the rebar thereon, Wu is considered to meet such limitations as broadly defined. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the shape of the slot is not a mere shape change, as taught in Baumann and Wu, whether the slot is round or rectangular, the rebar that is received therein is still allowed to move therein due to misalignment of the concrete slabs to be connected with the device, where the shape determines the amount of movement and tolerances for misalignment. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the size differences and tolerances changes between the different shapes and thus choose a shape based on the required tolerances as needed by the end user. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Baumann does not teach the upper and lower surfaces as defined, where such features, along with the width and height of such a slot, were the reason for the 103 rejection as presently and previously provided.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Baumann’s device is installed into pre-formed expansion joints between finished slabs and is never self-supporting on a rebar during a concrete casting and curing process) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, the claims are directed towards a splice device product and not an assembly or process of using such a splice device in such a manner as argued by Applicant. The splice device of the prior art is configured to function in such a manner as defined, where a second rebar can be supported either directly or indirectly, such as through grout, against the upper and lower surfaces of the splice device and thus meets such configured to language as broadly defined.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 15 using additional secondary references are based on the limitations and alleged allowability of the independent claims from which they depend from. Since the independent claim rejections are considered proper, the rejection of claim 15 and the modifications taken therein are also considered proper.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights