DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 7/6/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. No claims have been withdrawn, cancelled or added.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1, “a second layer” is recited twice (line 6 and line 7) and thus renders the claim indefinite. The recitation in line 7 appears to be referring to the second layer recited in line 6. However, as currently written, the limitation appears to be drawn to a double inclusion. Applicant is requested to clarify.
Claim 6, “the second layer having fiber reinforced concrete” is indefinite because the second layer is defined in claim 1 as having fiber reinforced concrete. The limitation appears to be drawn to a double inclusion. Applicant is requested to clarify.
The remainder of claims listed in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbar et al. (US 7810293) (‘Gibbar’) in view of Foderberg (US 10011988).
Claim 1, Gibbar teaches a precast concrete panel comprising:
a first layer (7; Fig. 5) forming a rear-side of the precast concrete panel (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 7 forms a rear-side of the precast concrete panel, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5), wherein the first layer has concrete (“concrete” 7) with a reinforcement structure 6a, the reinforcement structure including a single-layer metal mesh (“wire mesh” 6a);
a core 1 having a thermally insulating material (“polymer foam”; Fig. 5) sandwiched between the first layer and a second layer 16; and
a second layer (“a second layer” as recited was treated as the previously recited second layer 16) forming a front-side of the precast concrete panel (Fig. 5), wherein the second layer has concrete (“concrete” col. 9, lines 47-49), the second layer being thinner than the first layer (Fig. 5) and being substantially free of a reinforcement mesh (it is understood that layer 16 is free of a reinforcement mesh as shown in Fig. 5),
wherein the first layer, the core, and the second layer are coupled to each other to form the precast concrete panel (Fig. 5).
Gibbar does not teach the second layer concrete being fiber reinforced concrete.
However, Foderberg teaches a precast concrete panel, wherein a second layer of concrete 14 comprises reinforcing fibers (col. 9, lines 58-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the concrete material of the second layer to be fiber reinforced concrete, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material to provide additional tensile and compressive strength (Foderberg col. 9, lines 58-67), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 2, Gibbar further teaches wherein the core is sandwiched between the first layer and the second layer (Fig. 5).
Claim 5, Gibbar further teaches the first layer having concrete with the reinforcement structure, wherein the reinforcement structure includes a single-layer metal mesh (6a is a single-layer metal wire mesh; Fig. 5).
Claim 6, as modified above, the combination of Gibbar and Foderberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the second layer having fiber reinforced concrete (Foderberg col. 9, lines 58-67; see rejection of claim 1 as above), wherein the fiber includes one or more of metal fibers, glass fibers, synthetic fibers, natural fibers, or any combination thereof (Foderberg col. 9, lines 58-67).
Claim 7, Gibbar further teaches wherein the thermally insulating material includes one or more of polystyrene (EPS), polyurethane foam (PUR), mineral wool, or any combination of these thereof (col. 7, lines 20-33).
Claim 13, Gibbar further teaches wherein the core has a variable thickness throughout a length of the precast concrete panel (Fig. 5).
Claim 14, Gibbar teaches a method of forming a precast concrete panel, the method comprising:
forming a first layer 7 of the precast concrete panel having concrete with a reinforcement structure 6a, the reinforcement structure including a single-layer metal mesh (col. 8, lines 15-16), wherein the first layer forms a rear-side of the precast concrete panel (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 7 is a rear side of the precast concrete panel, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5);
placing a core 1 having a thermally insulating material (col. 7, lines 23-28) on the first layer (Fig. 5); and
forming a second layer 16 of the precast concrete panel having concrete (col. 9, lines 47-49), wherein the second layer forms a front-side of the precast concrete panel (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 16 forms a front side of the precast concrete panel, as exceedingly broadly claimed), the second layer being thinner than the first layer (Fig. 5) and substantially free of a reinforcement mesh (it is understood that the second layer is substantially free of a reinforcement mesh; Fig. 5),
wherein the first layer, the core, and the second layer are coupled to each other to form the precast concrete panel (Fig. 5).
Gibbar does not teach the second layer concrete being fiber reinforced concrete.
However, Foderberg teaches a precast concrete panel, wherein a second layer of concrete 14 comprises reinforcing fibers (col. 9, lines 58-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the concrete material of the second layer to be fiber reinforced concrete, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material to provide additional tensile and compressive strength (Foderberg col. 9, lines 58-67), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 16, Gibbar further teaches wherein the reinforcement structure comprises a single-layer metal mesh (6a is a single-layer metal wire mesh; Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbar et al. (US 7810293) (‘Gibbar’) in view of Foderberg (US 10011988) as above and further in view of Karle et al. (US 20160130812) (‘Karle’).
Claims 3-4, Gibbar and Foderberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gibbar does not teach [claim 3] a load bearing element traversing, at least in part, through the first layer, the core, and the second layer, [claim 4] wherein the load bearing element comprises a lattice girder having an upper bar and two lower bars connected through a triangulated framework of lacing members. However, Karle teaches a load bearing element (18, 19, 20, 22; Fig. 11), at least in part, through a first layer, a core, and a second layer (Fig. 11), wherein the load bearing element comprises a lattice girder (defined by 18, 19, 20, 22; Fig. 11) having an upper bar 20 and two lower bars 22 connected through a triangulated framework of lacing members (Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the precast concrete panel by incorporating a load bearing element traversing, at least in part, through the first layer, the core, and the second layer, wherein the load bearing element comprises a lattice girder having an upper bar and two lower bars connected through a triangulated framework of lacing members, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to increase stiffness, improve load transfers between the first and second layers and further stabilize the core.
Claim 15, Gibbar and Foderberg teach all the limitations of claim 14 as above. Gibbar does not teach adding a load bearing member along with the reinforcement structure, wherein the load bearing element comprises a lattice girder having an upper bar and two lower bars connected through a triangulated framework of lacing members. However, Karle teaches a method comprising adding a load bearing member (18, 19, 20, 22; Fig. 11) along with a reinforcement structure, wherein the load bearing element comprises a lattice girder (defined by 18, 19, 20, 22; Fig. 11) having an upper bar 20 and two lower bars 22 connected through a triangulated framework of lacing members (Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method by adding a load bearing member along with the reinforcement structure, wherein the load bearing element comprises a lattice girder having an upper bar and two lower bars connected through a triangulated framework of lacing members, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to increase stiffness, improve load transfers between the first and second layers and further stabilize the core.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbar et al. (US 7810293) (‘Gibbar’) in view of Foderberg (US 10011988) as above and further in view of Chu (WO 2015135440).
Claims 8-10, Gibbar and Foderberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Although, Gibbar further teaches connecting adjacent panels, Gibbar is silent as to [claim 8] a wire-loop connecting member, [claim 9] wherein the connecting member is a wire loop that overlaps with another wire loop of the adjacent precast concrete panel to create a hook, wherein a metal rod passes through the hook and locks the precast concrete panel to the adjacent precast concrete panel, [claim 10] wherein the wire-loop connecting member comprises a plurality of wire-loop connecting members disposed along an edge of the precast concrete panel. However, Chu teaches a wire-loop connecting member 7 for interconnecting the precast concrete panel to an adjacent precast concrete panel (as generically shown in Figs. 4-12), wherein the connecting member is a wire loop that overlaps with another wire loop of an adjacent precast concrete panel to create a hook (see Figs. 5-8), wherein a metal rod 9 passes through the hook and locks the precast concrete panel to the adjacent precast concrete panel (generically shown in Figs. 6-8), wherein the wire-loop connecting member comprises a plurality of wire-loop connecting members 9 disposed along an edge of the precast concrete panel (Fig. 5; as generically shown in Figs. 4-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the precast concrete panel by using a wire-loop connecting member for interconnecting the precast concrete panel to an adjacent precast concrete panel, wherein the connecting member is a wire loop that overlaps with another wire loop of the adjacent precast concrete panel to create a hook, wherein a metal rod passes through the hook and locks the precast concrete panel to the adjacent precast concrete panel, wherein the wire-loop connecting member comprises a plurality of wire-loop connecting members disposed along an edge of the precast concrete panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to interconnect adjacent precast concrete panels.
Claims 11-12, Gibbar and Foderberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gibbar does not teach [claim 11] wherein the precast concrete panel includes a first recessed section, at a bottom side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to a foundation, and [claim 12] wherein the precast concrete panel includes a second recessed section, at a top side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel. However, Chu teaches a precast concrete panel including a first recessed section, at a bottom side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to a foundation (bottom recess section 5; Fig. 4). It is noted that the claim does not positively recite a foundation, and does not positively recite coupling the precast concrete panel to a foundation, but that Chu's precast concrete panel is suitable to be coupled to a foundation at the first recessed section, and thus Chu meets the claim. Chu further provides wherein the precast concrete panel includes a second recessed section, at a top side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel (second recessed section 5 at the top of the precast concrete panel; Fig. 4). It is noted that the claim does not positively recite a another precast concrete panel, and does not positively recite coupling the precast concrete panel to another precast concrete panel, but that Chu's precast concrete panel is suitable to be coupled to another precast concrete panel at the second recessed section, and thus Chu meets the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the precast concrete panel to include a first recessed section, at a bottom side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to a foundation, and a second recessed section, at a top side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to couple the panel to other elements, such as a foundation and other panels.
Claims 17-18, Gibbar and Foderberg teach all the limitations of claim 14 as above. Although, Gibbar further teaches connecting adjacent panels, Gibbar is silent as to [claim 17] attaching one or more wire-loop connecting members to an edge of the precast concrete panel for interconnecting the precast concrete panel to an adjacent precast concrete panel during installation, [claim 18] wherein the one or more connecting members is a wire loop that overlaps with another wire loop of the adjacent precast concrete panel to create a hook, wherein a metal rod passes through the hook and locks the precast concrete panel to the adjacent precast concrete panel. However, Chu teaches a method comprising attaching one or more wire-loop connecting members 7 to an edge of the precast concrete panel for interconnecting the precast concrete panel to an adjacent precast concrete panel during installation (as generically shown in Figs. 4-12), wherein the one or more connecting members is a wire loop 7 that overlaps with another wire loop of the adjacent precast concrete panel to create a hook (see Figs. 5-8), wherein a metal rod 9 passes through the hook and locks the precast concrete panel to the adjacent precast concrete panel (generically shown in Figs. 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method by attaching one or more wire-loop connecting members to an edge of the precast concrete panel for interconnecting the precast concrete panel to an adjacent precast concrete panel during installation, wherein the one or more connecting members is a wire loop that overlaps with another wire loop of the adjacent precast concrete panel to create a hook, wherein a metal rod passes through the hook and locks the precast concrete panel to the adjacent precast concrete panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to interconnect adjacent precast concrete panels.
Claims 19-20, Gibbar and Foderberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gibbar does not teach [claim 19] forming a first recessed section, at a bottom side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to a foundation, and [claim 20] forming a second recessed section, at a top side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel. However, Chu teaches a method, comprising forming a first recessed section (bottom recess section 5; Fig. 4), at a bottom side of a precast concrete panel (Fig. 4), to be used for coupling to a foundation (Fig. 4), and forming a second recessed section, at a top side of the precast concrete panel (second recessed section 5 at the top of the precast concrete panel; Fig. 4), to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel (Fig. 4). It is noted that the claim does not positively recite a foundation or another precast concrete panel, and does not positively recite coupling the precast concrete panel to a foundation or another precast concrete panel, but that Chu's precast concrete panel is suitable to be coupled to another precast concrete panel at the second recessed section, and thus Chu meets the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method by forming a first recessed section, at a bottom side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to a foundation, and forming a second recessed section, at a top side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to couple the panel to other elements, such as a foundation and other panels.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbar et al. (US 7810293) (‘Gibbar’) in view of Foderberg (US 10011988) as above and further in view of DiLorenzo (US 7017316).
Claims 11-12, Gibbar and Foderberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gibbar does not teach [claim 11] wherein the precast concrete panel includes a first recessed section, at a bottom side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to a foundation, and [claim 12] wherein the precast concrete panel includes a second recessed section, at a top side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel. However, DiLorenzo teaches a precast concrete panel including a first recessed section (36 at the bottom of the panel; col. 5, lines 53-55; Fig. 1), at a bottom side of the precast concrete panel (“the lower surfaces of the bottom” col. 5, lines 53-55; Fig. 1), to be used for coupling to a foundation (40; Fig. 1). It is noted that the claim does not positively recite a foundation, and does not positively recite coupling the precast concrete panel to a foundation, but that DiLorenzo's precast concrete panel is suitable to be coupled to a foundation at the first recessed section, and thus DiLorenzo meets the claim. DiLorenzo further provides wherein the precast concrete panel includes a second recessed section (36 at the top of the panel; col. 5, lines 53-55; Fig. 1), at a top side of the precast concrete panel (“upper surfaces” col. 5, lines 53-55; Fig. 1), to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel (it is understood that the second recessed section is suitable to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel; Fig. 1). It is noted that the claim does not positively recite a another precast concrete panel, and does not positively recite coupling the precast concrete panel to another precast concrete panel, but that DiLorenzo's precast concrete panel is suitable to be coupled to another precast concrete panel at the second recessed section, and thus DiLorenzo meets the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the precast concrete panel to include a first recessed section, at a bottom side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to a foundation, and a second recessed section, at a top side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to couple the panel to other elements, such as a foundation and other panels.
Claims 19-20, Gibbar and Foderberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gibbar does not teach [claim 19] forming a first recessed section, at a bottom side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to a foundation, and [claim 20] forming a second recessed section, at a top side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel. However, DiLorenzo teaches a method, comprising forming a first recessed section (36 bottom; col. 5, lines 53-55), at a bottom side of a precast concrete panel (col. 5, lines 53-55), to be used for coupling to a foundation (40; Fig. 1), and forming a second recessed section (36 top; Fig. 1), at a top side of the precast concrete panel (col. 5, lines 53-55), to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel (it is understood that the second recessed section is suitable for coupling to another precast concrete panel; Fig. 1). It is noted that the claim does not positively recite a foundation or another precast concrete panel, and does not positively recite coupling the precast concrete panel to a foundation or another precast concrete panel, but that DiLorenzo 's precast concrete panel is suitable to be coupled to another precast concrete panel at the second recessed section, and thus DiLorenzo meets the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method by forming a first recessed section, at a bottom side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to a foundation, and forming a second recessed section, at a top side of the precast concrete panel, to be used for coupling to another precast concrete panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to couple the panel to other elements, such as a foundation and other panels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights