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 .
Newly submitted claims 15-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as filling the cavity of the splice device through one of the bores instead of the inlet or outlet. Also, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand such as using an apparatus/system that includes a first rebar, and concrete material that can be formed and cured onto the first rebar instead of a concrete slab comprising a first rebar.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 1-4 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 phrase “the second rebar” (cl 1:8-9) lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Correction is required.
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 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 19/388862 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application No. 19/388862 fully encompass instant claims 1-14.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 5-8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albrigo et al (USPN 5366672).
5. A method for making a wall-to-floor construction including a concrete slab and a vertical structure, the method comprising:
installing a splice device onto an end of a first rebar (Albrigo et al: col 4:49-col 5:40; figs 1-5; rebar rod 20) for the concrete slab (Albrigo et al: col 4:49-col 5:40; figs 1-5; figs 1-5; the reinforced concrete member), wherein the splice device comprises a cylindrical body comprising a first bore at a first end, a second bore at a second end, an inlet, an outlet, and a cavity (Albrigo et al: col 3:40-col 4:43; and figs 1-2; splice sleeve 18 comprising a tapered, threaded, through-hole 54/66 constitutes the first bore at a first end; an open mouth 24//64 constitutes the second bore; ports 36/38/78/80 constitute the inlet and outlet; and chamber 24/62 constitute the cavity);
positioning a portion of a second rebar of the vertical structure into the cavity, the splice device being supported by the second rebar (Albrigo et al: col 2:33-57; col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 1-5 and 10-11);
forming the concrete slab, the first concrete slab comprising the first rebar (Albrigo et al: col 2:33-57; col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 4-5);
after forming the concrete slab, filling a fill material into the cavity through one of the inlet and the outlet (Albrigo et al: col 6:40-55; fig 12; grout, which is a cementitious material, is pumped into the cavity through the bottom port); and
in response to the fill material curing in the cavity, the splice device securely fixes the second rebar in the cavity and couples the first rebar to the second rebar (Albrigo et al: col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 4-5).
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the first bore comprises one or more threads formed on an inner surface of the first bore, 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 (Albrigo et al: col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 4-5; rebar rod 20 is connected to the sleeve by screwing the rebar rod into the threaded bore of the sleeve).
7. The method of claim 5, wherein the splice device is configured to receive the portion of the second rebar in the cavity, the second bore permitting the second rebar to extend therethrough into the cavity and towards the first end (Albrigo et al: col 6:40-55; and fig 12).
8. The method of claim 5, wherein forming the first concrete slab further comprises: pouring the first concrete slab so the first end of the splice device is embedded in the concrete slab (Albrigo et al: col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 4-5; the concrete slab is cast about the splice sleeve 18 and rebar rod 20, thus making a precast concrete slab comprising the sleeve and rebar).
10.The method of claim 5, wherein allowing the concrete slab to cure causes the position of the splice device to move axially and/or laterally relative to the second rebar (Albrigo et al: col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 4-5; the cured, cast concrete slab inherently shrinks curing, thus causing the splicing sleeve to move axially and/or laterally).
11. The method of claim 5, wherein the fill material comprises a cementitious material (Albrigo et al: col 6:40-55; fig 12; grout, which is a cementitious material, is pumped into the cavity through the bottom port).
12. The method of claim 5, wherein the cavity comprises ridges circumferentially formed on a side of the cavity, the ridges configured to facilitate retaining the fill material in the cavity (Albrigo et al: fig 2; ribs 32 constitute the claimed ridges).
13. The method of claim 5, wherein the inlet and the outlet are located on a same side of the cylindrical body (Albrigo et al: fig 2).
14. The method of claim 5, wherein the first bore is a conical bore having a first diameter at a first opening that is wider than a second diameter at an opening to the cavity (Albrigo et al: fig 2).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrigo et al (USPN 5366672) in view of CN111236540 (English machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Albrigo et al teaches:
1. A method for making a wall-to-floor construction including a concrete slab and a vertical structure, the method comprising:
installing a splice device onto an end of a first rebar (Albrigo et al: col 4:49-col 5:40; figs 1-5; rebar rod 20) for the concrete slab (Albrigo et al: col 4:49-col 5:40; figs 1-5; figs 1-5; the reinforced concrete member),
wherein the splice device comprises a cylindrical body comprising a first bore at a first end, a second bore at a second end, an inlet, an outlet, and a cavity (Albrigo et al: col 3:40-col 4:43; and figs 1-2; splice sleeve 18 comprising a tapered, threaded, through-hole 54/66 constitutes the first bore at a first end; an open mouth 24//64 constitutes the second bore; ports 36/38/78/80 constitute the inlet and outlet; and chamber 24/62 constitute the cavity);
positioning a portion of a second rebar of the vertical structure into the cavity, the splice device being supported by the second rebar (Albrigo et al: col 2:33-57; col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 1-5 and 10-11);
forming the concrete slab, the first concrete slab comprising the first rebar (Albrigo et al: col 2:33-57; col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 4-5);
after forming the concrete slab, filling a fill material into the cavity through one of the inlet and the outlet (Albrigo et al: col 6:40-55; fig 12; grout, which is a cementitious material, is pumped into the cavity through the bottom port); and
in response to the fill material curing in the cavity, the splice device securely fixes the second rebar in the cavity and couples the first rebar to the second rebar (Albrigo et al: col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 4-5).
However, Albrigo et al do not teach the second bore comprises a slot having a width greater than a height, the slot configured to contact upper and lower surfaces of the second rebar to support the splice device on the second rebar while permitting lateral movement of the second rebar through the slot. CN111236540 teaches a splice device for concrete structures, wherein at least one of the bores through which the rebars pass has a rectangular shape, i.e. a shape having a width greater than a height, so to address deviations that may occur when connecting rebars in the components (Cn111236540: beneficial effects of this invention section; figs 1-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a rectangular slot or opening as taught by CN111236540 into the splice sleeve of Albrigo et al in order to allow for deviations that may occur when connecting rebars.
Regarding claim 2, such is taught by Albrigo et al (Albrigo et al: col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 4-5; rebar rod 20 is connected to the sleeve by screwing the rebar rod into the threaded bore of the sleeve).
Regarding claim 3, such is taught by Albrigo et al (Albrigo et al: col 6:40-55; and fig 12).
Regarding claim 4, such is taught by Albrigo et al (Albrigo et al: col 4:44-col 5:40; and figs 4-5; the concrete slab is cast about the splice sleeve 18 and rebar rod 20, thus making a precast concrete slab comprising the sleeve and rebar).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrigo et al (USPN 5366672) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of CN111236540 (English machine translation provided herewith). The above teachings of Albrigo et al are incorporated hereinafter.
Albrigo et al do not teach the second bore comprises a slot having a width greater than a height, the slot configured to contact upper and lower surfaces of the second rebar to support the splice device on the second rebar while permitting lateral movement of the second rebar through the slot. CN111236540 teaches a splice device for concrete structures, wherein at least one of the bores through which the rebars pass has a rectangular shape, i.e. a shape having a width greater than a height, so to address deviations that may occur when connecting rebars in the components (Cn111236540: beneficial effects of this invention section; figs 1-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a rectangular slot or opening as taught by CN111236540 into the splice sleeve of Albrigo et al in order to allow for deviations that may occur when connecting rebars.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Albrigo et al do not teach the claimed process because Albrigo et al do not teach the sequence of the steps. This argument is misplaced since the claimed steps are not explicitly sequenced, i.e. the claimed steps are not explicitly written to indicate a specific order or sequence to be performed. For example, the first concrete slab comprising the first rebar can be performed before the second rebar is positioned within the second bore. Even though the instant specification recites a specific order for performing the invention, that order is not explicitly recited in the instant claims. For the sake of claim interpretation, it would be improper to import that order from the specification into the claims as a claim limitation when the claims do not explicitly recite the order. See MPEP 2111.01(II).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 5392582 teaches a splice device having internal ridges for anchoring the filling material. USPN 5606839 teaches a splice device having viscoelastic material within the device for accommodating the movements of the rebars relative to each other.
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 EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744