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 1 claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 3/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1-10, the phrase "box-type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (5141146).
Yasui figures 3, 6-7, shows a composite material reinforcement device provided to have a length in a forward and rear direction to reinforce for reinforcing earthquake resistance of a box-type concrete structure, the composite material reinforcement device comprising: a central portion(62) comprising an edge portion provided to have having an inner space therein, and a partition wall portion(56, 54) dividing the inner space into at least one partition space; and a reinforcement portion(32, 34) located disposed on a top and a bottom of the central portion and integrally molded formed to cover the central portion, wherein the reinforcement portion comprises: a first plate(32) located disposed on the top of the central portion to cover an upper portion of the central portion; a second plate(34) having a shape to corresponding to a shape of the central portion and located disposed at the bottom of the central portion to cover a lower portion of the central portion; and an extension portion(figure 7, the ends on either side) in which the first plate and the second plate extend from both ends of the central portion to be bonded(by welding) to each other.
Yasui does not show the inner space having a trapezoidal-shaped cross-section with reference to a longitudinal direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yasui’s structures to show the inner space having a trapezoidal-shaped cross-section with reference to a longitudinal direction with a reasonable expectation of success since changing the shape from a hexagonal to a trapezoid would have been an obvious matter of engineering design choice in order to fit a particular design specification.
Per claim 2, Yasui as modified further shows the composite material reinforcement device is configured to be installed by inserting an anchor into the extension portion when an upper surface of the first plate is in contact with a part of the box-type concrete structure, the part being vulnerable to vibration (able to function as claimed).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (5141146) in view of JP2020-196993.
Yasui as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the second plate comprises a cutting line disposed in on a lower surface thereof, and wherein the composite material reinforcement device is configured to be bent with reference to the cutting line and to be installed in a bent portion in which of the box-type concrete structure is bent.
JP figures 3-5, discloses a second plate comprises a cutting line(at 72) disposed in on a lower surface thereof, and wherein the composite material reinforcement device is configured to be bent with reference to the cutting line and to be installed in a bent portion in which of the box-type concrete structure is bent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yasui’s modified structures to show the second plate comprises a cutting line disposed in on a lower surface thereof, and wherein the composite material reinforcement device is configured to be bent with reference to the cutting line and to be installed in a bent portion in which of the box-type concrete structure is bent with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for directional bending of the panels as desired as taught by JP.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (5141146) in view of Yasui (5115963) and Prewo et al (5372868).
Yasui as modified shows all the claimed limitations including the central portion is made of an aluminum alloy.
Yasui (…1146) does not disclose the reinforcement portion comprises a prepreg sheet provided by impregnating a thermosetting resin into a fiber sheet including at least one of carbon fiber and glass fiber.
Yasui (..963) discloses a reinforcement portion (42, figure 6) comprises a prepreg sheet provided by impregnating a thermosetting resin into a fiber sheet( col 3 lines 55-60).
Prewo et al(col 2 lines 14-26) discloses glass fiber reinforcing a structure to provide strength and rigidity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yasui’s modified structures to show the reinforcement portion comprises a prepreg sheet provided by impregnating a thermosetting resin into a fiber sheet including at least one of carbon fiber and glass fiber as taught by Yasui(…963) and Prewo et al with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form strong reinforcing plates that are not metal.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (5141146) in view of JP2020-196993.
Yasui as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the composite material reinforcement devise comprising a plurality of central portion.
JP figures 1-2 further shows the composite material reinforcement devise comprising a plurality of central portion (20, 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yasui’s modified structures to show the composite material reinforcement devise comprising a plurality of central portion as taught by JP with a reasonable expectation of success since it allows for the formation of a long/large panel with sections having similar characteristics, and such a modification would have only involved a mere duplication of a component. Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed duplicate part is significant, a duplicate part is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.in order to form strong reinforcing plates that are not metal.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (5141146) in view of Good (4100709).
Yasui as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for a connection member configured to connect a pair of the composite material reinforcement devices to each other in the longitudinal direction, wherein the connection member has a bar shape and is configured to be coupled between an end of one composite material reinforcement device and an end of another composite material reinforcement device and to be inserted into one of the at least one partition space of the central portion of each of the pair of composite material reinforcement devices.
Good figure 4 discloses the use of a bar shape connection member (50A) to connect two hollow members together to form a longer structure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yasui’s modified structures to show a connection member configured to connect a pair of the composite material reinforcement devices to each other in the longitudinal direction, wherein the connection member has a bar shape and is configured to be coupled between an end of one composite material reinforcement device and an end of another composite material reinforcement device and to be inserted into one of the at least one partition space of the central portion of each of the pair of composite material reinforcement devices with a reasonable expectation of success since using a bar shape connection member between two hollow structures allows for the easy formation of a larger structure as taught by Good.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art does not provide sufficient motivation to modify Yasui to show
the fixing portion comprises: a fixing bar disposed along a length in the at least one partition space, wherein an upper surface of the fixing bar is in contact with the connection member; and a plurality of fixing springs disposed on a lower surface of the at least one partition space, wherein upper ends of the plurality of fixing springs are connected to a lower surface of the fixing bar in combination with other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different composite panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights