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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–11 in the reply filed on 2/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18–24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected multicomponent device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/5/2026.
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, 2, 4, 5, and 7–11 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, from which the other claims depend, recites “a third layer comprising the same or a different fiber reinforced polymer sheet as the first layer.” The claim is indefinite as the third layer cannot be “the same” as the first layer as it is a different layer. If Applicant intends for the third layer to be the same composition as the first layer, the claim should be amended to reflect such intent.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the surface area of the major faces of the at least one metallic plate.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the plastic hinge" in the method of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7–9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (CN 103321141 A).
Wu discloses a reinforced concrete cylindrical pier, wherein the reinforcement comprises an inner fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) tube 51, an outer FRP tube 52, and a steel plate 7 that are bonded adhesively together. Wu abstract, ¶¶ 10–16, 58–62, Figs. 7 and 8. The pier is reinforced by securing the reinforcement to its external surface. Id. ¶ 60. The FRP is made up of FRP cloths or sheets that are preferably larger in size than the steel plate and the FRP sheets have major faces that have a surface area that is greater than the surface area of the major faces of the steel plate. Id. ¶16, Figs. 7 and 8. The FRPs are preferably made from glass fibers. Id. ¶¶ 67, 73.
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) 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimodaira (US 5,178,709).
Wu fails to teach the fiber-reinforced polymer sheets have a coefficient of thermal expansion that is within 10% of a coefficient of thermal expansion for the at least one metallic plate.
Shimodaira teaches the formation of a fiber-reinforced plastic plate 7 and a reflecting membrane 5 formed on the plate, and an undercoat layer 9. Shimodaira abstract, 3: 42–67, Fig. 5. It is important that the difference between the linear expansion coefficients (i.e., coefficient of thermal expansion) of the fiber-reinforced plastic plate 7 and undercoat layer 9 is small (e.g., within 10%) so that cracking and deformation due to temperature change is rare. See id. at 4:4–13.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the coefficient of thermal expansion differences be within 10% of the FRP and steel plate of Wu motivated by the desire to minimize cracking and deformation in the concrete cylindrical pier or its reinforcement.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2013/0008111 A1), hereinafter “Wu II.”
Wu fails to teach the combined weight of the inner and outer FRPs is less than 50% of the weight of the steel plate.
Wu II teaches a multi-layer reinforcement that has a lighter layer of FRP and a heavier layer consisting of a steel sheet, wherein Wu II notes that due to heavy weight and construction inconvenience, steel plates as externally-bonded reinforcements have been replaced in recent years by the more advanced material FRP that has the advantage of light-weight, high strength and ease of handling in construction. Wu II abstract, ¶ 30.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used FRPs that weigh less than 50% of the steel plate to take advantage of the FRPs lower weight benefit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786