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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant has included the amendment “wherein the slab has at least one opening in the upper surface so that the end anchor is accessible from the upper surface through the at least one opening when the slab is located against an obstruction”. The Examiner does not believe that this amendment overcomes the prior art rejection of Dieter in view of Lambrechts as the edge of plate 1 and tension box 5 is abutted by a pouring material 12 as well as plate 2. The open side of the tension box 5 still allows for access to the cut-out portion of the plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-9, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieter (CN 1776089 A1) in view of Lambrechts (US Pub. 8,962,150 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Dieter discloses a concrete slab comprising concrete (Abstract: “A prefabricated plate piece (1, 2) manufactured by reinforced concrete”) and a combined reinforcement of post-tension steel strands (Fig. 1, anchoring reinforcing steel bars 6 and 7), said post-tension steel strands:
wherein the concrete slab has an upper surface, lower surface, and sides (Fig. 1, prefabricated plate pieces 1 and 2 have top and bottom sides), wherein each strand or group of strands has two ends (Fig. 1, anchoring reinforcing steel bars 6 and 7 each have two ends), wherein each strand or group of strands is provided with an end anchor on at least one of its two ends (Summary of the invention: “The invention utilizes a reinforced concrete prefabricated panel to produce a panel assembly structure, in particular a method for manufacturing a panel assembly structure for a fixed traveling rail of a high speed vehicle, at least two prefabricated panels are pre-designed, said prefabrication The panel comprises at least two anchoring bars extending in the longitudinal direction of the prefabricated panel and terminating in the end faces. It is pre-defined that there is a seam between the two prefabricated panels. The two prefabricated panels are aligned and fixed to one another, and the anchoring bars of adjacent prefabricated panels that are substantially aligned in a line are interconnected”);
wherein the slab has at least one opening in the upper surface so that the end anchor is accessible from the upper surface through the at least one opening (Fig. 2, tension box 5) when the slab is located against an obstruction (Fig. 3, pouring material 12 or plate 2).
However, Dieter fails to explicitly disclose the post-tensioning steel strands have a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm; a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the strands with the desired diameter and tensile strength to provide the slab with adequate structural integrity, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, Dieter fails to disclose as taught by Lambrechts, similarly drawn to a method for reinforcing concrete, the slab comprising fibers; wherein the fibers are either steel fibers present in a dosage ranging from 5 kg/m3 to 90 kg/m3 or macro-synthetic fibers present in a dosage ranging from 1.5 kg/m3 to 9.0 kg/m3 (Col. 15, lines 44-49: “Comparing the steel fibres according to the present invention (FIB2, FIB3 and FIB4) using a dosage of 40 kg/m3 with the prior art steel fibres (FIB 1 and FIB5) using a dosage of 40 kg/m3, the residual flexural tensile strengths fR1, fR2 and fR3 of the steel fibres according to the present invention are cobsiderably higher than for the prior art fibres”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slab of Dieter to contain the reinforcing fibers of Lambrechts to further reinforce the concrete slab.
Regarding claim 2, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Dieter, wherein each of the at least one opening corresponds to between 0.005 to 10% of a volume of the slab and/or wherein the at least one opening allows application of tension to the post-tension steel strands and/or release of tension applied to the post-tension steel stands (Fig. 1, tension box 5 comprises less than 10% of the volume of the slab).
Regarding claim 3, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Dieter, wherein the concrete slab does not contain any further reinforcement elements except for the steel fibers and the post-tension steel strands within a body of the slab, and/or wherein the concrete slab is cast in one or multiple steps (Dieter as modified only comprises the listed reinforcement means).
However, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts fails to disclose wherein said concrete has a compressive cube strength of 25 N/mm2 or higher. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a concrete having the desired compressive strength for adequate structural integrity, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Lambrechts, wherein the fibers are steel fibers, or wherein the fibers are glued, or wherein macro-synthetic fibers selected from carbon fibers, glass fibers, basalt fibers, and other non-steel-based fibers (Abstract, lines 1-3: “A steel fiber for reinforcing concrete or mortar comprises a middle portion and an anchorage end at one or both ends of the middle portion”).
Regarding claim 5, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Dieter, wherein an outline of the at least one opening is a polygon, and/or wherein an outline of the at least one opening is an ellipse, and/or wherein an outline of the at least one opening is partially elliptic, and/or wherein an outline of the at least one opening is a polygon comprising only 2 angles that are <90° (Fig. 2, tension box 5 comprises a polygon with 90 degree angles).
Regarding claim 6, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Dieter, wherein a depth of the opening(s) corresponds to at least 50% of the thickness of the concrete slab, and/or wherein the opening(s) have a width/length ratio < 1 and/or a length between 2 cm and 100 cm (Fig. 2, the depth of tension box 5 appears to be about half the width of the slab).
Regarding claim 7, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Dieter, wherein the opening can be filled with grout or concrete (The opening is capable of being filled with grout. The intended use of the opening has little bearing on the structure of the invention).
Regarding claim 8, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Dieter, wherein the post tensioning strands are arranged in the middle of the concrete slab and/or in the upper third of the concrete slab and/or in the lower third of the concrete slab (Fig. 2, anchoring reinforcing steel bars 6 and 7 extend through the middle of the slab), and/or wherein the ends of the strand are straight or pointing upwards or pointing downwards (Fig. 2, anchoring reinforcing steel bars 6 and 7 are straight).
Regarding claim 9, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Lambrechts, wherein the fibers are substantially homogenously or homogeneously distributed in the concrete slab (Col. 4, lines 38-41: “An advantage of steel fibres according to the present invention is that they do not coagulate when being mixed with concrete or mortar. This results in a homogeneous distribution of the steel fibres over the concrete or mortar”).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention except for in addition to as taught by Lambrechts, wherein the fibers are steel fibers and are present in a dosage ranging from 7 kg/m3 to 75 kg/m3 (Col. 15, lines 44-49: “Comparing the steel fibres according to the present invention (FIB2, FIB3 and FIB4) using a dosage of 40 kg/m3 with the prior art steel fibres (FIB 1 and FIB5) using a dosage of 40 kg/m3, the residual flexural tensile strengths fR1, fR2 and fR3 of the steel fibres according to the present invention are cobsiderably higher than for the prior art fibres”).
Regarding claim 12, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Dieter, a method of making a concrete slab according to any of the method comprising the following steps:
positioning post-tensioning steel strands including end anchors at their ends (Fig. 1, anchoring reinforcing steel bars 6 and 7 extend to the ends of the slab);
positioning opening formers to allow the formation of at least one opening in the upper surface of the concrete slab, so as to permit access to the strands and/or the end anchors from the upper surface of the concrete slab (Fig. 2, tension box 5);
pouring concrete to form the concrete slab (The slab is described as being pre-cast).
Regarding claim 13, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Dieter, filling the openings with grout or concrete (Fig. 3, seam pouring material 12).
Regarding claim 14, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Dieter, wherein the concrete slab is located next to a wall or other vertical obstruction (Fig. 3, seam pouring material 12 or plate 2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieter (CN 1776089 A1) in view of Lambrechts (US Pub. 8,962,150 B2), and further in view of Thooft (US Pub. 2024/0026683 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Dieter as modified by Lambrechts discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Thooft, similarly drawn to a concrete slab, wherein the post-tension steel strands are in a banded-banded steel strands configuration or in a banded-distributed steel strands configuration or distributed-distributed steel strands configuration or in a configuration resulting from any combination thereof, and/or; wherein the post-tension steel strand are used for bonded or unbonded post-tensioning (Pg. 3, [0035]: “In an embodiment of the invention, the post-tension steel strands may be in a banded-banded steel strands configuration or in a banded-distributed steel strands configuration or in a configuration resulting from any combination thereof, and/or the post tension steel strands can be arranged in any configuration, preferably without any maximum and/or minimum spacing requirements and/or the post-tension steel strand may be used for bonded or unbonded post-tensioning and/or the anchors for the post-tension steel strands may be designed as described for example in patent application U.S. 63/052,283 so as to reduce bursting behind the post-tensioning anchors during or after post-tensioning and/or wherein the fibers are substantially homogenously or homogeneously distributed in the slab. A banded or banded-banded configuration of steel strands may thereby allow to keep the slab freer from steel strands, so as to allow for example for more design freedom or safe drilling through the slabs. Bonded post-tensioning may thereby use bonded strands that may be bonded to the concrete of the slabs for example using grout, so that even in case of a problem an anchor structural integrity is preserved through the bonding. On the other hand, unbonded post-tensioning strand may be provided with a plastic sheeting and may not be connected to the concrete of the slabs”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slab of Dieter in view of Lambrechts to contain the steel strand configuration of Thooft to allow for more design freedom and safe drilling through the slab.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights