DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-15 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous drawing objections remain in view of the new matter objection below.
Some of the previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Specification
The amendment filed 03/04/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the replacement drawings include new matter which was not originally disclosed. In particular the positioning, quantity, and shape of the supports identified as elements 13 were not originally disclosed as illustrated.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “supports” of claims 7, the “ducts or sheathing” of claim 8, the “rectangular pattern or quadrilateral shape” of claim 12, and the “two supports” of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 2, the recitation “fibers, post-tension steel strands” is understood to mean --fibers, the post-tension steel strands--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 5, the claim is missing a period punctuation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 2, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, at line 10, the recitations “may lead” renders the claim indefinite because the term “may” is ambiguous and it is unclear if the recitations that follow are being positively claimed or are optional.
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 of this title, 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) 1-3, 6, 13, and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khayrullin et al. (WO2018084741 A1) with examiner provided Espacenet translation in view of ASTM Publication (A416/A416M-16 2016) hereinafter A416.
Regarding claim 1, Khayrullin et al. teaches a concrete slab (load bearing panels; paragraph 3; of concrete; paragraph 57), comprising concrete (paragraph 57) and a combined reinforcement of both post-tension steel cables (post-stressed cables; paragraph 118; it is understood that a post-tensioned strand is by post-stressed after concrete cures), the post-tension steel strands being steel strands that have been tensioned only after casting of the concrete slab (it is understood that post-tension steel strands are by definition tensioned only after casting of the concrete slab), wherein the fibers are steel fibers (steel fibers; paragraph 77) and present in a dosage ranging from 10 kg/m3 to 75 kg/m3 (paragraph 82), and wherein the concrete is expanding concrete (expanded clay concrete; paragraph 71).
Khayrullin et al. does not specifically disclose the reinforcement of steel strands have a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm and a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa.
A416 teaches a concrete strip (prestressed concrete construction; paragraph 1.1), the strip comprising conventional concrete (paragraph 1.1) and reinforcement of steel strands (paragraph 1.2) having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm (15.24mm; paragraph 1.2), having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa (paragraph 1.2).
Therefore, from the teaching of A416, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concrete structure of Khayrullin et al., such that the reinforcement of steel strands have a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm and a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa, as taught by A416, in order to provide steel strands of a known diameter and tensile strength, to maximize the resistance to bending stresses and limiting crack formation on a long concrete slab.
Regarding claim 2, Khayrullin et al. teaches a tensile stress of between 5 and 15 % of the final stress may be applied via the post-tension steel strands in the first 24 hours after casting the slab (it is understood that a tensile stress of between 5 and 15 % of the final stress is capable of being applied via the post-tension steel strands in the first 24 hours after casting the slab).
With regards to the limitation that the product is formed using a tensile stress of between 5 and 15 % of the final stress is applied via the post-tension steel strands in the first 24 hours after casting the slab, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Khayrullin et al. as modified teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 3, Khayrullin et al. teaches said fibers are steel fibers (steel fibers; paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 6, Khayrullin et al. teaches said steel fibers are present in the slab in a dosage ranging from > 25 kg/m3 to 60 or 65 kg/m3, (paragraph 82).
Regarding claim 13, Khayrullin et al. does not specifically disclose a span of the slabs between two supports for a given thickness is increased by between 5 and 50%.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein a span of the slabs between two supports for a given thickness is increased by between 5 and 50%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein a span of the slabs between two supports for a given thickness is increased by between 5 and 50%, in order to provide the optimal distance between supports to reduce the chance of structural failure.
Regarding claim 14, Khayrullin et al. teaches a method to obtain a concrete slab (paragraphs 76-77) according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 and 5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khayrullin et al. (WO2018084741 A1) with examiner provided Espacenet translation in view of ASTM Publication (A416/A416M-16 2016) hereinafter A416, and further in view of Lambrechts et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0269572).
Regarding claim 4, Khayrullin et al. as modified does not specifically disclose said steel fibers comprise a straight middle portion that have a tensile strength above 1400 MPa.
Lambrechts et al. discloses a steel fiber for reinforcing concrete (abstract) wherein said steel fibers comprise a straight middle portion (figure 4) that have a tensile strength above 1400 MPa (paragraph 67).
Therefore, from the teaching of Lambrechts et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified concrete structure of Khayrullin et al. such that said steel fibers comprise a straight middle portion that have a tensile strength above 1400 MPa, in order to optimize the performance of the fibers under high loads, depending on the design requirements of the structure for enhanced efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Khayrullin et al. as modified does not specifically disclose said steel fibers comprise anchorage ends at both ends, said anchorage ends each comprise three or four bent sections.
Lambrechts et al. discloses a steel fiber for reinforcing concrete (abstract) wherein said steel fibers comprise anchorage ends (at 404) at both ends (figure 4), said anchorage ends each comprise three or four bent sections (figure 4).
Therefore, from the teaching of Lambrechts et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified concrete structure of Khayrullin et al. such that said steel fibers comprise anchorage ends at both ends, said anchorage ends each comprise three or four bent sections, in order to optimize the anchoring performance of the fibers under high loads, depending on the design requirements of the structure for enhanced efficiency.
Claim(s) 7-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khayrullin et al. (WO2018084741 A1) with examiner provided Espacenet translation in view of ASTM Publication (A416/A416M-16 2016) hereinafter A416, and further in view of in view of Kollegger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0301011).
Regarding claim 7, Khayrullin et al. does not specifically disclose the slab rests on at least two supports, wherein said supports are concrete supports.
Kollegger et al. discloses a reinforced concrete structure (abstract) wherein the slab rests on at least two supports (8), wherein said supports are concrete supports (paragraph 52).
Therefore, from the teaching of Kollegger et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified concrete structure of Khayrullin et al. such that the slab rests on at least two supports, wherein said supports are concrete supports, as taught by Kollegger et al., in order to provide the desired design structure for a concrete slab ceiling.
Regarding claim 8, Kollegger et al. in the combination teaches the supports comprise columns, walls, piles or beams or any combination thereof (columns; paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 9, Kollegger et al. in the combination teaches plastic slip-sheets are not present between the slab and the supports (no plastic slip-sheets are disclosed by Khayrullin et al. or Kollegger et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Khayrullin et al. as modified does not specifically disclose the post-tension steel strands are used for bonded or unbonded post-tensioning.
Kollegger et al. discloses a reinforced concrete structure (abstract) that includes bonded or unbonded post-tensioning (paragraph 56).
Therefore, from the teaching of Kollegger et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified concrete structure of Khayrullin et al. such that the post-tension steel strands are used for bonded or unbonded post-tensioning, as taught by Kollegger et al., in order to further prevent cracks and enable a longer span of the concrete slab, for greater structural and architectural efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Kollegger et al. in the combination teaches the slab and the supports are permanently fully connected, so that the slab is not free to move from the supports (figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kollegger et al. in the combination teaches said supports are arranged to form a regular rectangular pattern (figure 1).
Claim(s) 15, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khayrullin et al. (WO2018084741 A1) with examiner provided Espacenet translation in view of ASTM Publication (A416/A416M-16 2016) hereinafter A416, and further in view of in view of Yu et al. (CN 111663434 A) with examiner provided Espacenet translation.
Regarding claim 15, Khayrullin et al. teaches casting a concrete slab, the slab comprising concrete (paragraph 57) and a combined reinforcement of both post-tension steel cables (post-stressed cables; paragraph 118; it is understood that a post-tensioned strand is by post-stressed after concrete cures) and fibers (steel fibers; paragraph 77), said fibers are steel fibers (steel fibers; paragraph 77) and present in a dosage ranging from 10 kg/m3 to 75 kg/m3 (paragraph 82), and wherein the concrete is expanding concrete (expanded clay concrete; paragraph 71).
Khayrullin et al. does not specifically disclose a reinforcement of steel strands have a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm, and have a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa.
A416 teaches a concrete strip (prestressed concrete construction; paragraph 1.1), the strip comprising conventional concrete (paragraph 1.1) and a reinforcement of steel strands (paragraph 1.2) having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm (15.24mm; paragraph 1.2), and having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa (paragraph 1.2).
Therefore, from the teaching of A416, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concrete structure of Khayrullin et al. to include a reinforcement of steel strands having a diameter ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm, and having a tensile strength higher than 1700 MPa, as taught by A416, in order to provide steel strands of a known diameter and tensile strength, to maximize the resistance to bending stresses and limiting crack formation on a long concrete slab.
In addition, Khayrullin et al. does not specifically disclose applying a tensile stress of between 5 and 15 % of the final stress in the post-tension steel strands in the first 24 hours after casting the slab.
Yu et al. discloses tensioning assembly for prestressed concrete (paragraph 1) including applying a tensile stress of between 5 and 15 % of the final stress in the post-tension steel strands after casting the slab (paragraph 23). Although Yu et al. does not specifically disclose apply the tensile stress in the first 24 hours, the examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to apply tensile stress for post-tensioning within the first 24 hours after casting in order to control for early shrinkage cracking to provide for sufficient strength depending on the design requirements of the concrete structure.
Therefore, from the teaching of Yu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concrete structure of Khayrullin et al. to include applying a tensile stress of between 5 and 15 % of the final stress in the post-tension steel strands in the first 24 hours after casting the slab, as taught by Yu et al., in order to optimize the initial strength of the post-tensioned structure to control for early shrinkage cracking to provide for sufficient strength of the concrete structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that only the central layer of Khayrullin is made of expanding concrete has been carefully considered. However, the location of the concrete that is expanded concrete is not being limited by the claim, but rather the use of expanded concrete, which is disclosed by Khayrullin. With regards to the argument that Khayrullin discloses a worse quality, it is nonetheless still disclosed by Khayrullin and such a disclosure would not negate the rejection since quality is subjective and one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of determining the most suitable materials based on quality, required design strength, and associated material costs.
In addition, the applicant argues that Khayrullin describes cables at various points as “post-tensioned”, “post-tensed”, or “prestressed” and therefore concludes that the cables are used for prestressing and/or pre-tensioning. However, the conclusion was not found persuasive since Khayrullin does not disclose “pre-tensioning” but does disclose post-tensioning the cables. Khayrullin further refers to using the same process as Patent NZ 220693 (paragraph 24), which more clearly discloses post-tensioning and not pre-tensioning. In addition, the argument that Khayrullin is pre-cast and later transported to the site of installation, whereas post-tension streel strands are used for on-site construction, has been considered. However, the examiner attests that post-tensioning is not limited to on-site construction, as a slab can be post-tensioned then delivered to a site. Furthermore, the claim does not specifically limit to on-site construction.
In addition, applicant argues that the concrete slab comprising steel fibers in a dosage of 10 kg/m3 to 75 kg/m3 is referring to the dosage present in the first and second outer layers, not a dosage throughout the concrete slab of Khayrullin, and therefore fails to disclose having the overall steel fiber dosage claimed. However, the claim is not limiting to overall steel fiber dosage and furthermore, Khayrullin discloses an amount of steel fiber dosage that is within the claimed range, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed overall steel fiber dosage since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights