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 .
Claim Amendments Submission
Examiner notes that the amended claims submitted on 04/05/2024 is filed as an image document with a dark grey font color, instead of the black font color requested in the Patents Center. The font color has resulted in errors during the initial processing of the application. Examiner suggest to follow instructions in the Patent Center to avoid similar issues in the future, and directs the Applicant to follow the instructions in Patent Center. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Specification at page 2 lines 27-28 disclosing Figure 5 is the schematic view of a concrete fiber additive comprising hollow diamond shaped bumps in an embodiment, see specification at page 3 lines 8-9 disclosing 3. Bump… 4. Cavity, and see Figure 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated, the Bump 3 above is not a diamond pattern, rather the Cavity 4 is a diamond pattern. As such, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for claims 11-12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “bumps in the form of a diamond pattern with a cavity inside”. The claimed “bumps in the form of a diamond patter” is not supported by the specification and drawings or described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Specification at page 2 lines 27-28 disclosing Figure 5 is the schematic view of a concrete fiber additive comprising hollow diamond shaped bumps in an embodiment, see specification at page 3 lines 8-9 disclosing 3. Bump… 4. Cavity, and see Figure 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated, the Bump 3 above is not a diamond pattern, rather the Cavity 4 is a diamond pattern. As such, the claimed “bumps in the form of a diamond pattern with a cavity inside” is not supported by the specification and drawings or described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “written”; however, the examiner will not read limitations into the claims from the specification (see MPEP 2111 and MPEP 2173), and suggests amending the claim or respond where in the specification the recitation are supported.
Claim 12 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 11.
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 2-3, 6-20 and 22 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.
Claims 2-3 and 6-20 reciting “A concrete fiber additive” are indefinite because it is not clear if it is the same or different from the claimed “A concrete fiber additive” in claim 1.
Examiner will treat the recitations in claims 2-3 and 6-20 as the same concrete fiber additive.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “A” with “The”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 6 reciting the limitation “the strip-shaped bumps”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 recites “bumps”, not “strip-shaped”.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “the” with “a”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 11 reciting “bumps… with a cavity inside, extending along the surface of the polymer fiber” is indefinite because it is not clear if the claimed “cavity” in claim 11 is the same as, or different from the claimed “cavities” in claim 1 line 3 “wherein the cavities are formed inside the bumps”.
Examiner will treat the claimed “cavity” in claim 11 as the same as the claimed “cavities” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “a” with “the”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 12 line 2 reciting “a diamond pattern” is indefinite because it is not clear if it is the same or different from the claimed “diamond pattern” recited in claim 11.
Examiner will treat the claimed “diamond pattern” to be the same “diamond pattern”.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “a” with “the”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 15 reciting “polyamide 6,6 polypropylene…” is indefinite because it is not clear if the claimed “polyamide 6,6 polypropylene” is a polymer with polyamide and polypropylene copolymers, or separate polymers, that is “polyamide 6,6” and “polypropylene”.
Specification at page 4 lines 29-31 disclosing “in an embodiment… the polymer fiber… may comprise at least one of polyethylene, polyethyleneterephthalate, polyamide 6,6 polypropylene or polyolefin fibers”, is also not clear.
Examiner will treat the recitation as separate polymers, that is - “polyamide 6,6, polypropylene…”.
Examiner suggests clarifying the claimed limitation because “claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant... uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process” (see MPEP 2171).
Claim 22 reciting “A concrete” is indefinite because it is not clear if it is the same or the different from the claimed “A concrete” in claim 21.
Examiner will treat the recitation as the same concrete.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “A” with “The”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 2013/0324643 A1) (“Tanaka” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a concrete fiber additive (see Tanaka at [0053] teaching fibers mixed in the ultra-high-strength fiber reinforced concrete is a bumpy fiber 1 having asperities). The bumpy fiber is taken to meet the claimed “concrete fiber additive” based on the structure, as outlined below, comprising
a polymer fiber comprising bumps arranged one after another on the surface of the polymer fiber, and cavities, wherein the cavities are formed… inside the bumps (see Tanaka at [0053] teaching bumpy fiber 1 having asperities formed in its surface as shown in Fig. 1, shown below with Examiner’s annotation, this bumpy fiber 1 has multiple recessed portions 11… disposed in the fiber surface in a staggered arrangement with a gap therebetween, and a raised portion 12 is between the recessed portions 11… note that the raised portion 12 only needs to protrude from the bottom surfaces of its recessed portions 11). Raised portion 12 is taken to meet the claimed “bumps”, and the recessed portion 11 is taken to meet the claimed cavities.
PNG
media_image2.png
502
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Tanaka further teaches comprising bumps in the form of a strip extending along the surface of the polymer fiber (see Tanaka at Fig. 1, shown above with Examiner annotation, illustrating the bumps in the form of a strip extending along the surface of the polymer fiber).
Regarding claims 6-10, Tanaka teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Tanaka further teaches comprising elliptical dents extending in at least one row along at least one cavity between the strip-shaped bumps (claim 6), wherein the elliptical dent have a major axis (MA) of 0.1-2.9 mm (claim 7), comprising 0.63 mm wide cavities, elliptical dents with a major axis (MA) of 0.5 mm, and strip-shaped bumps with a thickness of 0.63 mm and arranged at an angle of approximately 60o to one edge of the polymer fiber (claim 8), comprising 0.63 mm wide cavities, elliptical dents with a major axis (MA) of 0.5 mm, and strip-shaped bumps with a thickness of 0.63 mm and arranged at an angle of approximately 75o to one edge of the polymer fiber (claim 9), and comprising 1.2 mm wide cavities, elliptical dents with a major axis (MA) of 0.5 mm, and strip-shaped bumps with a thickness of 0.6 mm and arranged almost parallel to an edge of the polymer fiber (claim 10) (see Tanaka at [0053] teaching bumpy fiber 1 having asperities formed in its surface as shown in Fig. 1… this bumpy fiber 1 has multiple recessed portions 11… disposed in the fiber surface in a staggered arrangement with a gap therebetween, and a raised portion 12 is between the recessed portions, and claim 1 rejection, wherein Tanaka teaches the claimed “wherein the cavities are formed… inside the bumps” (see MPEP 2111.04.II). The recitations in claims 6-10 are being treated as being taught by Tanaka).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Tanaka further teaches wherein the polymer fiber is at least one selected from the group consisting of… polyethylene (see Tanaka at [0050] teaching the fibers… it is possible to use: organic fibers (e.g.… polyethylene fibers)).
Regarding claim 21, Tanaka teaches a concrete (see Tanaka at [0053] teaching fibers mixed in the ultra-high-strength fiber reinforced concrete) comprising
the concrete fiber additive according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection based on Tanaka).
Claims 1-2, 13-16 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burak et al. (TR 201916925 A2, with reference to the machine translation) (“Burak” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Burak teaches a concrete fiber additive (see Burak at [013] teaching concrete structure… contains… polymer fiber). Polymer fiber is taken to meet the claimed “concrete fiber additive”, based on the structure as outlined below, comprising
a polymer fiber comprising bumps arranged one after another on the surface of the polymer fiber, and cavities, wherein the cavities are formed… between the neighboring bumps (see Burak at [006] teaching the load-bearing capacity of the polymer fibers within the concrete structure is increased by creating an outer surface in a form that includes bumps, see Burak at [013] teaching polymer fiber… has at least two… bumps (1)… with voids (2), and see Burak at Figs 1 and 2, shown below). Bumps (1) is taken to meet the claimed “bumps arranged one after another on the surface of the polymer fiber”, and voids (2) is taken to meet the claimed “cavities, wherein the cavities are formed… between the neighboring bumps”.
PNG
media_image3.png
325
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
278
405
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Burak further teaches comprising bumps in the form of a strip extending along the surface of the polymer fiber (see Burak at Figs 1 and 2, shown above, illustrating the claimed bumps in the form of a strip extending along the surface of the polymer fiber).
Regarding claim 13, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Burak further teaches wherein the polymer fiber has a mono structure (see Burak at [014] teaching the polymer fiber… is in a single (mono) form).
Regarding claim 14, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Burak further teaches wherein the polymer fiber is in the form of a bundle (see Burak at [014] teaching the polymer fibers… are in a bundled form).
Regarding claim 15, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Burak further teaches wherein the polymer fiber is at least one selected from the group consisting of… polyolefin fibers (see Burak at [015] teaching polymer fibers are made of polyolefin… material).
Regarding claim 16, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Burak further teaches wherein the polymer fiber has a length of 30-76 mm (see Burak at [017] teaching the length of the polymer fiber is in the range of 30-76 mm).
Regarding claim 20, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Burak further teaches wherein the polymer fiber has an elasticity modulus of 3-20 GPa (see Burak at [019] teaching the elastic modulus of polymer fibers is preferably in the range of 3-20 GPa).
Regarding claim 21, Burak teaches a concrete (see Burak at [013] teaching concrete structure) comprising
the concrete fiber additive according to claim 1 (see Burak at [013] teaching contains polymer fiber, and see claim 1 rejection based on Burak).
Regarding claim 22, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 21 above, and Burak further teaches wherein the concrete fiber additive is 0.1-2% by volume (see Burak at [016] teaching the volumetric content of the aforementioned polymer fiber within the concrete structure is in the range of 0.1%-2%).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka.
Regarding claim 22, Tanaka teaches the limitations as applied to claim 21 above, and Tanaka further teaches wherein the concrete fiber additive is 0.1-2% by volume (see Tanaka at [0052] teaching the total volume of fibers to be mixed is preferably 0.7 to 8% of the entire volume) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak.
Regarding claim 17, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Burak further teaches wherein the polymer fiber has an equivalent diameter of 0.3-1.5 mm (see Burak at [017] teaching the equivalent diameter of the polymer fiber is preferably in the range of 0.3-1.1 mm) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 18, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Burak further teaches wherein the polymer fiber has a thickness of 50-1000 tex (see Burak at [019] teaching polymer fiber thickness values in the range of 1000-9000 dtex (or 100-900 tex)) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 19, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Burak further teaches wherein the polymer fiber has a tensile stress of 300-1500 MPa (see Burak at [019] teaching the tensile strength of the aforementioned polymer fiber is preferably in the range of 300-800 MPa) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka.
Examiner notes that this is an alternative rejection to claim 6, as outlined above.
Regarding claim 6, Burak teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and as mentioned, Burak teaches at least one cavity between a strip-shaped bumps (see 112 rejection, and see Burak at Figs 1-2). However, Burak does not explicitly teach “comprising elliptical dents extending in at least one row along at least one cavity”.
Like Burak, Tanaka teaches polymer fiber for concrete (see Tanaka at [0053] teaching at least some of the fibers mixed in the ultra-high-strength fiber reinforced concrete). Tanaka further teaches the shapes of recessed portions 11A to 11E… are not limited and may be any shaped such as… an elliptical shape (see Tanaka at [0085]), which is taken to meet the claimed “comprising elliptical dents extending in at least one row along at least one cavity”.
Tanaka further teaches a mechanism that increases the bonding force of the ultra-high-strength fiber reinforced concrete… will be described with reference to FIG. 2… FIG. 2 is a view schematically illustrating an enlarged cross section of the upper half of a bumpy fiber 1, as well as aggregate particles 2, . . . , and a cement hydrate 4 contained in a cement matrix…. the aggregate particles 2, . . . are dispersed within the cement matrix formed along the recessed portions 11 and the raised portions 12 of the bumpy fiber 1… some of the aggregate particles 2, . . . are inside the recessed portions 11 of the bumpy fiber 1… when cracking or the like occurs in a structure built with the ultra-high-strength fiber reinforced concrete, thereby causing a bridging effect and therefore exerting tensile force on the bumpy fiber 1, the cement matrix containing the aggregate particles 2, . . . filled in the recessed portions 11 serve as anchors against the bumpy fiber 1… on the other hand, the raised portions 12 between the recessed portions 11, 11 in the bumpy fiber 1 serve as anchors against the cement matrix… the mutual shear transfer resistance inside the cement matrix is increased by the engagement of the aggregate particles 2… it is possible to exert high slip rigidity and high slip shear resisting force against slip shear force generated around the recessed portions 11 due to the bridging effect of the bumpy fiber 1 (see Tanaka at [0061]-[0064]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Tanaka teaches that elliptical shape recessed portions (or cavities) in the bumpy fibers serve as anchors against the cement matrix, increase the mutual shear transfer resistance inside the cement matrix, and exert high slip rigidity and high slip shear resisting force against slip shear force, and seek those advantages by using elliptical shape recessed portions (or cavities) in the void of the polymer fiber as taught by Burak.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use elliptical shape recessed portions (or cavities) as taught by Tanaka in the void of the polymer fiber as taught by Burak because the bumpy fibers serve as anchors against the cement matrix, increase the mutual shear transfer resistance inside the cement matrix, and exert high slip rigidity and high slip shear resisting force against slip shear force.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: there are no prior art references of record that teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 11-12.
Specifically, it is noted that Tanaka or Burak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1, as outlined above. However, Tanaka and/or Burak do not explicitly teach the claimed “comprising bumps in the form of a diamond pattern” in claim 11. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Tanaka and/or Burak as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 11-12 as claimed. Therefore, all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 11-12 are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights