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
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/20/25. The Applicant has amended claims in order to claim the subject matter as that of elected claim 96.
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) 96, 97, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 114, 116, 118, 121-126 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,268,311 to Sheehan as in the previous action.
Regarding claims 96, 105 and 116, Sheehan discloses a composite slab having, from bottom to top, a layer of wood (fig. 7: 42, described as a furring strip, furring strips known in the art as being wood as the drawing legend shows the design known as wood), a concrete layer (29) and the use of insulation between wood and concrete is disclosed (page 2, left column, lines 36-39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sheehan by using insulation as insulation is disclosed for use between wood and concrete and would create better insulation to the concrete. Also, the use of shear connectors is disclosed (36) that pass through the concrete and the wood, and inherently, through the insulation as the insulation is described above. The slab extends longitudinally.
Regarding claims 97, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, Sheehan discloses the claimed invention except for two different insulation layers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two different insulation layers, such as an additional layer 25 as shown in fig. 3, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The use of two different insulation layers would create a stronger resistance to moisture from the concrete. The components inherently capable of being designed as a building with large height, inherently capable of being 25 meters or more. This would have been an obvious design choice for usage.
Regarding claims 107, 109, 113, 114, Sheehan discloses the structure as being floors used in a building (page 1 right column, lines 9-13) and spans a story (floor finish). The Examiner takes official notice that buildings are well known to be greater than 25 meters in height and the use of such would have been an obvious design choice to one in the art at the time of filing in order to house a large number of occupants. Regarding the limitation of except a building core, the specification of the instant application discloses a building core as being as a stairwell or elevator. It should be noted that a flooring composite slab would inherently be discontinued in an area requiring an elevator or stairs since they must pass above the slab. This is inherently necessary to allow occupants from floor to floor.
Regarding claim 111, as best understood, a building core is not disclosed by Sheehan.
Claim Objections
Claims 98, 117, 119, 120 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 prior art of record does not disclose the limitations of claim 96, two abutting wooden panels, tensioned against one another, perpendicular to a parting plane formed in an abutting connection wherein each wooden panel tensioned and leaving intact underside at least one recess created by material removed so that at least one box shaped space is formed in the wooden panel and with a recess of the wooden panel located on a remote side of the parting plane, the recess forms a passage across the two abutting panels, the box shaped limitations relative to each other and the tensioning element limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant submits an affidavit of 9/4/25 which states portions of the specification have been better translated and lead to amendments to the specification.
The Applicant argues that the furring strips of Sheehan do not equate to “a wood component which can be subjected to tensile load” The Applicant then describes what a furring strip is and that the strip in Sheehan is suspended by the “bent rods” (36) of Sheehan and states that “it would be impossible to assemble a planar structure in the same way”. However, the Applicant should look to the assembly of which 42 is a part of contains the known design of wood. The Applicant argues the intended use but the Applicant should note that the structural limitations as claimed in the Application, are met by the prior art, structurally. The Applicant continues to argue the intended function of the prior art as the component 36 may not be specifically disclosed as a shear connector but meets the limitations as claimed. The Applicant argues the modifications of the office action in that they would have required a “new setup” and could not account for routine development. However, the modifications are minor in dimension. Also, the Applicant argues the modification to add insulation. However, insulation is taught by Sheehan, as in the rejection above, and Sheehan teaches it may be used. The use of two insulation layers is merely a duplication of working parts and may be used where more insulation is required. The orientation of a “shear resistance” manner is inherent in that the structure of Sheehan may inherently provide a level of shear resistance.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm 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 on (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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633