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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification at [0004] is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The column and row titles for Table 7, shown with Examiner annotation below, contain whole words that are not in the same line. The whole words in the table headers should be in the same line.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
956
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites “Application (i.e., use)”. MPEP states that “one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. §101" (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)).
Claim 8 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 7.
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 4-5 and 7-8 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.
Regarding claim 4 lines 8-9, the limitation "i.e., the composite fiber mesh" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either: i) remove the additional preferential limitation; ii) amend the claim so as to incorporate the narrower preferential as desired; or iii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 7 recites “Application (i.e., use)”, and fails to recite steps in the limitation. MPEP states that “attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness” (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected due to their dependency due to claims 4 and 7, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 6 are allowed.
Claims 4-5 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.
Claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 or ordinary skill in the art the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 1.
Specifically, it is noted that Ge et al. (CN 206784171 U, with reference to the machine translation) (“Ge” hereinafter) teaches engineered cementitious composites (ECC) are a type of fiber-reinforced concrete with ultra-high toughness… unlike ordinary fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC), ECC is an advanced material designed with micromechanical features, characterized by multi-crack steady-state cracking… this disclosure reduces early shrinkage of ECC by changing its composition (see Ge at [0005])… the fiber mesh reinforced ultra-high toughness cement-based composite material… the ultra-high toughness cement-based composite material includes a composite cementitious material composed of cement, and fly ash, a thickener, quartz sand, polyvinyl alcohol fiber… water… and a high-efficiency water-reducing agent… the mass proportions of its components are as follows: cement 15%-30%, fly ash 25%-3%, quartz sand 10%-25%, thickener 0.2%-0.3%... fiber 1%-1.5%, water-reducing agent 0.1-0.3% (see Ge at [0026]).
Additionally, Yin et al. (CN 108532981 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Yin” hereinafter) teaches with the development of high-performance materials, high-strength, lightweight, and easy-to-construct fiber-reinforced materials, fiber-reinforced polymer/plastic (FRP) and engineered cementitious composite (ECC) are gradually being applied to the field of masonry structure reinforcements… the drawbacks of FRP are that it uses epoxy resin as the matrix material, which causes some incompatibility with masonry materials, and it also has problems with moisture impermeability, fire resistance, and durability… the drawback of ECC is that the short-cut fibers in the matrix are randomly distributed, resulting in low reinforcement efficiency of ECC reinforcement, especially in the external flexural reinforcement of masonry walls (see Yin at [0005])… the purpose of this disclosure is to overcome the shortcomings of existing reinforcement materials and technologies, and to provide a reinforcement method for fiber-woven mesh reinforced concrete that improves the seismic performance of multi-leaf brick masonry walls, with high reinforcement efficiency and convenient construction (see Yin at [0008])… to improve the ductility of high-performance concrete, 0.5% to 2% of chopped fibers are added to the high-performance concrete… the types of chopped fibers include one or more of the following… polyvinyl alcohol fiber… carbon fiber… basalt fiber (see Yin at [0021])… the materials used in the fiber woven mesh include… carbon fiber… basalt fiber… polyvinyl alcohol fiber… the radial and weft woven materials of the fiber woven mesh are woven from one or two different fibers (see Yin at [0023]-[0024])… impregnate the fiber woven mesh with epoxy resin (see Yin at [0039])… the impregnation of the fiber woven mesh with resin is intended to reduce slippage between fibers within the fiber bundle during stress, while simultaneously improving the interfacial bonding performance between the fiber woven mesh and high-performance concrete… meanwhile, the resin impregnation increases the hardness of the fiber woven mesh, making its installation process more convenient and reducing construction time (see Yin at [0042])… the process of impregnating the fiber woven mesh with epoxy resin is as follows: cut the fiber woven mesh to the required size and lay it flat on a thin board; apply the prepared epoxy resin evenly to the fiber woven mesh, and then hang it in a ventilated room to dry… the epoxy resin is prepared by mixing epoxy resin, curing agent (see Yin at [0043]).
However, Ge and/or Yin do not explicitly teach the claimed “a weight ratio of (0.3-0.6):1” for “PVA fiber and a carbon fiber, or a PVA fiber and a basalt fiber” in the “composite fiber” as recited in independent claim 1. 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 Ge and/or Yin as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 1 as claimed. Therefore, the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 1 is 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