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
Upon review of the claims, new claims 28-29 are examined on the merits directed to a concrete reinforced structure, which would fall within the field of search.
No claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/26/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 13, 16, 18 and 21-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Lines 4 and 6 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 2: Line 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 3: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 4: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 7: Lines 2-3 the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 9: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 13: Lines 3-4 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 16: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 18: Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 21: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 23: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 24: Lines 2 and 3 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 25: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 26: Lines 1-3 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the apparatus” should be --the concrete stirrup apparatus-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 27: Line 2 of the claim, it appears “spacers” should be –the plurality of spacers-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hoop reinforcement” should be --the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement-- for consistency of the claim language.
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.
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 5, 18, 22 and 29 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.
With regard to claim 5: Line 1-3 of the claim recites that the one or more loops are shaped to have a shear resistance substantially equal to or greater than that of a steel reinforcing bar, which renders the claim indefinite. It’s unclear as to what the configuration of the steel reinforcing bar is. Note that the configuration of steel reinforcing bar is not limited to a particular shape, thickness and/or type of steel. Line 5 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a steel reinforcing bar” is referencing the previously recited steel reinforcing bar.
With regard to claim 18: The recitation of “the hoop reinforcement of claim 1”; the plurality of claim 1”; and the plurality of spacers of claim 1” renders the claim indefinite as it’s unclear if the relationship among the elements is being claimed. Examiner suggests amending claim 18 to recite “a concrete stirrup according to claim 1” and remove the previous references to claim 1 for clarity and precision of claim language.
With regard to claim 22: The scope of the claim is unclear. The claim recites a bobbin about which the strands of fiber are wound, which renders the claim indefinite as the subject matter appears to be directed to an intermediate step when the concrete stirrup apparatus is already constructed as recited in claim 19. Clarification is requested.
Claims 5, 18, 22 and 29 are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 13, 18-19 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wheeler (US 4,833,857).
With regard to claim 1: Wheeler discloses a concrete stirrup apparatus (fig. 1-6) comprising:
a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) (figs. 1; col. 1, lines 60-63);
a plurality of receptacles (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) circumferentially spaced-apart about, coupled to and radially inwardly-extending from the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) (fig. 1); and
a plurality of spacers (20) circumferentially spaced-apart about, coupled to and radially outwardly-extending from the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 2: Wheeler discloses that the plurality of receptacles (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) are shaped to couple with and promote a desired positioning of a plurality of reinforcing bars (38) (fig. 1; col. 6, lines 16-26), wherein the plurality of spacers (20) are shaped to abut and/or position in place a formwork (wood form) and wherein the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) is shaped to provide shear strength to concrete poured into the formwork (20) so positioned (fig. 1; col. 6, line 64 – col. 7, line 1).
With regard to claim 7: Wheeler discloses that the plurality of receptacles (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) and the plurality of spacers (20) are formed by and couple to the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) so as to form a unitary whole (figs. 1-6).
The plurality of receptacles and the plurality of spacers formed and coupled to the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement via an injection mold are considered a product by process limitations (emphasis added).
E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 13: Wheeler discloses each said spacer (20) is outwardly rectangular and convex with a radius of curvature which is equal to that of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) and/or wherein each said spacer (20) is coaxial with the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) (figs. 1-6.
With regard to claim 18: Wheeler discloses a formwork assembly (figs. 1-6) comprising:
a concrete stirrup apparatus according to claim 1 (figs. 1-5);
a plurality of longitudinally-extending and laterally spaced-apart steel reinforcing bars (38) (fig. 1; col. 6, lines 16-26);
the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) shaped to extend about the steel reinforcing bars (38) (fig. 1; col. 6, lines 16-26);
the plurality of receptacles (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) shaped so as to promote a desired positioning or spacing of the steel reinforcing bars (38) (fig. 1; col. 6, lines 16-26);
the plurality of spacers (20) (fig. 1); and
a formwork (wood form) shaped to extend about and be positioned in place via the plurality of spacers (20), wherein the formwork (wood form) is shaped to receive concrete therein and wherein the loop shaped hoop reinforcement (12) is shaped to provide shear strength to the concrete and/or promote or improve the shear strength of the concrete (fig. 1; col. 6, line 64 – col. 7, line 1; claims 1-2).
With regard to claim 19: Wheeler discloses a concrete stirrup apparatus (figs. 1-6) comprising:
an outer body (12) shaped to extend about a plurality of steel reinforcing bars (38) (fig. 1; col. 6, lines 16-26);
a first plurality of positioning members or spacers (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) coupled to the outer body (12) and configured shaped to promote a desired positioning of the steel reinforcing bars (38) (fig. 1);
a second plurality of positioning members or spacers (20) coupled to the outer body and configured shaped to promote positioning of a formwork (wood form) thereabout (fig. 1; col. 6, line 64 – col. 7, line 1; claims 1-2); and
a plurality of outwardly-extending ridges (34, 36) positioned around a peripheral surface of the outer body (12) (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 28: Wheeler discloses a concrete reinforced structure made via one or more concrete stirrup apparatuses according to claim 1 (figs. 1-6; claims 1-2).
With regard to claim 29: Wheeler discloses a concrete reinforced structure made via a formwork assembly according to claim 18 (figs. 1-6; claims 1-2).
Claim(s) 1-2, 18-19 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dragunas (US 4,463,538).
With regard to claim 1: Dragunas discloses a concrete stirrup apparatus (20, 22, 26, 28) (fig. 2) comprising:
a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (stirrup 20) (figs. 1);
a plurality of receptacles (clips 28) circumferentially spaced-apart about, coupled to and radially inwardly-extending from the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) (fig. 2); and
a plurality of spacers (22, 26) circumferentially spaced-apart about, coupled to and radially outwardly-extending from the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 2: Dragunas discloses that the plurality of receptacles (28) are shaped to couple with and promote a desired positioning of a plurality of reinforcing bars (steel reinforcing bars 18) (fig. 2; col. 2, lines 34-39), wherein the plurality of spacers (22, 26) are shaped to abut and/or position in place a formwork (16) and wherein the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) is shaped to provide shear strength to concrete poured into the formwork (16) so positioned (fig. 2; col. 2, lines 46-53).
With regard to claim 18: Dragunas discloses a formwork assembly (fig. 2) comprising:
a concrete stirrup apparatus (20, 22, 26, 28) according to claim 1 (fig. 2);
a plurality of longitudinally-extending and laterally spaced-apart steel reinforcing bars (18) (fig. 2; col. 2, lines 34-39);
the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) shaped to extend about the steel reinforcing bars (18) (fig. 2);
the plurality of receptacles (28) shaped so as to promote a desired positioning or spacing of the steel reinforcing bars (18) (fig. 2);
the plurality of spacers (22, 26) (fig. 2); and
a formwork (16) shaped to extend about and be positioned in place via the plurality of spacers (22, 26), wherein the formwork (16) is shaped to receive concrete therein and wherein the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) is shaped to provide shear strength to the concrete and/or promote or improve the shear strength of the concrete (fig. 2; col. 2, lines 31-39 and 46-53).
With regard to claim 19: Dragunas discloses a concrete stirrup apparatus (fig. 2) comprising:
an outer body (20) shaped to extend about a plurality of steel reinforcing bars (18) (fig. 2; col. 2, lines 34-39);
a first plurality of positioning members or spacers (28) coupled to the outer body (20) and configured shaped to promote a desired positioning of the steel reinforcing bars (18) (fig. 2);
a second plurality of positioning members or spacers (22, 26) coupled to the outer body (20) and configured shaped to promote positioning of a formwork (16) thereabout (fig. 2; and
a plurality of outwardly-extending ridges (projections crossing one another) positioned around a peripheral surface of the outer body (20) (see figs. 2-3).
With regard to claim 28: Dragunas discloses a concrete reinforced structure made via one or more concrete stirrup apparatuses according to claim 1 (fig. 2; col. 2, lines 31-39 and 46-62).
With regard to claim 29: Dragunas discloses a concrete reinforced structure made via a formwork assembly according to claim 18 (fig. 2; col. 2, lines 31-39 and 46-62).
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) 3-5, 9, 16 and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragunas (US 4,463,538) in view of Takayoshi et al. (JP 3669938 B2).
With regard to claim 3: Dragunas does not disclose that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer (par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
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 stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer such as taught by Takayoshi et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 4: Dragunas does not disclose that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprises fiberglass and/or a plurality of fiberglass loops.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer (par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]). Takayoshi et al. further discloses that the fiber core material can be made of glass fibers (par. [0032]).
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 stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer where the fibers are glass fibers such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprising fiberglass and/or a plurality of fiberglass loops such as taught by Takayoshi et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 5: Dragunas as modified by Takayoshi et al. discloses the claimed structure of the concrete stirrup apparatus and therefore would result in the one or more loops shaped having a shear resistance substantially equal to or greater than that of a steel reinforcing bar and/or wherein the one or more loops are configured shaped to have a shear resistance which functions as a substitute for a steel reinforcing bar.
With regard to claim 9: Dragunas does not disclose an outer body within which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned and wherein the outer body is formed via injection molding and/or comprises a plastic polymer material, a thermoplastic and/or a thermoset plastic.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer; and an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned (par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
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 stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer where an outer body within which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned comprises a thermoplastic plastic (plastic polymer material) such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise a fiber-reinforced polymer with an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned such as taught by Takayoshi et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The outer body being formed via injection molding is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 16: Dragunas does not disclose that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is formed by hoops of fiberglass via pultrusion in which strands of said fiberglass are dipped in a bath epoxy and thereafter wound on a bobbin.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer wherein fibers are impregnated with an epoxy (thermosetting resin) (par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]). Takayoshi et al. further discloses that the fiber core material can be made of glass fibers (par. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement formed by hoops of fiberglass impregnated by epoxy such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise fiberglass impregnated by epoxy such as taught by Takayoshi et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The hoop reinforcement being “formed by hoops of fiberglass via pultrusion in which strands of said fiberglass are dipped in a bath epoxy and thereafter wound on a bobbin” is considered a product by process claim.
E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claims 21-22: Dragunas does not disclose that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is made of strands of fiber which are wound together.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer made of strands of fiber that are wound together (figs. 3-4; par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of strands of fiber that are wound together such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of strands of fiber which are wound together such as taught by Takayoshi et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 23: Dragunas does not disclose an outer body to which the hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body is made of a polymer and wherein the hoop reinforcement comprises a fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer; and an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned (fig. 1a and 4a; par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
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 stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer where an outer body within which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned comprises a thermoplastic plastic (plastic polymer material) such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise a fiber-reinforced polymer with an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned such as taught by Takayoshi et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 24: Dragunas does not disclose an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends along a top, bottom and an inner peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer; and an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) extends along a top, bottom and an inner peripheral portion of the hoop reinforcement (figs. 1a and 4a; par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
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 stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends along a top, bottom and an inner peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise a fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends along a top, bottom and an inner peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 25: Dragunas does not disclose an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends radially outwards relative to an outer peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer; and an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) extends radially outwards relative to an outer peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (figs. 1a and 4a; par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
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 stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends radially outwards relative to an outer peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise a fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends radially outwards relative to an outer peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 26: Dragunas discloses that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) extends about a longitudinal axis (fig. 2)
Dragunas does not disclose that the concrete stirrup apparatus includes an outer body coaxial with and which couples to the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer; and an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) coaxial with and which couples to the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement (figs. 1a and 4a; par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
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 stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body coaxial with and which couples to the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise a fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body coaxial with and which couples to the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 27: Dragunas as modified by Takayoshi et al. would result in the plurality of receptacles and the plurality of spacers coupling to the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement via the outer body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to reinforcement capable of use in forms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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 at (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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633