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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-4 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 claims 1-4, the claims appear to be reciting method steps. A claim that recites both a system (or apparatus) and a method of using that system (or apparatus) does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and thus, is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that a claim that recites both a system and the method for using that system does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope); see also MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ID (“A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite... .”). The examiner will examine the final product of the apparatus claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if a reinforcing bar is claimed or the combination of a reinforcing and a floor, or multiple reinforcing bars with multiple butt joint devices, or a combination of the above. The examiner will examine as best understood in accordance with the preamble, with the limitations directed toward a reinforcing bar with a butt joint device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the imparted length measurement" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the type" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, multiple antecedent basis issues are present such as those examples set forth above. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “which is a length standard from one end to the other end (the total bar length), is determined and imparted to a reinforcing bar to be cut, and the reinforcing bar is cut to a determined standardized length in accordance with the imparted length measurement (up to 12 m, col. 3, line 52); and once the type of a butt joint device for butt-jointing the reinforcing bar cut to the determined standardized length is determined” in unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. The examiner will examine as best understood with the reinforcing bar having a length and a butt joint. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, in line 17, it is unclear if a male and a female part are required, as the cases set forth prior do not require two parts nor do they require a male and a female part. The examiner will examine as best understood with the or both screw parts having the structure claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “repeatedly using one or more length-determined standardized reinforcing bars” is unclear in that the language suggests the reinforcing bar claimed is used multiple times. The examiner will examine as best understood with one or more bars used and joined to the reinforcing bar claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear which screw part of the butt joint device is configured to be placed 150 mm from a bottom surface of a floor as the butt joint device comprises parts situated optionally at two ends of a reinforcing bar. The examiner will examine as best understood with one of the screw parts positioned accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what comprises a n-th butt joint device as only a single butt joint device has been established in the claim. The examiner will examine as best understood with the claimed reinforcing rod capable of butt joining to additional bars having different lengths. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what comprises the joint position adjustment of n-th butt joint device. The examiner will examine as best understood with the butt joint capable of being adjusted. Appropriate correction is required.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The rejections above are examples of indefinite issues in the claims. This is not a comprehensive list. Appropriate correction is required for claims 1-4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancelot, U.S. Patent 5,491,941 in view of Wakiyama et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0177976.
Regarding claim 1, Lancelot discloses a rebar coupling system wherein after determining a material and a diameter of a reinforcing bar and a determined standardized length measurement (inherently, a reinforcing bar will have a size and will be produced of a material, typically steel, see figures), which is a length standard from one end to the other end (the total bar length), is determined and imparted to a reinforcing bar to be cut, and the reinforcing bar is cut to a determined standardized length in accordance with the imparted length measurement (the bar will have a length); and once the type of a butt joint device (see Fig. 4) for butt-jointing the reinforcing bar cut to the determined standardized length is determined, the butt joint device is formed at, and integrated with, one end or both ends of the reinforcing bar cut to the standardized length by the determined standardized length (the bar length), as best understood, wherein the butt joint device is any one selected from the selection group of: a case where a male screw part is formed only in one end portion, a case where a female screw part is formed only in one end portion, a case where the male screw part is formed in both end portions, a case where the female screw part is formed in both end portions, and a case where the male screw part (28) is formed in one end portion of a rebar (12) and the female screw part (22) is formed in an end portion of another rebar (10), and wherein the male screw part and the female screw part are a cylindrical screw coupling structure (see Fig. 4), a conical screw coupling structure, or a cylindrical-conical integrated screw coupling structure, and performing a butt joining by repeatedly using one or more length-determined standardized reinforcing bars (the bars are capable of being joined), the butt joint device of the length-determined standardized reinforcing bar is capable of being positioned at least 150mm from a bottom surface of the floor (depending on a floor’s dimensions and chosen placement by a user), and before the n-th butt joint device, by performing the butt joining of the length- determined standardized reinforcing bar has a different length, the joint position adjustment of n-th butt joint device is performed (the coupling portions are capable of adjustment via the treads), as best understood in light of the specification, but does not specifically disclose the male screw portion at one end of a same bar having the female screw portion. Wakiyama teaches rebar having coupling means at both ends (see Fig. 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a rebar with the female portion at one end and the male portion at the other end to allow coupling of rebars for a total reinforcement length required.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art as modified discloses a rebar coupling system wherein the length-determined standardized reinforcing bars are capable of being formed in plurality with differentiated lengths so that they are applied to 1 to 4 times a floor height or 1 to 4 times a length of a beam connecting between columns (they will have a length or can be coupled up to a length required via the coupling system), as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art as modified discloses a rebar coupling system wherein a plurality of the length-determined standardized reinforcing bars integrated with a butt joint device are capable of being pre-assembled to form a pre-assembled reinforcing bar net by using the length-determined standardized reinforcing bar (the bar is capable of being coupled to another bar prior to being in use within concrete), as best understood in light of the specification.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancelot, U.S. Patent 5,491,941 in view of Wakiyama et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0177976 and Lunsford, U.S. Patent 10,927,549.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses a rebar coupling system but does not specifically disclose wherein a screw protection cap is coupled to the male screw part or the female screw part, and an information providing unit providing unique information related to the length- determined standardized reinforcing bar is formed in the screw protection cap. Lunsford teaches a safety cap for a rebar including information on a cap surface (see Fig. 1B). it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a rebar cap for safety, as it is notoriously well known in the art to do so, and to provide necessary formation on a cap surface as desired by a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
