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 with traverse of group I (claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the second structure of group I is precast, and therefore must be raised and lowered onto the first precast structure as provided in group II. This is not found persuasive because the second structure can be precast on-site by placing the mold on the first precast structure.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
In regard to claim 7, the claim is indefinite because the recitation of “the first charge port” and “the second charge port” lack proper antecedent basis. For examining purposes, it is assumed claim 7 depends upon claim 6 hence providing proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston, II et al. US 9249566 (hereinafter ‘Eggleston’) in view of Liberman US 2012/0110928 A1 (hereinafter ‘Liberman’) and in further view of Combs et al. US 2009/0249714 A1 (hereinafter ‘Combs’).
In regard to claims 1, 2, Eggleston teaches an assembly comprising:
a first precast concrete structure (22) including a first rebar member (col. 7, ln. 64);
a second precast concrete structure (21) including a second rebar member (col. 7, ln. 64);
a seal positioned between the first and second surfaces of each of the precast concrete structures (see col. 7, ln. 7). Eggleston teaches the first and second structures are connected by grout sleeves, as noted in col. 4, ln. 1-5, but is silent regarding the specific components of the connection thus fails to explicitly disclose a connecting member, a dowel, a gasket and a shim.
Liberman teaches an assembly comprising: a first precast concrete structure (802) including a first rebar member (850); a second precast concrete structure (804) including a second rebar member (850) a connecting member (866) coupled to the second rebar member; a rebar dowel (870) coupled to the connecting member (Note that the rebar dowel is part of the assembly, hence is connected to the connecting member via the rebar as seen in fig. 7C); wherein the rebar dowel extends through an aperture in a sleeve (860) and is at least partially received within the sleeve (see fig. 7C).
and a gasket (875) positioned between the sleeve and the connecting member (see fig. 7C).
Combs teaches an assembly comprising: a first and second precast concrete structures (35, 35’) and a shim positioned between the first and second precast concrete structures (see [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide the elements of the assembly of Liberman in the assembly of Eggleston so as to enable a connection between the structures that allows them to be easily separated/disassembled at a later time for the purpose of being reused or recycled (see Liberman [0041]). Further, it would have been obvious to provide shims between the structures as taught by Combs so as to ensure the walls of the structures are plumb (see Combs [0035]).
In regard to claim 3, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs does not explicitly disclose lifting anchors with an aperture in the first surface.
The combination does disclose, however, that the structures are “vertically lowered, by means of a crane or similar lifting apparatus” (see Eggleston col. 8, ln. 27-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide lifting anchors with an aperture in the first surface so as to enable the assembly required by Eggleston. It is noted that providing lifting anchors with an aperture in structures that are meant to be lifted and lowered by means of cranes or similar lifting apparatus is notoriously well known in the art and therefore obvious to provide because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143).
In regard to claim 4, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs teaches the sleeve is aligned with the axis and the axis extends through the aperture (see Liberman Fig. 7C).
In regard to claim 5, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs teaches the sleeve is coupled to the first rebar member with a threaded connection (see Liberman [0060]).
In regard to claim 6, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs teaches the sleeve includes a cylindrical wall extending along the axis, a first charge port in fluid communication with the cavity, and a second charge port in fluid communication with the cavity. See Liberman’s fig. 7C note that the first port is at the edge of element 802 and the second port is at the flared portion as disclosed in [0060].
In regard to claim 8, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs teaches the sleeve is coupled to the first rebar member at a first end, and the aperture is positioned at a second end of the sleeve, wherein the second end is opposite the first end (see Liberman fig. 7C) note that the first end is the end not seen in fig. 7C while the second end is where the aperture is.
In regard to claim 9, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs teaches the connecting member (Liberman 866) has first end coupled to the second rebar member (bottom rebar) and a second end coupled to the rebar dowel (see Fig. 7C -note that they are coupled via the rebar) and the first end is opposite the second end.
In regard to claim 10, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs teaches the rebar dowel has a threaded end coupled to the connecting member (note that the dowel is threadedly connected to the rebar which in turn is coupled to the connecting member).
In regard to claim 11, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs teaches the gasket includes an aperture and the rebar dowel extends through the gasket aperture (fig. 7C shows a profile of the gasket suggesting an aperture and having the assembly passing through it).
In regard to claims 13 and 14, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs does not explicitly teach the particulars of the seal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a first and second ridges having the shims in between so as to ensure the proper sealing of the joints.
In regard to claim 15, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs does not explicitly teach claimed thickness of the shims.
Wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a value within the claimed range (0.25-0.75) as a matter of routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. (In the instant case, thickness differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thickness is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
In regard to claim 16, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs is concerned with fire rating. Note that the assembly of Liberman conforms to fire-resistance standards (see Liberman [0042]) thus making the combination have fire-resistant joints.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to arrive at a value within the claimed fire rating range (at least 2-hour) as a matter of routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. (In the instant case, fire rating differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such rating is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
In regard to claim 17, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs teaches a plurality of rebar members in the first precast concrete structure (see Eggleston col. 7, ln. 64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide an opening with the rebars extending therethrough so as to allow the interlocking of the steel as disclosed by Eggleston in col. 7, ln. 64 to col. 8, ln. 1.
In regard to claim 19, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs does not explicitly teach the second pre cast structure is a cap. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a cap as the second structure so as to provide a closure to the structure when no additional stories are needed.
In regard to claim 20, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs teach the first and second precast concrete structures form a stairwell (see Eggleston figures).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston in view of Liberman and Combs and in further view of Moran US 2010/0011688 A1 (hereinafter ‘Moran’).
In regard to claim 12, the combination of Eggleston/Liberman/Combs does not explicitly teach the seal is polyurethane.
Moran teaches the use of polyurethane foam in construction for sealing between concrete panels (see [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to use polyurethane foam as the sealing material of the combination because it can accommodate dynamic and anticipated building movements (see [0074]).
Further, by Applicant’s own admission, using polyurethane foam as a sealant is well known in the art (see specification [0084]) thus it would have been obvious to use because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima fascia obvious (see MPEP 2143).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston in view of Liberman and Combs and in further view of Mah et al. US 3882649 (hereinafter ‘Mah’).
In regard to claim 18, Eggleston discloses some of its equipment is to hoisted (see col. 2, ln. 7) but its silent regarding the presence of hoist beams. Liberman teaches the structure comprising a hoist beam (see fig. 17).
The beam of Liberman is not supported on notches.
Mah teaches a precast concrete structure comprising notches (70, 72) in which a hoist beam (12) is supported (see figs. 5 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the hoist beams of Liberman in the assembly of the combination, supported as taught by Mah so as to enable the option of hoisting equipment as required by Eggleston (see col. 2, ln. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein the sleeve includes first and second charge ports in fluid communication with the cavity and the first port extends along an axis that is perpendicular to the axis of the second charge port as recited within the context of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights