DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 9/3/2024. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures 4-7, the poor line quality renders part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. The figures appear faded. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12 and 16 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.
Claim 12, “the adjacent L-shaped beam” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to one of the previously recited L-shaped beams? This rejection can be overcome by clarifying that the limitation is referring to an adjacent one of the four L-shaped beams.
Claim 16, “The fully encased composite concrete steel column of claim 1” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited composite concrete-steel column, the steel beam, or something else? Note that the claim depends from claim 1, which is drawn to “A composite concrete-steel column”. As such, claim 16 should accordingly be drawn to “The composite concrete-steel column of claim 1”.
Claim 16, “wherein the X-type structural steel beam is absent a leg which extends from a longitudinal edge portion thereof” is indefinite because “the X-type structural steel beam” lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited steel beam that has an X-shaped cross section?
Any remaining claims in this section are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon directly or indirectly a rejected base claim.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ben-Zvi (US 3858374).
Claim 1, Ben-Zvi provides a composite concrete-steel column comprising:
a concrete matrix (col. 3, lines 45-50); and
a steel beam (four sides 14 collectively define a beam, as exceedingly broadly claimed; “steel” col. 4, lines 14-15; Figs. 1A-1B) fully encased within the concrete matrix (Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the steel beam has an X-shaped cross-section (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cross-sectional shape of the steel beam is X shaped, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1A).
Claim 2, Ben-Zvi further provides wherein the composite concrete-steel column has a rectangular cross-section with four corners (Figs. 1A-1B).
Claim 3, Ben-Zvi further provides wherein the steel beam includes four legs that each extend toward a corresponding one of the four corners of the composite concrete-steel column (Figs. 1A-1B).
Claim 6, Ben-Zvi further provides wherein the steel beam comprises a pair of L-shaped beams that each include first and second flanges (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the elements 14 include a first of the pair of L-shaped beams defined by 14 left and 14 bottom, each defining a first and second flange, respectively, and a second of the pair of L-shaped beams comprising 14 top and 14 right, each defining a first and second flange, respectively, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1A).
Claim 7, Ben-Zvi further provides wherein the L-shaped beams are joined together such that the second flanges of each of the pair of L-shaped beams overlap (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 14 bottom of the first pair overlaps 14 right of the second pair; Fig. 1A).
Claim 14, Ben-Zvi further provides wherein at least one of the legs does not include plates or flanges secured to a distal end of the leg (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least one of the legs 14 is free of plates or flanges secured to a distal end of the leg, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1A).
Claim 16, Ben-Zvi further provides wherein the X-type structural steel beam is absent a leg which extends from a longitudinal edge portion thereof (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, none of the legs 14 are considered to extend from a longitudinal edge portion of the X-type structural steel beam, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1A).
Claim 17, Ben-Zvi provides a method for constructing a composite concrete-steel column comprising the steps of:
obtaining a beam with an X-shaped cross-section with four legs (legs 14 collectively define a beam with an X-shaped cross section; Figs. 1A-1B);
obtaining a form (12; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, casing 12 constitutes a form because it holds concrete that is poured inside of it, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1A-1B) that matches an outer perimeter of the composite concrete-steel column (under the broadest reasonable, 12 matches an outer perimeter of the composite concrete-steel column, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the form includes at least four corners (Fig. 1A);
placing the beam into the form such that the beam is centered within the form (Figs. 1A-1B);
orienting the beam such that each of the four legs of the beam are directed towards a different one of the at least four corners of the form (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the four legs is directed towards a different one of the at least four corners, as the claim is a comprising claim and does not preclude a leg that points to two corners, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1A); and
pouring concrete into the form around the beam to create a concrete matrix around the beam (col. 3, lines 45-50).
Claim 18, Ben-Zvi further provides wherein the step of obtaining a beam with an X-shaped cross-section with four legs further comprises: obtaining two L-shaped beams that each include first and second flanges connected to one another in a substantially orthogonal relationship (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the elements 14 include a first of the pair of L-shaped beams defined by 14 left and 14 bottom, each defining a first and second flange, respectively, and a second of the pair of L-shaped beams comprising 14 top and 14 right, each defining a first and second flange, respectively, and connected to one another at corners of the rectangle in a substantially orthogonal relationship, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1A); and connecting the two L-shaped beams together such that the second flanges of each L-shaped beam partially overlap with one another and the first flanges of each L-shaped beams extend away from one another (Figs. 1A-1B).
Claim 20, Ben-Zvi provides a composite concrete-steel column comprising:
a concrete matrix (col. 3, lines 45-50) that has a cross-section with a plurality of corners (Fig. 1A); and
a steel beam (defined collectively by leg members 14; Fig. 1A) encased within the concrete matrix(Fig. 1A), wherein the steel beam includes a plurality of legs 14 and wherein each of the plurality of legs extends distally away from a common proximal portion toward a corresponding one of the plurality of corners of the concrete matrix (Fig. 1A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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) 1 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Chamberlain (US 1119066) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chamberlain (US 1119066) in view of Wight (US 732485).
Claim 1, Chamberlain provides a composite concrete-steel column comprising:
a concrete matrix 1; and
a steel beam (beam defined by elements 2-7 in Figs. 3 and 5) fully encased within the concrete matrix (Figs. 1 and 4), wherein the steel beam has an X-shaped cross-section (Figs. 3 and 5).
In the event that applicant disagrees that the metal material of Chamberlain is a steel material, the examiner takes the position that such material is known in the art and it would have been within the level of ordinary skill to use such material. Wight teaches a composite concrete-steel column comprising a steel material (first page, right column, lines 80-85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify that material of the beam to be steel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a readily available, well-known material to form the beam, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 16, Chamberlain further teaches wherein the X-type structural steel beam is absent a leg which extends from a longitudinal edge portion thereof (Chamberlain Figs. 3 and 5).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Brayton et al. (US 0971353) (‘Brayton’) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brayton et al. (US 0971353) (‘Brayton’) in view of Wight (US 732485).
Claim 1, Brayton provides a composite concrete-steel column comprising:
a concrete matrix (“concrete” used to form a reinforced concrete post; page 1, lines 12-20; Fig. 6); and
a steel beam fully encased within the concrete matrix (page 1, lines 20-25; given the year of publication 1910 and the known building construction materials used then, the sheet metal disclosed in Brayton was treated as steel; Fig. 6), wherein the steel beam has an X-shaped cross-section (Fig. 6).
In the event that applicant disagrees that the metal material of Brayton is a steel material, the examiner takes the position that such material is known in the art and it would have been within the level of ordinary skill to use such material. Wight teaches a composite concrete-steel column comprising a steel material (first page, right column, lines 80-85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify that material of the beam to be steel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a readily available, well-known material to form the beam, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 2, Brayton further teaches wherein the composite concrete-steel column has a rectangular cross-section with four corners (Fig. 6).
Claim 3, Brayton further teaches wherein the steel beam includes four legs that each extend toward a corresponding one of the four corners of the composite concrete-steel column (Fig. 6).
Claim 6, Brayton further teaches wherein the steel beam comprises a pair of L-shaped beams that each include first and second flanges (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cross-sectional shape of panels 1 as a whole each comprise L-shaped portions that constitute L-shaped beams, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6).
Claim 7, Brayton further teaches wherein the L-shaped beams are joined together such that the second flanges of each of the pair of L-shaped beams overlap (overlap at 2; Fig. 6).
Claim 14, Brayton further teaches wherein at least one of the legs does not include plates or flanges secured to a distal end of the leg (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least one of the legs is free of plates or flanges secured to a distal end of the leg, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6).
Claim 16, Brayton further teaches wherein the X-type structural steel beam is absent a leg which extends from a longitudinal edge portion thereof (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, none of the legs extend from a longitudinal edge portion of the X-type structural steel beam, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6).
Claim 20, Brayton provides a composite concrete-steel column comprising:
a concrete matrix (“concrete” used to form a reinforced concrete post; page 1, lines 12-20; Fig. 6) that has a cross-section with a plurality of corners (Fig. 6); and
a steel beam (page 1, lines 20-25; given the year of publication 1910 and the known building construction materials used then, the sheet metal disclosed in Brayton was treated as steel; Fig. 6) encased within the concrete matrix (Fig. 1A), wherein the steel beam includes a plurality of legs (legs of 1) and wherein each of the plurality of legs extends distally away from a common proximal portion toward a corresponding one of the plurality of corners of the concrete matrix (Fig. 6).
In the event that applicant disagrees that the metal material of Brayton is a steel material, the examiner takes the position that such material is known in the art and it would have been within the level of ordinary skill to use such material. Wight teaches a composite concrete-steel column comprising a steel material (first page, right column, lines 80-85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify that material of the beam to be steel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a readily available, well-known material to form the beam, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
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) 2-10, 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (US 1119066) in view of Wight (US 732485).
Claim 2, Chamberlain and Wight teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Chamberlain further teaches the shape of the composite concrete-steel column being capable of being any desired shape (page 2, right column, lines 87-90). Chamberlain does not explicitly show the shape of the composite concrete-steel column being a rectangular cross-section with four corners. However, Wight teaches a shape of the composite concrete-steel column has a rectangular cross-section with four corners (Figs. 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the composite concrete-steel column to be a rectangular cross-section with four corners, with the reasonable expectation of using a known shape to form the composite concrete-steel column, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 3, as modified above, the combination of Chamberlain and Wight teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the steel beam includes four legs (Chamberlain see legs in Figs. 3 and 5) that each extend toward a corresponding one of the four corners of the composite concrete-steel column (it is understood that the legs of Chamberlain would extend toward a corresponding one of the four corners of a the composite concrete-steel column if a rectangular shape were selected; Fig. 1).
Claims 4-5, Chamberlain and Wight teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Chamberlain further teaches the four legs being “joined” together (Figs. 3 and 5), but does not specifically teach in the embodiment of Figs. 3 and 5 the four legs being formed as unitary parts of the steel beam, and the four legs being fused together to form the steel beam. However, it is understood that as a final product, Chamberlain’s composite concrete-steel column teaches fusing, since the steel beam is fused together at least with concrete, as exceedingly broadly claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention to modify the steel beam such that the four legs are formed as unitary parts of the steel beam, or such that the four legs are fused together to form the steel beam, with the reasonable expectation of success of selecting a joining technique from a finite number of known techniques of joining elements together to form the steel beam, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim 6, Chamberlain further teaches wherein the steel beam comprises a pair of L-shaped beams that each include first and second flanges (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the shape of the beam comprises at least two L-shaped beams each comprising first and second flanges; Figs. 3 and 5).
Claim 7, Chamberlain further teaches wherein the L-shaped beams are joined together such that the second flanges of each of the pair of L-shaped beams overlap (Figs. 3 and 5).
Claims 8-10, Chamberlain and Wight teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as above. Chamberlain further teaches the second flanges of each of the pair of L-shaped beams overlapping (Figs. 3 and 5). Chamberlain does not specify the overlapping being between about 5% and 60% of the length of the second flanges, between about 10% and 30% of the length of the second flanges, or by about 20% of the length of the second flanges. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the overlap to be between about 5% and 60% of the length of the second flanges, between about 10% and 30% of the length of the second flanges, or by about 20% of the length of the second flanges, with the reasonable expectation of success of further strengthening the steel beam, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim 14, Chamberlain further teaches wherein at least one of the legs does not include plates or flanges secured to a distal end of the leg (it is understood that the at least one of the legs does not include plates or flanges secured to a distal end of the leg; Figs. 3 and 5).
Claim 15, Chamberlain teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Chamberlain does not teach a plurality of reinforcing bars oriented in [a] longitudinal alignment with the steel beam. However, Wight teaches a composite concrete-steel column comprising a plurality of reinforcing bars oriented in [a] longitudinal alignment with the steel beam (Wight J). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the composite concrete-steel column by incorporating a plurality of reinforcing bars oriented in [a] longitudinal alignment with the steel beam, with the reasonable expectation of using known means to further reinforce the composite concrete-steel column.
Claim 20, Chamberlain teaches a composite concrete-steel column comprising:
a concrete matrix 1 that has a cross-section (Fig. 1); and
a steel beam (beam defined by elements 2-7 shown in Figs. 3 and 5) encased within the concrete matrix (Fig. 1), wherein the steel beam includes a plurality of legs (legs of the beam shown in Figs. 3 and 5) and wherein each of the plurality of legs extends distally away from a common proximal portion (Figs. 1, 3 and 5).
In the event that applicant disagrees that the metal material of Chamberlain is a steel material, the examiner takes the position that such material is known in the art and it would have been within the level of ordinary skill to use such material. Wight teaches a composite concrete-steel column comprising a steel material (first page, right column, lines 80-85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify that material of the beam to be steel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a readily available, well-known material to form the beam, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Chamberlain further teaches the shape of the composite concrete-steel column being capable of being any desired shape (page 2, right column, lines 87-90). Chamberlain does not explicitly show the shape of the composite concrete-steel column being a rectangular cross-section with four corners. However, Wight teaches a shape of the composite concrete-steel column has a rectangular cross-section with four corners (Figs. 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the composite concrete-steel column to be a rectangular cross-section with four corners, with the legs extending toward a corresponding one of the plurality of corners of the concrete matrix, with the reasonable expectation of using a known shape to form the composite concrete-steel column, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brayton et al. (US 971353) (‘Brayton’) in view of Wight (US 732485).
Claims 4-5, Brayton and Wight teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Brayton further teaches the four legs being “joined” together (Fig. 6), but does not specifically teach in the embodiment of Fig. 6 the four legs being formed as unitary parts of the steel beam, and the four legs being fused together to form the steel beam. However, it is understood that as a final product, Brayton’s composite concrete-steel column teaches fusing, since the steel beam is fused together at least with concrete, as exceedingly broadly claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention to modify the steel beam such that the four legs are formed as unitary parts of the steel beam, or such that the four legs are fused together to form the steel beam, with the reasonable expectation of success of selecting a joining technique from a finite number of known techniques of joining elements together to form the steel beam, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claims 8-10, Brayton and Wight teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as above. Brayton further teaches the second flanges of each of the pair of L-shaped beams overlapping at portions 2. Brayton does not specify the overlapping being between about 5% and 60% of the length of the second flanges, between about 10% and 30% of the length of the second flanges, or by about 20% of the length of the second flanges. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the overlap to be between about 5% and 60% of the length of the second flanges, between about 10% and 30% of the length of the second flanges, or by about 20% of the length of the second flanges, with the reasonable expectation of success of further strengthening the steel beam, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Zvi (US 3858374).
Claims 4-5, Ben-Zvi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Ben-Zvi further teaches the four legs being “joined” together (claim 1; Fig. 1A), but does not specifically teach in the embodiment of Fig. 1A the four legs being formed as unitary parts of the steel beam, and the four legs being fused together to form the steel beam. However, it is understood that as a final product, Ben-Zvi’s composite concrete-steel column teaches fusing, since the steel beam is fused together at least with concrete, as exceedingly broadly claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention to modify the steel beam such that the four legs are formed as unitary parts of the steel beam, or such that the four legs are fused together to form the steel beam, with the reasonable expectation of success of selecting a joining technique from a finite number of known techniques of joining elements together to form the steel beam, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claims 8-10, Ben-Zvi teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as above. Ben-Zvi further teaches the second flanges of each of the pair of L-shaped beams overlapping. Ben-Zvi does not specify the overlapping being between about 5% and 60% of the length of the second flanges, between about 10% and 30% of the length of the second flanges, or by about 20% of the length of the second flanges. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the overlap to be between about 5% and 60% of the length of the second flanges, between about 10% and 30% of the length of the second flanges, or by about 20% of the length of the second flanges, with the reasonable expectation of success of further strengthening the steel beam, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (US 1119066) in view of Wight (US 732485) and further in view of Wallace (US 20110308197).
Claims 11-13, Chamberlain and Wight teach all the limitations of claim 3 as above. Chamberlain does not teach [claim 11] wherein the steel beam comprises four L-shaped beams that each include first and second flanges that are connected together to form the legs of the steel beam, [claim 12] wherein the four L-shaped beams are joined together such that the first flange of one L-shaped beam is connected to the second flanges of the adjacent L-shaped beams, and [claim 13] wherein the first and second flanges of each of the four L-shaped beams have approximately the same width. However, Wallace teaches a structural member comprising a steel beam comprising four L-shaped beams (Figs. 5 and 11-12) that each include first and second flanges that are connected together to form legs of the steel beam (Figs. 5 and 11-12), wherein the four L-shaped beams are joined together such that a first flange of one L-shaped beam is connected to second flanges of an adjacent L-shaped beams (Figs. 5 and 11-12), wherein first and second flanges of each of the four L-shaped beams have approximately the same width (note that width was treated as a direction from a center point of the beam; Figs. 5 and 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the composite concrete-steel column such that the steel beam comprises four L-shaped beams that each include first and second flanges that are connected together to form the legs of the steel beam, the four L-shaped beams are joined together such that the first flange of one L-shaped beam is connected to the second flanges of the adjacent L-shaped beams, and the first and second flanges of each of the four L-shaped beams have approximately the same width, with the reasonable expectation of success of further strengthening the steel beam by adding reinforcements.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Zvi (US 3858374) in view of Wallace (US 20110308197).
Claim 19, Ben-Zvi teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as above. Ben-Zvi does not teach wherein the step of obtaining a beam with an X-shaped cross-section with four legs further comprises: obtaining four L-shaped beams that each include first and second flanges, wherein the first and second flanges of each L-shaped beam are approximately the same width; and connecting the L-shaped beams together such that the first flange of a first L-shaped beam is connected to the second flange of a second L-shaped beam that is adjacent to the first L-shaped beam. However, Wallace teaches obtaining a beam with an X-shaped cross-section with four legs (beam shown in Figs. 5 and 11-12) that comprises obtaining four L-shaped beams (two 120 and two 120a; Figs. 5 and 11-12) that each include first and second flanges (Figs. 5 and 11-12), wherein the first and second flanges of each L-shaped beam are approximately the same width (Figs. 5 and 11-12); and connecting the L-shaped beams together such that the first flange of a first L-shaped beam is connected to the second flange of a second L-shaped beam that is adjacent to the first L-shaped beam (Figs. 5 and 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the step of obtaining a beam with an X-shaped cross-section with four legs by obtaining four L-shaped beams that each include first and second flanges, wherein the first and second flanges of each L-shaped beam are approximately the same width; and connecting the L-shaped beams together such that the first flange of a first L-shaped beam is connected to the second flange of a second L-shaped beam that is adjacent to the first L-shaped beam, with the reasonable expectation of success of utilizing a known arrangement of L-shaped beams to further strengthen the steel beam.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights