DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 18/873,007. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14, 17-21 are pending in the application. Claims 4-7, 9, 14, 17, 18 have been withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected species.
The applicant’s amendment filed November 4, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was sent to the Applicant on September 4, 2025. The Applicant was required to elect among several species of components. The Applicant responded to the restriction requirement on November 4, 2025 and elected aluminum mesh species 1 and reinforcement species 7, with traverse. In traversing the restriction requirement, the Applicant argues that the claimed species have unity of invention. However, the rejections below show that the invention as claimed was known in the prior art. Therefore, unity of invention is absent. Accordingly, claims 4-7, 9, 14, 17, 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because the term “mesh(s) 3, 13” in claim 1 is indefinite. It is unclear what is required by the term “3, 13.”
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because the term “the part with said mesh” lacks antecedent basis regarding the term “the part.” MPEP § 2173.05(e).
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 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, 3, 10-12, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Berry et al (GB 2474544, included in the IDS) in view of Alhamad et al (US 5,001,017).
Berry et al teaches a composite product comprising a cement binder, filler and water (p. 10, lines 20-25; p. 27, lines 24-26; p. 25, line 23). The filler includes stone and ceramic (aggregate) (p. 27, lines 24-26). The cement binder includes a mixture of cement and pozzolana (p. 5, lines 1-10). The amount of pozzolana (pulverized fuel ash) is more than 50 % of the total of pozzolana and cement (p. 28, Table A1). The composite product is supported (reinforced) by an aluminum mesh (p. 9, lines 25-31; p. 16, lines 1-5). The aluminum mesh is not required to have a protective coating.
The limitation regarding exposing the product to low stress is a statement of the intended use of the product. Furthermore, the composite product of Berry et al is capable of being exposed to low stress.
Berry et al does not teach that the mesh is made of an aluminum alloy.
However, Alhamad et al teaches a reinforcing web (mesh) made of an aluminum alloy (col. 18, lines 57-65). The web is strong and elastic (id.). The web is made from rolled metal and is expanded by slit stretching (col. 2, lines 42-60). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aluminum alloy web with the composite of Berry et al in order to obtain improved strength and elasticity.
Regarding claims 10-12, Berry et al teaches that the product provides strength (reinforcement) (p. 24, lines 10-20). The product further includes tubes to carry cooling fluid (p. 11, lines 24-26). The tubing passes through the composite material layer (id.).
Examiner’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 December 11, 2025