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 .
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, 6, 12, 16, 18 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 5 and 6, it is unclear what claims these claims are dependent on as they state they are dependent on “any of claim 1” For the purposes of examination, they are only considered to depend from claim 1.
Regarding claims 12, 16, 18, and 19, the word “preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 16, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation no more than 80%, and the claim also recites preferably no more than 70%, more preferably no more than 60%, most preferably no more than 50% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 18, abroad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation no more than 80%, and the claim also recites preferably no more than 70%, more preferably no more than 60%, most preferably no more than 50% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 19, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation at least twice of a depth, and the claim also recites preferably at last three times the depth, more preferably at least five times the depth which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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, 2, 4- 9, 11-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass et al.(WO 2010/043908) in view of Glass et al.(US Publication 2010/0314262)
Glass et al. WO discloses a method of repairing concrete comprising forming a cavity I the concrete by removing concrete to expose steel and concrete inside the cavity[0006], providing an anode assembly comprising an anode(5), and a conductor(6), the conductor providing a path for electrons to flow from the anode.[0006] They are inserted into a backfill material which receives the products created by the anode. The anode is placed within the cavity spaced from the steel and the conductor connects it to the anode.(Figure 1) The reference does not disclose an ionically conductor filler located between the backfill and the concrete. Glass et al. US discloses an anode with a encapsulation material(16) which is placed into a backfill material(17) already present in a hole in the concrete. The encapsulation material can be ionically conductive and the two materials can be the same, so the backfill would be ionically conductive.[0049] This allows the anode and encapsulation material to be preassembled as a unit.[0049] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to fill the hole with an ionically conductive material and then insert the anode and encapsulation material of Glass et al. WO since this would allow the anode to be preassembled as a unit as taught by Glass et al. US. Since the purpose of the backfill material is to conduct electricity, one in the art would appreciate it would be more conductive tan the concrete.
Regarding claim 2, the filler is placed in the hole before the anode is.[0049]
Regarding claim 4, since the conductive filler is placed in the hole, and the hole is not shown to be 50% wider than the anode assembly. 2x pi x(radius anode)2= pi x(radius hole)2 so radius anode= radius hole/
√
2
Regarding claim 5, Glass et al. WO shows the anode is located at a peripheral region of the cavity though it does not disclose this region is shallower than a central region. There are only three choices, the center is shallower, the same height or deeper than the periphery and thus they are obvious alternatives.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the references cited do not disclose relationship location-wise between the anodes and the steel bars. However since the purpose of the anode is to protect the steel bars from corrosion, one in the art would appreciate they were be placed equidistance between the steel bars so that each anode could work for more than one steel bar. This would be the same whether the steel bars were still covered by the concrete or exposed.
Regarding claim 8, the backfill can be a putty, and putties are generally tacky to the touch and therefore somewhat adhesive.[0049]
Regarding claim 9, Glass et al. WO states a typical anode is no more than 200 mm in length, which means it can be less.[0010]
Regarding claim 11, since the purpose of the anode is to direct electrons to re steel bar, one in the art would appreciate that a clean steel bar would form a better connection than an outer corroded portion of the steel and would expose a less corroded portion of the steel for that reason.
Regarding claim 12, Glass et al. WO states the conductor can be clamped or tied to the steel, and these are mechanical connections.[0006]
Regarding claim 13, Glass et al. WO shows multiple anodes which each would be modified by Glass et al. US the same and thus would each have an ionic filler between the anode and concrete, be attached to the steel, and be arranged separated from the steel.(Figure 1)
Regarding claim 14, while the relationship between the conductivity of the conductive filler and the concrete is not taught by the references, this would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine absent unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, while the thickness of the conductive filler is not taught by the references, this would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine absent unexpected results.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, whether to place the anode in a shallow or deep region is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine absent unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, Glass et al. WO shows the cavity is at least twice as wide as it is deep.(Figure 1)
Regarding claim 20, Glass et al. WO discloses removing corroded concrete to form the cavity.(Abstract)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 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: regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest applying the ionically conductive filler to the anode assembly so that it transfers it to the concrete. Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest attaching the anode to the concrete using a mechanical fastener. Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the conducive filler being in contact with no more than 80% of the surface of the anode assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights