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 .
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s continuing patent application number 19/000,986 filed on 12/24/2024.
Currently, claims 1-16 are pending and examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 1, par. [0001], line 2; after “February 10, 2022” should added -- now U.S. Patent No. 12,195,987 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 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.
Re claim 16, line 2; a citation “the spacer” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,195,987. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all structures of the instant claims are fully encompassed within the patented claims.
The following are mapping between the instant and patented claims:
Instant claims: Patented claims:
1, 2 1
3 2
4 3
5 4
6 5
7 6
8 7
9 8
10 9
11 10
12 11
13 12
14 13
15 14
16 15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-10 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 8,628,275 to Trader et al. (‘Trader’).
Re claim 1: Trader discloses a reinforcing sleeve structure (Fig. 2) comprising: a plurality of stacked segments, each stacked segment 20 comprising two or more reinforcing shells 30/33 and seams 38/38 between the reinforcing shells 30/33; and a plurality of splicers 42/42/57/57, each splicer 42 aligned with a seam 38 of the stacked segments 20 (Fig. 3).
Re claim 2: wherein the sleeve structure (Fig. 2) is configured to be formed around a structural element 17 (Fig. 6), wherein a core filler material 78 is disposed between the structural element 17 and the sleeve structure (Fig. 2). Note, the claimed preamble is sole draw to a sub-combination of a reinforcing sleeve structure; and a structural element is not positively claimed and combined; therefore, any relation with “a structural element” is functional and not being given any patentable weight.
Re claim 3: wherein one or more of the plurality of splicers 57 have a curved shape (Fig. 3).
Re claim 4: wherein one or more of the plurality of splicers 57 are horizontal splicers each configured to span across a horizontal seam 34.
Re claim 5: wherein a length of each horizontal splicer 57 is such that an integer number of horizontal splicers 57 substantially spans the entire horizontal seam 34 between two segments (Fig. 3).
Re claim 6: wherein one or more of the plurality of splicers 42 are vertical splicers each configured to span across a vertical seam 38.
Re claim 7: wherein a length of each vertical splicer 42 is such that each vertical splicer fits between two horizontal splicers 57/57 at either end of a segment (Fig. 3).
Re claim 8: wherein one or more of the plurality of splicers 60 are cross splicers each configured to span across both a horizontal seam 34 and a vertical seam 38.
Re claim 9: wherein each of the plurality of splicers 42 and each of the reinforcing shells has one or more splicer fastening holes 44/45 to allow the splicers to be fixed to the reinforcing shells via screws, bolts, hooks, tabs, or splicer rivets (Fig. 5).
Re claim 10: wherein each of the plurality of splicers 42 is fixed to the reinforcing shells via an adhesive (e.g. a grout, col. 6, lines 4 or epoxy, col. 6, line 47).
Re claim 14: wherein each of the plurality of splicers 42 is attached to at least one reinforcing shell (Fig. 6).
Re claim 15: wherein a centerline of each splicer 42 is aligned with one of the seams 38 such that the splicer overlaps each of the reinforcing shells (Fig. 7) on either side of the seam by about equal overlap distances (see Fig. 8).
Re claim 16: wherein one or more of the splicers 42 have a centerline tab (wherein near 44 points to) protruding along the centerline of the spacer (Fig. 2) into one of the seams 38 so as to align the splicer 42 with the seam 38.
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) 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 8,628,275 to Trader.
Re claims 11, 12, 13: Trader discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein each of the plurality of splicers comprises a metal, plastic, carbon fiber, or composite material and flexible or rigid. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose desirable materials, rigid or flexible for the splicers in order to support and seal between the seams.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
323
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights