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 1-4 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 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of spacing retaining members being provided to project from an inner surface”, and the partition plate being attached to the inner surface at a side of some of the plurality of spacing retaining member. This limitation renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to what “inner surface” is being referred to (e.g. one provided via the reinforcing steel plates, the existing columnar structure, some other feature, etc.).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a projection length of the partition plate from the inner surface is set to be shorter than a projection length of the spacing retaining member”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to where the “length” is being measured from with respect to the partition plate and the other features (e.g. between the reinforcing steel plate, the columnar structure, the retaining member, some other feature, etc.).
Claims 3 and 4 are similarly rejected for being dependent upon an indefinite 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kanda et al. (JP 2009167735 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kanda discloses a reinforcing steel plate [80] to be installed around an existing columnar concrete structure [1] for repair or reinforcement, comprising: a plurality of spacing retaining members [44] for maintaining spacing with the existing columnar concrete structure, the plurality of spacing retaining members being provided to project from an inner surface; and a partition plate [45] configured to divide a gap between the reinforcing steel plate and the existing columnar concrete structure into a certain range, the partition plate being attached to the inner surface at a side of some of the plurality of spacing retaining members [configured to do so at a desired gap distance; Figure 3a].
Regarding claim 2, Kanda further discloses a projection length of the partition plate from the inner surface is set to be shorter than a projection length of the spacing retaining member [distance from partition plate to reinforcing steel plate is shorter than the entire projection distance/length of spacing retaining member; Figure 3a].
Regarding claim 3, Kanda further discloses a jet guide [20, 21; Figure 7a] configured to feed compressed air of an air lift or a water jet used for earth removal to a vicinity of a ground by pressure
Regarding method claim 4,
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda et al. (JP 2009167735 A) alone.
Regarding claim 3, Kanda further discloses it is known in the prior art to utilized a jet guide [20, 21; Figure 7a] configured to feed compressed air of an air lift or a water jet used for earth removal to a vicinity of a ground by pressure.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kanda by adding the jetting device as known in the prior art to provide an additional means of loosening up the soil for the saw mechanism to cut through, thereby increasing the versatility and applicability of the device, and reducing wear and tear on the saw mechanism, to subsequently increase profits and reduce cost.
Specifically regarding method claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the columnar reinforcing system of the Kanda combination in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method as claimed by the Applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miyazaki et al. (US 2025/0250752) discloses a press-in steel plate reinforcing device and method similar to that of the claimed invention, however it is not available as prior art. Langenhan (DE 102020117497 A) discloses a press-in steel plate reinforcing device having spacing retaining members and a partition plate similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights