DETAILED ACTION
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 1-12 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 "mH2O" in line 4 and ‘x’ in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specification the value of ‘m’ is not defined in the claim. There is a recitation within the specification in paragraph 35. Further x is defined as 1/6 < x < 1/3 in paragraph 35 as well. However limitations cannot be read into the claim from the specification
As such, Examiner will interpret ‘m’ to be a number larger than 0 and x is defined as 1/6 < x < 1/3 as it is defined in paragraph 35.
Appropriate correction is required.
As claims 2-12 depend from claim 1, they are similarly rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi JP2016034886A hereinafter YAMAUCHI in view of Hoopes et al. US Patent Number 5,422,141 hereinafter HOOPES.
As for claim 1, YAMAUCHI teaches “Reinforced concrete is a structure that uses both steel, which has high tensile strength, and concrete, which has high compressive strength. Furthermore, while iron is prone to oxidation and rusting, the highly alkaline cement contained in concrete forms a passivation film on the surface of the reinforcing steel. Therefore, the iron inside the reinforced concrete does not corrode, and it can continue to meet the required performance” (paragraph 2) and “Therefore, in order to prevent the deterioration of reinforced concrete, a resin-based coating material is applied to the concrete surface” (paragraph 4), i.e. A rust prevention method for a steel material.
YAMAUCHI further teaches “ the concrete repair material of the present invention can be used for repairing cracks in concrete, and comprises a resin and a layered double hydroxide represented by the chemical formula M2+1-xM 3+x (OH)2(An- )x/n · mH2O (where M2+ is a divalent metal, M 3+ is a trivalent metal, and An- is an anion, with 1/6 < x < 1/3, and m and n are natural numbers” (paragraph 8) and “The anion represented by An- can be a nitrate ion” (paragraph 10; see further paragraph 31, lines 11-12) i.e. applying a rust inhibitor containing a resin and a layered double hydroxide represented by a chemical formula M2+1-xM3+x(OH)2(NO3-)x/n · mH2O wherein M2+ represents a divalent metal, M3+ represents a trivalent metal, and n is a natural number.
YAMAUCHI is silent on directly applying… to a steel material to which salt adheres.
HOOPES teaches “A rehabilitative solution for preventing or retarding the spread of corrosion of metal reinforcements in concrete” (abstract, lines 1-2).
HOOPES further teaches “The rehabilitative solution should be applied so as to achieve the goal
of wetting the reinforcing steel with the corrosion-inhibiting agent, as the corrosion-inhibiting agent is responsible for immediately decreasing the steel reinforcement corrosion rate” (column 5, lines 7-12), “The rehabilitative solution should be applied so as to achieve the goal of wetting the reinforcing steel with the corrosion inhibiting agent, as the corrosion-inhibiting agent is responsible for immediately decreasing the steel reinforcement corrosion rate described above, e.g., by spraying, coating with a brush or roller, or ponding. No surface preparation is necessary. However, if desired, the concrete surface may be grooved so as to increase the surface area, and enhance the penetration of the rehabilitative solution ” (column 5, lines 46-55), and “Second, in structures where corrosion is in more advanced stages, i.e., showing cracks with rust stains, or where portions of the concrete have fallen off, exposing the rebars, more drastic measures are needed, and the solution may be applied to areas where the corroded 60 concrete has been removed in some fashion, after which a cementitious overlay, preferably a corrosion inhibiting cementitious overlay, is applied over the affected area” (column 5, lines 56-64) and “After application of the rehabilitative solution as described herein, a cementitious overlay is applied over the treated scarified area to replace the concrete that has been removed, covering the rebars” (column 6, lines 15-18), i.e. wherein directly applying… to a steel material to which salt adheres.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the composition of YAMAUCHI directly to the rebar/steel within a reinforced concrete structure such that it includes wherein directly applying… to a steel material to which salt adheres because HOOPES teaches the such a method removes damaged concrete and protects the underlying steel from further corrosion and that ensuring the steel has the protection from the composition being applied to the structure.
As for claim 5, YAMAUCHI teaches “Furthermore, the resin can be made up of one or more of epoxy resins, acrylic resins, and urethane resins” (paragraph 12), i.e. wherein the resin comprises at least one of an epoxy-based resin, an acrylic resin or a urethane-based resin.
As for claim 6, Examiner notes that YAMAUCHI is silent on wherein the layered double hydroxide adsorbs chloride ions to form black rust on a surface of the steel material.
However, Examiner notes that YAMAUCHI’s taught chemical structure is identical to the chemical structure of the claims which means that it would react with chloride in the exact same way as the claims. As such, it is the position of the Examiner that wherein the layered double hydroxide adsorbs chloride ions to form black rust on a surface of the steel material is inherent to YAMAUCHI’s process when combined with HOOPES such that the composition is applied to the steel material. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
As for claim 7, Examiner notes that YAMAUCHI is silent on wherein at least one of the divalent metal or the trivalent metal of the layered double hydroxide has a higher ionization tendency than iron.
However, Examiner notes that YAMAUCHI’s taught chemical structure is identical to the chemical structure of the claims which means that it displays all the same properties. As such, it is the position of the Examiner that wherein at least one of the divalent metal or the trivalent metal of the layered double hydroxide has a higher ionization tendency than iron is inherent to YAMAUCHI’s process when combined with HOOPES such that the composition is applied to the steel material. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
As for claim 8, Examiner notes that YAMAUCHI is silent on wherein at least one of the divalent metal or the trivalent metal of the layered double hydroxide prevents the steel material from rusting by cathodic protection.
However, Examiner notes that YAMAUCHI’s taught chemical structure is identical to the chemical structure of the claims which means that it displays all the same properties. As such, it is the position of the Examiner that wherein at least one of the divalent metal or the trivalent metal of the layered double hydroxide prevents the steel material from rusting by cathodic protection is inherent to YAMAUCHI’s process when combined with HOOPES such that the composition is applied to the steel material. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
As for claim 9, YAMAUCHI teaches “the crystallite size of the layered double hydroxide can be
reduced to 20 nm or less” (paragraph 9, lines 2-3), i.e. a range that overlaps the range of wherein the layered double hydroxide has a crystallite size of 10 nm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 10, YAMAUCHI is silent on drying a surface of the steel material.
HOOPES teaches “Water and other debris should be kept away from the treated area(s) while the treated concrete is drying, as water may wash the corrosion-inhibiting agent away before it has a chance to impregnate the concrete matrix” (column 5, lines 29-33), i.e. wherein drying a surface before application of a composition prevents it from being washed away.
It would have been obvious to obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include drying a surface of the steel material in the process of YAMAUCHI and HOOPES because HOOPES teaches doing so keeps the composition from being washed away.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi JP2016034886A hereinafter YAMAUCHI in view of Hoopes et al. US Patent Number 5,422,141 hereinafter HOOPES as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimpo US PGPub 20040209978 hereinafter SHIMPO.
As for claim 2, YAMAUCHI and HOOPES is silent on covering the steel material with a concrete material during a period between when the rust inhibitor starts to cure and when the rust inhibitor cures completely.
However, YAMAUCHI does teach “Furthermore, the resin can be made up of one or more of epoxy resins, acrylic resins, and urethane resins” (paragraph 12).
SHIMPO teaches “An acrylic resin composite which comprises a powder material prepared by mixing an aggregate comprising a powder of a mineral having a permanent electric charge with a low alkali cement and a resin emulsion, wherein the resin emulsion comprises an acrylic resin comprising methyl acrylate and ethyl acrylate and an alkali ion water. The composite can be used in new construction, mending and reinforcement of a steel skeleton structure and the like for providing a structure which has high moisture permeability and also excellent protection to the penetration of water, exhibits rapid hardening, is excellent in the properties after hardening such as strength and durability, and is improved in adhesiveness and easiness in being mended” (abstract).
SHIMPO teaches “Thus, due to the improved hardening properties and the simultaneous hardening of the acrylic resin and the low-alkaline cement, the acrylic resin composite of this invention can realize accelerated hardening and enhancement of bending strength, shear strength, tensile strength, and compressive strength. In the construction of structures, shortening of the pot life or the time required for the initial hardening can be achieved as a benefit of this invention.” (paragraph 37), i.e. wherein performing the curing of acrylic resin when the cement improves the properties of the structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include covering the steel material with a concrete material during a period between when the rust inhibitor starts to cure and when the rust inhibitor cures completely in the process of YAMAUCHI and HOOPES because SHIMPO teaches that curing acrylic resin and concrete together can improve the overall properties.
As for claim 4, YAMAUCHI is silent on comprising: chipping a part of a concrete structure in which the steel material is embedded to expose the steel material to which salt adheres from the concrete structure, wherein directly applying the rust inhibitor, comprises directly applying the rust inhibitor to the steel material exposed from the concrete structure and a concrete surface exposed by chipping the concrete structure, and covering the steel material comprises filling a portion from chipping of the concrete with the concrete material.
HOOPES teaches “The rehabilitative solution should be applied so as to achieve the goal of wetting the reinforcing steel with the corrosion-inhibiting agent, as the corrosion-inhibiting agent is responsible for immediately decreasing the steel reinforcement corrosion rate” (column 5, lines 7-12), “The rehabilitative solution should be applied so as to achieve the goal of wetting the reinforcing steel with the corrosion inhibiting agent, as the corrosion-inhibiting agent is responsible for immediately decreasing the steel reinforcement corrosion rate described above, e.g., by spraying, coating with a brush or roller, or ponding. No surface preparation is necessary. However, if desired, the concrete surface may be grooved so as to increase the surface area, and enhance the penetration of the rehabilitative solution ” (column 5, lines 46-55), and “Second, in structures where corrosion is in more advanced stages, i.e., showing cracks with rust stains, or where portions of the concrete have fallen off, exposing the rebars, more drastic measures are needed, and the solution may be applied to areas where the corroded 60 concrete has been removed in some fashion, after which a cementitious overlay, preferably a corrosion inhibiting cementitious overlay, is applied over the affected area” (column 5, lines 56-64) and “After application of the rehabilitative solution as described herein, a cementitious overlay is applied over the treated scarified area to replace the concrete that has been removed, covering the rebars” (column 6, lines 15-18), i.e. chipping a part of a concrete structure in which the steel material is embedded to expose the steel material to which salt adheres from the concrete structure, wherein directly applying the rust inhibitor, comprises directly applying the rust inhibitor to the steel material exposed from the concrete structure and a concrete surface exposed by chipping the concrete structure, and covering the steel material comprises filling a portion from chipping of the concrete with the concrete material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the composition of YAMAUCHI directly to the rebar/steel within a reinforced concrete structure such that it includes comprising: chipping a part of a concrete structure in which the steel material is embedded to expose the steel material to which salt adheres from the concrete structure, wherein directly applying the rust inhibitor, comprises directly applying the rust inhibitor to the steel material exposed from the concrete structure and a concrete surface exposed by chipping the concrete structure, and covering the steel material comprises filling a portion from chipping of the concrete with the concrete material because HOOPES teaches the such a method removes damaged concrete and protects the underlying steel from further corrosion and that ensuring the steel has the protection from the composition being applied to the structure.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi JP2016034886A hereinafter YAMAUCHI in view of Hoopes et al. US Patent Number 5,422,141 hereinafter HOOPES and Shimpo US PGPub 20040209978 hereinafter SHIMPO as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Iwamoto US PGPub 2012/0184649 hereinafter IWAMOTO.
As for claim 3, YAMAUCHI teaches is silent on thermosetting resins.
However, YAMAUCHI does teach “Furthermore, the resin can be made up of one or more of epoxy resins, acrylic resins, and urethane resins” (paragraph 12).
IWAMOTO teaches “Disclosed herein are metal-reinforced composites that can exhibit improved corrosion resistance” (abstract, lines 1-2).
IWAMOTO teaches “For example, the binding polymer may be a thermoplastic or thermosetting polymer that can be initially a liquid before curing the material into a solid. The binding polymer may be cured by various means, such as by cross-linking an existing polymer or polymerizing monomer units (or lower molecular weight polymers). As one example, the binding medium may be an epoxy, where the precursor materials for the epoxy (e.g., bisphenol-A and epichlorohydrin) can be mixed with other components. The precursor materials can be polymerized to form the binding medium and harden the composite” (paragraph 47, lines 2-12), i.e. wherein the resin used in a corrosion-inhibitor composition is a thermosetting resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the resin contained in the rust inhibitor is a thermosetting resin in the process of YAMAUCHI because IWAMOTO teaches that such materials cure from a liquid to a solid and further were known to be used in these processes. It is a prima facie case of obviousness to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
YAMAUCHI, HOOPES and IWAMOTO are silent on a time from when the rust inhibitor is applied to the steel material to when the steel material is covered with the concrete material varies depending on a temperature around the steel material.
Examiner points out that this is essentially a description of a property without any bounds on the range. Simply put, the time must only depend from the temperature, there is no requirement that this relationship achieve a goal or provide a desired result. As such it appears to be little more than a recitation of a correlation without any real patentable weight. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the making the time dependent on the temperature does not provide patentable distinction as the relationship appears to be incidental absent evidence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights