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 Office Action is in response to the Amendment dated December 29, 2025. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 5 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.
Regarding claim 5: It is unclear how the first set of reinforcing bars can be movable relative to a second concrete body if they are at least partially embedded within said second concrete body. If an element is embedded in a second element, how can it be movable in relation to said second element? It becomes essentially part of the second element.
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) 1, 2, 3, and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (US Patent No 3,813,835) in view of Kwon (US Patent No 6,622,442).
Referring to claim 1: Rice teaches a self-supporting concrete floor of an elevated structure having multiple floors, comprising: a first concrete body having a weight (item 1 right side); a first set of reinforcing steel bars (items 17 and 19) at least partly embedded within the first concrete body; a second concrete body (item 1 left side); and a second set of reinforcing steel bars at least partly embedded within the second concrete body forming the self-supporting concrete floor of the elevated structure having multiple floors. Rice does not teach wherein the first concrete body is configured to support the weight of the second concrete body without requiring temporary back shoring during construction. However, Kwon teaches the first concrete body is configured to support the weight of the second concrete body (through connections of item 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Rice with the independent reinforcement elements in each first and second concrete body in order to allow one concrete section to support and connect to an adjacent second concrete section to make a unified floor.
They do not specifically teach the supporting is accomplished without requiring temporary backshoring during construction. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that Rice teaches the use of precast panels which would indicate there is no need for temporary backshoring during construction.
Referring to claim 2: Rice and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kwon teaches the first set of reinforcing steel bars are arranged to span substantially the entire length and/or width of the first concrete slab (figure 1A). Having the reinforcements span the length or width provides complete reinforcement over the entire span.
Referring to claim 3: Rice and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kwon teaches wherein at least two of the reinforcing steel bars are connected via a splicing device (items 40 and 42). Splicing the bars together adds reinforcement over the joint to allow one floor section to support the other.
Referring to claim 6: Rice and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Rice teaches a multifloor building (figure 1).
Referring to claims 7-9: Rice and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 6 as noted above. They do not specifically teach at least five floors stacked vertically, wherein the at least five floors are configured such that, during the construction of a top-most floor, four floors below the top-most floor does not include any shoring, backshoring, or reshoring. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that Rice and Kwon’s silence in regard to any type of shoring would indicate there is no shoring, backshoring, or reshoring, especially with Rice having precast flooring panels. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that the multiple floors of Rice could extend upwards as many floors as desired, not just the exemplary 3 floors.
Referring to claims 10-12: Rice and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 6 as noted above. They do not specifically teach at least five floors stacked vertically, wherein the at least five floors are configured such that, during the construction of a top-most floor, a bottom-most floor does not include any shoring, backshoring, or reshoring. . However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that that Rice and Kwon’s silence in regard to any type of shoring would indicate there is no shoring, backshoring, or reshoring, especially with Rice having precast flooring panels. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that the multiple floors of Rice could extend upwards as many floors as desired, not just the exemplary 3 floors.
Referring to claim 13: Rice teaches a method of constructing a multi-floor building, wherein the multi-floor building includes floors stacked vertically (figure 1), the method comprising: forming a first concrete floor slab (item 1 right side) at a top-most floor; and forming a second concrete floor slab (item 1 left side) at a top-most floor, wherein the first concrete floor slab is configured to support a weight of the second concrete floor slab. Rice does not specifically teach at least four floors, and the first and second concrete floor slabs includes reinforcing steel rebars, and the first slab supports the second slab without requiring any temporary backshoring during construction of the top-most floor. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that the multiple floors of Rice could extend upwards as many floors as desired, not just the exemplary 3 floors. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that Rice and Kwon’s silence in regard to any type of shoring would indicate there is no temporary backshoring during the construction of the top-most floor. Kwon teaches reinforcement in the slabs (item 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device using the method of Rice with the reinforcement taught by Kwon in order to provide a stronger floor structure.
Referring to claims 14-16: Rice and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the method does not include any shoring, backshoring, or reshoring four floors below the top-most floor during the forming step. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that Rice and Kwon’s silence in regard to any type of shoring would indicate there is no shoring, backshoring, or reshoring.
Referring to claims 17-19: Rice and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the method does not include any shoring, backshoring, or reshoring at a bottom-most floor during the forming step. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that Rice and Kwon’s silence in regard to any type of shoring would indicate there is no shoring, backshoring, or reshoring.
Referring to claim 20: Rice teaches a plurality of floors stacked vertically (figure 1), each of the plurality of floors including a self-supporting concrete floor, wherein the self-supporting concrete floor includes: a first concrete body (item 1 on the right) having a weight; a second concrete body (item 1 left side); wherein the first concrete body is configured to support the weight of the second concrete body (figure 1). Rice does not teach a first set of reinforcing steel bars at least partly embedded within the first concrete body; and a second set of reinforcing steel bars at least partly embedded within the second concrete body the support occurs without requiring temporary backshoring during construction. However, Kwon teaches reinforcement in the slabs (item 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device using the method of Rice with the reinforcement taught by Kwon in order to provide a stronger floor structure. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that Rice and Kwon’s silence in regard to any type of shoring would indicate there is no temporary backshoring during the construction.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice and Kwon in view of Taguchi (US Patent No 6,065,263).
Referring to claim 4: Rice and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not teach wherein the second set of reinforcing steel bars are arranged to not span substantially the entire length and/or width of the second concrete slab. However, Taguchi teaches wherein the second set of reinforcing steel bars are arranged to not span substantially the entire length and/or width of the second concrete slab (figure 1, item 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Rice and Kwon with the reinforcements taught by Taguchi in order to add reinforcement only in particular locations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Kwon teaches a bridge deck and therefore is non-analogous. However, the new combination of Rice and Kwon teach the multifloors and one of ordinary skill would equate similar constructions of adjacent floor or deck panels as being analogous art. Additionally, as noted above, Rice teaches precast panels which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as not needing temporary backshoring during construction of a multi story building.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skill in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specified disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). In the case, the Kwon reference teaches connecting adjacent panels together to form a more unitary structure.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant'’ disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, the Applicant has argued “Furthermore, there are numerous construction methods for building concrete bridges and numerous other methods for building concrete floors in multi-floor structure and buildings. Kwon is silent regarding all of these methods! Kwon clearly does not disclose any construction methodologies.”. This has been found unpersuasive because the Examiner has never claimed Kwon teaches any methodologies. Rather, now Rice and Kwon teach the product as claimed with no backshoring elements and Rice would specifically teach away from having temporary backshoring as it wouldn’t be necessary with precast floor panels. Additionally, the method of claim 13 has any discussion of backshoring present in functional language, not as a particular step or portion of a method.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635