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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2025 regarding the newly amended claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As seen in the new rejection the duplication of the prior art McKee would read on the amended claims as explained below, but in an effort to clarify the office’s position, prior art Elenildo Da Silva et al. has provided as an example of a cross flow or antiparallel heat exchanger or drying device (13, Figure 5) are arranged adjacent to each other to mimic the claimed air flow disclosed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKee (US 2,505,622).
Regarding claim 1, McKee (M) discloses a platform conditioning system, the system comprising: a plurality of ribs (11,12, Figures 1-4) extending along a portion of a platform (10); and at least one fluid warming device (14,24) positioned at one end of the plurality of ribs transferring heat to a first surface of the platform, the at least one fluid warming device including: a flow inducing device (16) to promote fluid movement to a rib inlet; and a heating device (15) coupled to the flow inducing device to heat the fluid conveyed to the rib inlet (via 13, C1, L37-54), and wherein the at least one fluid warming device is coupled to a subset number of ribs less than a total number of the plurality of ribs. As, a clarification when two platforms (10) are mounted side by side to create a larger platform to accommodate larger areas this will occur because one warming device would heat only one half of the total ribs, i.e., a subset.
Regarding claim 2, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one fluid warming device includes a first fluid warming device (14) and a second fluid warming device (15); the first fluid warming device positioned at an opposing end of the plurality of ribs (11,12, Figure 2) from the second fluid warming device to form a closed-loop system (C2, L4-18, Figure 4), the first and second fluid warming devices including: a flow inducing device (16) to promote fluid movement from a rib outlet of one of a pair of ribs of the plurality of ribs to a rib inlet of another of the pair of ribs; and a heating device (15) coupled to the flow inducing device to heat the fluid conveyed from the rib outlet to the rib inlet.
Regarding claim 3, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the pair of ribs of the plurality of ribs (11,12, Figures 1 and 3) are separated in a transverse direction of the plurality of ribs by a distance corresponding to a wheel-to-wheel dimension of a vehicle travelling atop the platform. As a clarification, this is satisfied depending on where exactly the plane, i.e., vehicle is located, or which inlets your choose, they do not have to be adjacent to each other, based on the claim language. Nonetheless, this is also a design choice issue because one of ordinary skill would want to heat the area in contact with the vehicle’s wheels to maximize the de-icing effects and thus providing greater safety to the driver.
Regarding claim 4, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 3, wherein two pairs of ribs are separated in a transverse direction of the plurality of ribs (11,12, Figures 1 & 3) by a distance corresponding to a wheel-to-wheel dimension of a vehicle travelling atop the platform and heated in a closed-loops; wherein a direction of flow of the first pair of ribs is configured to flow opposite a direction of flow of the second pair of ribs (See arrows in Figure 2). As a clarification, this is satisfied depending on where exactly the plane, i.e., vehicle is located, or which inlets your choose, they do not have to be adjacent to each other, based on the claim language. Nonetheless, this is also a design choice issue because one of ordinary skill would want to heat the area in contact with the vehicle’s wheels to maximize the de-icing effects and thus providing greater safety to the driver.
Regarding claim 5, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one fluid warming device includes a first fluid warming device (14) and a second fluid warming device (24); the first fluid warming device positioned at one end of the plurality of ribs and including: a flow inducing device (16) to promote fluid movement to an initial rib inlet (13); and a heating device (16) coupled to the flow inducing device to heat the fluid conveyed to the initial rib inlet; the second fluid warming device (24, Figure 4) positioned along the plurality of ribs and including: a flow inducing device (16) to promote fluid movement from a middle rib outlet (via 17,27) and to a middle rib inlet (via 10,11); and a heating device coupled (16) to the flow inducing device to heat the fluid conveyed to the middle rib inlet (C1, L37- C2, L4).
Regarding claim 6, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the rib inlet comprises at least two rib inlets (11,12, Figure 3) and the respective ribs are separated in a transverse direction of the plurality of ribs by a distance corresponding to a wheel-to-wheel dimension of a vehicle travelling atop the platform. As a clarification, this is satisfied depending on where exactly the plane, i.e., vehicle is located, or which inlets your choose, they do not have to be adjacent to each other, based on the claim language. Nonetheless, this is also a design choice issue because one of ordinary skill would want to heat the area in contact with the vehicle’s wheels to maximize the de-icing effects and thus providing greater safety to the driver.
Regarding claim 7, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of ribs are positioned successively across the platform in a transverse direction (Figure 1, see planes leaving the hanger).
Regarding claim 15, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: a plurality of decks wherein each deck comprises a plurality of ribs (11,12, Figures 1 and 3) extending along a portion of a platform (10); and wherein at least one deck comprises the at least one fluid warming device (14) to form a closed-loop system transferring heat to a first surface of the platform, the fluid warming device including: a flow inducing device (16) to promote fluid movement from a rib outlet of one of a pair of ribs of the plurality of ribs of the deck to a rib inlet of another of the pair of ribs; and a heating device (15) coupled to the flow inducing device to heat the fluid conveyed from the rib outlet to the rib inlet.
Regarding claim 17, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid inducing device comprises a fan (16).
Regarding claim 18, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid comprises air (C1, L40-51).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKee (US 2,505,622) and Wilson (US 7,861,346).
Regarding claim 8, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 1, but not that the plurality of ribs are configured to have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape.
However, Wilson (W) discloses a corrugated bridge structure configured to utilize ribs (78, Figure 7) wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (C2, L60-C3, L 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to choose a variety of shapes and sizes of the ribs depending on the application and load requirements.
Regarding claim 9, McKee (M), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, comprising insulation (74, Figure 4a, i.e., asphalt) on another surface of the platform.
Regarding claim 10, McKee (M), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, comprising insulation within an insulation cavity (28, Figure 4a, i.e., concrete) on a second surface of the platform.
Regarding claim 11, McKee (M), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the platform comprises a plurality of decks interconnected in a longitudinal direction to provide an elongated rib for receiving the heated fluid (C3, L49-65).
Regarding claim 14, McKee (M), as modified, discloses the system of claim 11, wherein an end of each deck of the plurality of decks is configured to couple to a transom (End supports Figure 5b).
Regarding claim 19, McKee (M), as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the platform comprises a bridge platform (20, Figure 1).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKee (US 2,505,622), Wilson (US 7,861,346), and Sorkin (US 6,764,105).
Regarding claim 12, McKee (M), as modified, discloses the system of claim 11, but not that the platform comprises gaskets positioned between the plurality of decks to provide a substantially fluid-tight seal between the decks when providing the elongated rib for receiving the heated fluid.
However, Sorkin (S) discloses a coupling member (Abstract) wherein the platform comprises gaskets (132,168, Figure 7) positioned between the plurality of decks to provide a substantially fluid-tight seal between the decks when providing the elongated rib for receiving the heated fluid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to utilize a gasket material to connect segments of bridges or pipes to prevent leakages to allow the system to function properly.
Regarding claim 13, McKee (M), as modified, discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the gaskets comprise a rigid frame and a compressible material; and a ratio of a width of the rigid frame to a width of the compressible material is based in part on at least one of the size of a gap between the decks, expected thermal expansion of the decks, and expected debris on the platform (132,168, Figure 7, C8, L21-39).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKee (US 2,505,622) and Takano et al. (US 2013/0058716).
Regarding claim 16, McKee (M) discloses the system of claim 1, but not that he heating device comprises at least one of an electric heater, a heat exchanger, a geothermal exchanger, and a solar heat exchanger.
However, Takano (T) discloses a snow melting system for roads (Abstract) wherein the heating device comprises at least one of an electric heater, a heat exchanger, a geothermal exchanger ([0062]), and a solar heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to utilize any available heat source to prevent frozen roads based on the availability thereof in order to make the system more efficient and economical.
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 JOHN E BARGERO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/JOHN E BARGERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762