DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action on the merits addressing the response provided 22 October 2025.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending and examined.
Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement dated 22 October 2025, is entered.
Response to Arguments
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/arguments dated 22 October 2025. Applicant’s courtesies were appreciated.
Claim rejection – 35 USC 112 (response: page 4) -
Applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the rejection previously raised under this heading and the rejection is withdrawn. New rejections arise in light of the amendments made, which are addressed below.
Claim rejections – 35 USC 102/103 (response: beginning page 4) -
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. Applicant’s arguments are directed to the claims as amended, which the examiner addresses accordingly below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pylon form”, “polymer blend cradle extending through the passage of the pylon form”, and any language relating to the pylon form with respect to the bridge must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim rejections – 35 USC 112(a):
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The language “the polymer blend cradle extending through the passage of the pylon form” (claim 1, line 3) does not appear in the disclosure as originally filed. As a result, the examiner considers this language new matter.
Claim rejections – 35 USC 112(b):
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 and 4-10 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: the language directed to the form and relationship of the form with the pylon and cradle are indefinite, as it is unclear how the cradle extends through the passage of the pylon form. The disclosure does not clearly state whether the form is removed after curing of the concrete or whether the form remains with the pylon. Therefore, it is unclear what the result is by having the cradle extend through the passage of the pylon. As claimed, if the form is removed, the ends of the cradle would extend beyond the face of the pylon, and if the form remains, it is unclear if there is any connection or other connecting relationship between the cradle and form. As a result, this language is considered indefinite.
Those claims listed under this heading but not directly addressed are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim, either directly or indirectly.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei, et al. (CN 102912727 A), hereafter “Fei” and equivalent, as evidenced by, or in view of Figg, Jr. et al. (U.S. Publication 2003/0182739 A1), hereafter Figg Jr., and in view of Kitzmiller (U.S. Patent 4,953,280), hereafter “Kitzmiller” and Erdogan (U.S Publication 2020/0263355 A1), hereafter “Erdogan”.
Below is a substantial reproduction of applicant’s claims with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claim 1: Fei discloses A cable-stayed bridge comprising:
a pylon (Fei: paragraph [0005] notes a bridge tower, which is the pylon, is incorporated; as evidenced by Figg. Jr., Fig. 2: 24), the pylon including a passage formed therethrough (portion of pylon receiving saddle of Fei: 3; see Figg, Jr., Fig. 1, generally);
a polymer blend cradle (Fei, paragraph [0010]) notes the cradle is plastic, which is a polymer) extending through the passage of the pylon (Figg, Jr.,: Fig. 1: 1 as serving as evidence); a deck (as evidenced by Figg, Jr.,: Fig. 2: 25); and
a cable stay (threaded through saddle), the cable stay coupled to the deck at each end of the cable stay (as evidenced by Figg Jr., Fig. 2) and passing through the passage through the pylon the polymer blend cradle (as shown in Fei and as evidenced in Figg, Jr.);
Should there be disagreement between the evidence of Figg, Jr. with respect to the teaching in Fei, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pylon with configuration in Figg, Jr. with the system in Fei, as the purpose of Fei is to be used in the manner as taught in Figg, Jr..
Fei further does not teach the pylon is formed from concrete, however, Figg, Jr. shows wherein a pylon is formed from concrete (compare cross hatch of 24 to the common cross hatches of MPEP 608.02.) Further, Kitzmiller is used as a generic teaching of using forms for forming post-tensioned concrete members (see, Fig. 3, generally). Further see where apertures (76) are used for passing the tendons through (see Col. 9, lines 44-49). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the concrete poured and cast around the polymer blend cradle positioned within the passage of the pylon form as the purpose of the forms in Kitzmiller serve as a generic teaching for noting how post-tensioned concrete members are made, which would include members as provided in Fei and Figg, Jr.. The result of the obvious modification of the prior art would have the pylon form with the pylon form including a passage formed through (as rendered obvious by Kitzmiller: 76), and the cradle would extend through the pylon form and the cable would pass through the passage through the pylon through the cradle as an obvious configuration at the time of filing to ensure the system is formed in the correct manner by aiding in keeping the tendon in alignment as needed.
Last, Fei in view of Figg, Jr, and Kitzmiller do not provide wherein the polymer blend cradle comprises a blend of polyethylene, high-density polyethylene, polypropylene, high-stiffness grades of polypropylene, and nylon, thought Fei is clear the member is plastic. Erdogan teaches a similar protection system for a similar cable that includes polyethylene (paragraph [0075]) among other materials, which would be a blend as best understood, that can be fiber-filled with carbon fiber (paragraph [0121]). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed materials because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is not considered a patentable advance. See MPEP 2143 citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). One having ordinary skill in the art would use the claimed materials to provide the desired strength and durability of the saddle system and to provide the desired protection for the cables.
Claims 4 and 5: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The cable-stayed bridge of claim 1, except wherein the polymer blend cradle further comprises glass, fiber, mineral beads, or sand (claim 4) or wherein the polymer blend cradle further comprises carbon fiber (claim 5). Erdogan teaches a similar protection system for a similar cable that includes polyethylene (paragraph [0075]) among other materials, which would be a blend as best understood, that can be fiber-filled with carbon fiber (paragraph [0121]). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed materials because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is not considered a patentable advance. See MPEP 2143 citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). One having ordinary skill in the art would use the claimed materials to provide the desired strength and durability of the saddle system and to provide the desired protection for the cables.
Claim 6: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The cable-stayed bridge of claim 1, wherein the polymer blend cradle is arcuate in profile (Fei: Fig. 1).
Claim 7: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The cable-stayed bridge of claim 1, wherein the polymer blend cradle is circular in cross-section (Fei: Figs 4 and 5, the outside perimeter is circular in shape).
Claims 8 - 10: Fei discloses The cable-stayed bridge of claim 1, except wherein the cross-section of the polymer blend cradle includes a V-shaped section (claim 8, though as shown in Fig. 5, interior space containing 8 is proximate a “V” shape), wherein the cross-section of the polymer blend cradle includes a circular upper portion which is open at the bottom into a downwardly extending slot (claim 9, though as shown in Fig. 5 upper section appears to be circular, and the bottom section can be interpreted as a slot using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of applicant’s specification), or wherein the polymer blend cradle includes an upper circular path and a lower circular path, the upper and lower circular paths intersecting, the lower circular path having a diameter smaller than the diameter of the upper circular path (claim 10, though as shown in Fig. 5, interior space has an uppermost boundary that is circular and a lowermost boundary that is circular, and the lowermost boundary is smaller than the uppermost boundary). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice to have this limitation because a configuration of an invention is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP §2144.04. One having ordinary skill in the art would have one of the claimed shapes in order to ensure proper placement of the cables to ensure the proper load is applied and distributed in accordance with structural engineering.
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 WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-0430 Eastern.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571.272.6928. 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.
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993