DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3 October 2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but one of the references therein has not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not a single paragraph and presented in the format of a claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because it does not contain section headings (“Background of the Invention,” “Detailed Description,” etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-27 and 29 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The steps are not written in proper process type format. For example, “there is produced” (line 3) should be “producing”; step b should be written as a step of “transporting” and “lowering”; “there is laid” and “laid” (step c) should be “laying,” for example; step d should be written as a step of “removing”; and step e should be written as “moving.” As currently written, these steps are vague, indefinite and narrative.
It is also unclear whether the recitation of “pick up” in the final 2 lines of claim 1 (“in order to pick up there a further bottom layer…”) is or is not intended to be a positively claimed part of the overall process.
The placement of the recitation “from the conveyor device” in the middle of the removing step of part d makes the removal process vague and indefinite.
The recitation of “an angle of between 70° and 90°” in claim 1 denotes a range which does not include either 70° or 90°, since these are boundaries and not “between” the values. The specification and drawings only include an embodiment of 90°; therefore, the recitation of the range must be changed. The examiner suggests, for example, “an angle from 70° to 90°.”
These are examples only from claim 1 and not a comprehensive list of issues of indefiniteness. Thorough revision is required.
While no rejection in view of the prior art is made herein, allowability cannot be fully determined until the claims are written such that they particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach bridge deck constructions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Thomas Will can be reached at 571272-6998. 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.
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights