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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-7 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 “a road with a stabilized road substrate … consisting of a ground with known compactness characteristics.” The claim does not specify how the compactness characteristics are determined, measured, or quantified, nor does it define what degree of compactness is required. The term “known” is subjective and does not provide an objective boundary for determining claim scope.
Claim 1 further recites “a system of vertical plates … with a thin section.” The term “thin” is a relative term that is not defined in the claim or specification and lacks an objective reference point, rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
Claim 1 further recites that a junction element “comprises parts with programmed breakage.” The claim does not identify which parts of the junction element are subject to breakage, how the breakage is “programmed,” or what structural features distinguish such parts from conventional components.
Claim 1 further recites that the programmed breakage is designed to occur when a traction force exerted by the connecting tie rod is “higher than a predetermined threshold.” The claim does not define how the threshold is determined, measured, or bounded, and therefore fails to provide clear claim boundaries.
Claim 1 further recites that the traction force is “lower than the force that would damage said connecting tie rod or to the force that would cause a displacement of said system of vertical plates.” The claim does not define what constitutes “damage” to the connecting tie rod or “displacement” of the vertical plates, nor does it define how such forces are measured or compared.
Additionally, the phrase “or to the force” is grammatically unclear and lacks a clear antecedent basis, rendering it ambiguous whether the claim refers to an alternative force condition, a causal relationship, or a comparative force. As a result, the scope of claim 1 cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty.
Claim 3 recites that a closing bar has a hole whose width is “adjustable and correlated, by means of a known function, to the traction force” required to cause breakage. The claim does not define how or when the width is adjustable, what constitutes the “known function,” or how the correlation between hole width and traction force is determined. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 5 recites method steps using relative and subjective terms such as “substantially buried entirely,” “very small part,” and “suitable maneuver,” without defining objective criteria for determining when the steps are performed or completed. The claim therefore fails to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 6, step a,ii recites “the previous cut” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 6 recites “cutting of the asphalt”, however, step a should properly define the cut for step a.ii. to refer to.
Claim 6 recites “referred to in step ii above”. This is unnecessary language, however, “the cut” requires proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites “in with the asphalt cutting phase, indicated in both claims at point “a” renders the claim indefinite. The claim is only dependent on claim 5, so it is unclear what is meant by “both claims”. Further, claims should only refer to previous claim limitations via antecedent basis, not by referencing limitations using language such as “indicated in claim…”.
Claim 7 recites removing “small parts” of the road surface and systems of vertical plates “which have enlargements,” without defining the size, shape, or extent of the removed parts or the enlargements. These relative terms lack objective boundaries and render the scope of the claim uncertain.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruni (WO2020/157074) in view of Reid (2010/0314595).
Regarding claim 1, Bruni teaches a road with a stabilized road substrate (10) consisting of a ground with known compactness characteristics on which a road surface is spread, and equipped with a safety road barrier comprising a plurality of uprights (11), fixed in the edge of the road as in the known art, and said road is characterized in that wherein said safety barrier comprises at least the elements listed below: a. a system of vertical plates (21), with a thin section, infixed on said road substrate (10) below said road surface (Figure 3); b. a junction element (40) arranged to be coupled to an upright (11) of a road safety barrier by wrapping them around its base (Figure 7); c. a connecting tie rod (13) lying, or slightly buried, on the road substrate (Figure 3), which is: i. coupled to said system of vertical plates (21, Figure 11) at one of its ends, and ii. releasably coupled to said junction element (40, Figure 7) at its other end. Reid teaches a guardrail safety system in which connector elements are designed to fail or released under impact loads, such as shear pins or release structures that fracture when subjected to forces exceeding a threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the junction element of Bruni to include a programmed breakage as taught by Reid so that it fails under excessive load to prevent damage to other components of the guardrail system. It is further noted that the functional language in claim 1 is not given weight where the structure of the claim is met. Bruni as modified by Reid fails to explicitly teach the breakage occurs when the said connecting tie rod exerts a traction force on said junction element higher than a predetermined threshold, and said connecting tie rod exerts a traction force on said junction element lower than the force that would damage said connecting tie rod or to the force that would cause a displacement of said system of vertical plates with respect to the road substrate in which it is infixed, however, determining the conditions in which structural element perform and selecting a failure threshold would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it is obvious to optimize known parameters as a matter of routine design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Bruni as modified by Reid teaches fails to explicitly teach the vertical plates has a cross-shaped section, however, it would have been obvious to make the plates of Bruin a cross-shaped section since it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the 112 rejections as outlined above are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Pernetti teaches a guardrail with a tie rod, vertical plates and a junction element attached to a post.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 12/23/2025