DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9 May 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but many of the documents referred to therein have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the brief description of Figure 36 is inconsistent with the detailed description and the recitations of claim 13. The brief description states that the view is from the “top”; however, recess 98 is otherwise denoted as the lower surface.
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 13-16 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 11 recites the protective material as intended use; i.e., not positively claimed. Claims 13-16 include specific recitations directed to this layer. The layer must first be a positively recited component prior to further recitations being directed thereto. In its present form, it is unclear whether the layer is or is not intended to be part of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maus et al. ((U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0087760).
Maus discloses a strip system including a plurality of segments (62) assembled together to form a strip assembly (Figure 21, for example). The segments are assembled together along a cord (76) and each of the segments have a lower surface. The lower surface has recesses (not shown, see paragraph 59, for example) and a protective material (urethane, for example) may be applied. Because not only could a recess naturally receive a urethane material, but also because urethane is specifically disclosed to “flow” into spaces, claim recitations are met.
Regarding claim 13, Maus discloses urethane.
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.
Claims 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al. ((U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0087760), as applied above.
Regarding the configurations of the recess, the examiner takes Official notice that these are known in order to obtain a bottom surface suitable for a particular application. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Maus in the manner of any of claims 12 and 16-20.
Regarding the urethane, Maus makes clear that the urethane coverage is left to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the material in any manner deemed best suited to a particular application.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al., as applied above, and further in view of Reese et al. (U.S. Patent 5,098,218).
Maus discloses the strip system, but does not teach the magnetic surfaces. Reese exemplifies that it is known to position magnetic surfaces on strip end surfaces (column 3, lines 60-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included magnetic material with Maus in order to obtain connection to an adjacent member and enable magnetic pickup, as taught by Reese.
Regarding claim 2, because magnetic connections require magnets on adjacent members, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Maus as claimed, given inclusion of magnets.
Regarding claims 3-6, 8 and 9, Maus includes holes (46). Additionally, the examiner takes Official notice that circular magnets (sometimes referred to as button magnets) are well known. Given the inclusion of magnets on the end surfaces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned holes as claimed in order to accommodate such magnets.
Regarding claim 7, Reese is a ferromagnetic material.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use adhesive in order to secure components in place. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used adhesive in order to ensure the system remain configured intact.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach highway strip systems.
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
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671