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 .
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.
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 joint as claimed in claims 1 and 4; the stump, track posts, curved beams, plate, tie beam, guard rail, and slab deck as claimed in claim 3; and the concrete stopper having at least two rods as claimed in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Secondly, none of the figures include reference numerals to identify which element corresponds to what is disclosed in the specification.
Finally, Figures 2-4 are shown in color and/or with shading in color which do not show details well and do not reproduce well. Drawings should only be black lines or hatching (not shading) on a white background. On top of not having any reference numerals at all, it is not clear what applicant is showing in the figures.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
the specification does not include any reference numerals to tie the elements that are being disclosed to anything shown in the figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Remarks
It is noted that the specification and claims might have been the result of a translation from a foreign language. The claims have been examined as best understood by Examiner based on the specification and drawings presented.
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.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-3 each recite the limitation "the aerial vehicle driving road". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 1 recited “a driving road in air”. It is noted that either recitation sounds like a literal translation from a foreign language and could be better phrased.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “by using a concrete stopper in at least an inclined surface of the road surface”. This limitation is indefinite because it would appear that the concrete stopper is used in forming the road, which includes the road surface. How can the stopper be used “in” an inclined surface of the road surface if the road surface has not been formed yet? It is unclear whether this limitation is incorrectly worded/phrased, or whether there is a different road surface. Since it is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim with this limitation, this portion of the claim will not be treated further on the merits until correction is provided. Since claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5, claims 6 and 7 are also considered indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “comprises a rounding treatment…after performing the roughening treatment”. It is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim. The specification merely states the same without disclosing further details. It is unclear what a “rounding treatment” is, and Examiner cannot determine what treatment would be done after a roughening treatment. Since it is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim, this claim will not be further treated on the merits until correction is provided.
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115058930 (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘930”) in view of Chatfield, US 1,269,785.
Regarding claim 1, CN 115058930 teaches a construction method of a driving road in air (elevated road), the method comprising:
constructing a steel frame and a plate (“steel structure light high frame” and steel plate 9; last two paragraphs on page 4 of English translation; Figure 1) which are designed and manufactured in advance (they must be because there is no disclosure of designing and manufacturing onsite);
constructing a joint in each preset section on the steel frame and plate (there must be a joint to be joined together as shown in Figure 1); and
constructing a road surface by pouring concrete in the joint construction section (“paved with reinforced concrete”; first full paragraph on page 5 of the English translation) which would include concrete in the joint construction section since concrete is poured all over where the road is to be formed.
While CN ‘930 fails to disclose performing a roughening treatment on the constructed road surface of concrete, Chatfield teaches road construction and discloses that a top surface of concrete is treated to present a roughened finish to overcome slipping or skidding of vehicles and to assist the wheels of the vehicles in obtaining a hold or grip on the road surface (page 2 lines 27-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘930’s method to include the step of performing a roughening treatment on the constructed road surface of concrete in view of Chatfield’s disclosure as discussed above to prevent vehicles from slipping or skidding on the constructed road surface.
Regarding claim 2, while the resulting combination fails to disclose 3D modeling, the Examiner takes Official Notice that design programs for 3D modeling are old and well-known. 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 resulting combination to have the steel frame and plate be designed in advance through 3D modeling to ensure that the design can be realized as conceptualized. The resulting combination makes obvious manufacturing according to the design of the 3D model to ensure that the road can function as designed. The resulting combination makes obvious the limitation of “according to a building or structure” since the road must be connected to something that exists, such as an existing building or existing road.
Regarding claim 4, CN ‘930 further discloses another steel plate (18; Figure 1). While there is no disclosure of the thickness of that steel plate, it has been held that change in relative dimensions is a matter of obviousness. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). 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 steel plate to be at least 10 mm thick based on engineering design choice since the thickness of a plate could affect strength. While the resulting combination fails to disclose welding the steel plate, the Examiner takes Official Notice that welding is an old and well-known way to attach steel members together. Since the resulting combination includes a steel frame and steel plates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weld the plate as a way to attach the steel plate to the steel frame and plate. The resulting combination includes the constructing of a joint (the joining of the steel frame and plate and steel plate) in each preset section on the steel frame and plate being performed by welding a steel plate of at least 10 mm thickness to the steel frame and plate.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘930 in view of Chatfield as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Piccoli et al., US 6,709,195 B2.
Regarding claim 5, while the resulting combination fails to disclose using a concrete stopper, Piccoli teaches a tailpiece (“contacts the concrete during use” to form a certain profile; column 3 lines 65-66), which is a stopper, on a slip form paving machine. 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 resulting combination to include a stopper in view of Piccoli’s disclosure as discussed above to be able to form concrete having a specific desired profile. The resulting combination makes obvious that the constructing of the road surface by pouring concrete in the joint construction section is performed by using a concrete stopper.
Regarding claim 6, in view of Piccoli showing a stopper which has a shape of a plate having a closed upper part and an open lower part (18 as shown in Figure 3, the open lower part is where the concrete structure is formed), the resulting combination makes obvious that the concrete stopper of the resulting combination would have a shape of a plate having a closed upper part and an open lower part to be able to form the profile of the road as desired.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘930 in view of Chatfield as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phelan et al., US 2003/0097813 A1.
Regarding claim 8, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation claimed, Phelan discloses that it is known in the art (Background of the Invention) to form a texture on fresh concrete by screeding (flattening) and finished with a grooved texture and that the screed machine does all of these functions ([0013]). In view of what Phelan discloses is known in the art, 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 resulting combination wherein the roughening treatment on the constructed road surface of concrete is performed while the surface is flattened by using a beam (screed) having a serrated shape (which it must to form a grooved texture) since all of this in known in the art as evidenced by Phelan’s disclosure as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671