DETAILED ACTION
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 plurality of layers of claims 1, 3 and 4, and the elements of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The examiner requires a new figure(s) clearly showing the layers of at least claim 1. Note that corresponding brief and detailed descriptions of a new figure would be required.
The drawings are also objected to because the lines are not uniformly thick and well defined.
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[t]he present invention discloses” (line 1) is redundant to the purpose of the abstract and should be deleted. 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).
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 1-4 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 term “roughly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “roughly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The range of angles denoted by this term is not clearly defined. Conversely, which also vague, the term “nearly” in the following line is not considered to be indefinite.
The term “communicated” in claim 1 and 4 is awkward and indefinite.
The term “large-scale” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The size requirement for the reservoir is not clearly defined.
The recitations regarding the turning methods in claim 4 are vague, narrative and indefinite.
Claim 3 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 1.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyaglin (U.S. Patent 11,434,610) in view of Turner et al. (U.S. Patent 1,628,935).
Tyaglin discloses an urban traffic system having a plurality of layers, including a ground plane layer (4) without a roadway, and motor vehicle layers (1, 3). There are a plurality of buildings (9, 10) along multiple blocks; therefore, it appears that there would naturally be a plurality of parallel and perpendicular roads in order to access points in the city, as is the purpose of Tyaglin. Tyaglin does not teach the cross-layer as claimed. Turner teaches a city having multiple layers accessible to one another via up and down auxiliary roads (Figure 1, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cross-layer roads of Turner with the system of Tyaglin in order to facilitate vehicular movement in multiple directions, as taught by Turner and commensurate with the purpose of Tyaglin.
Regarding claim 2, Tyaglin includes the layers and parking lots. A water supply system is also disclosed (column 3, line 49, for example), but Tyaglin is silent regarding a reservoir. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a reservoir in order to supply water into the supply system. Regarding the non-motor vehicle roads, given the teaching of Tyaglin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed such roads anywhere as desired in order to meet a certain need. This is essentially a duplication of existing parts, since the upper layer is configured as claimed. This duplication cannot patentably distinguish the system in this case.
Tyaglin is configured in the manner of claim 3 (1, 3 in the figure).
Given the combination with Turner, claim 4 recitations would be met.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teaches roadway configurations.
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