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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the bridge deck being flush with the ground, the columns being hollow bore structures or hollow honeycomb structures, the tunnel and underground structure and the room structure as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the language renders the claim indefinite the phrase
“a room structure may be formed”. This language is indefinite it is permissive (“may be formed”), it does not require that a room structure actually be present, and it fails to define what constitutes a “room structure.” The claim does not define enclosure requirements, dimensions, or boundaries.
Further the clause “a space under the bridge can be used for many purposes” is indefinite because it recites a capability or intended use without defining any structural limitation. The phrase “many purposes” is vague and provides no objective boundary. It is unclear what structural limitations, if any, distinguish a space that can be used for “many purposes” from any other space beneath a bridge.
Because claims 6 and 16 includes relative terms without objective boundaries (“long”), permissive language (“may be formed”), and purely functional/result-oriented language (“can be used for many purposes”), the scope of the claim is unclear. Accordingly, claim 6 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
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) 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (CN106149540).
Regarding claim 9, Chang teaches a viaduct structure, consisting of steel bridge columns (2) and a bridge deck bottom steel plate (3), wherein the steel bridge columns (2) and the bridge deck bottom steel plate (3) are made of steel, the steel bridge columns (2) are lower portions of a viaduct (1), the steel bridge columns (2) support the bridge deck bottom steel plate (3), a width of the bridge deck bottom steel plate (3) is that of a bridge deck, a length of the bridge deck bottom steel plate (3) is that of the viaduct, and the bridge deck bottom steel plate (3) is connected to the steel bridge columns (2), to form a ceiling type steel architecture that is firm and can bear the pressure from the bridge deck and numerous vehicles above. Chang fails to explicitly teach the bottom plate is connected to the columns via welding. Chang fails to teach the components are connected via welding, however the examiner takes official notice that welding steel components together is old and well known in the art and 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 viaduct components of Chang as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Further it is noted that the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 15, Chang teaches the structural features of the bridge but fails to explicitly teach the positioning of the deck with respect to the ground. However, this is an intended use and functional result language that does not positively recite additional structure is not given patentable weight. It is well established that statements of intended use or result do not impart patentable weight where the structure is otherwise the same. The recited visual effect and functional characterization of the passage do not structurally limit the claimed viaduct beyond its elevation relative to the surrounding terrain. Accordingly, the functional language does not further limit the structure in a patentable manner. To the extent that claim 5 is interpreted as requiring that the bridge deck be positioned at a lower elevation such that it is substantially flush with the surrounding ground, such positioning constitutes a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization. The elevation of a bridge deck relative to ground level is determined by site conditions, terrain, required clearance, aesthetic considerations, and intended traffic configuration. Adjusting the vertical position of the deck to align with surrounding grade in order to form a tunnel-like passage is a predictable variation within the skill of an ordinary bridge designer. Lowering a bridge deck to grade level to create an underpass or tunnel configuration would have been an obvious modification of the viaduct structure of claim 1, as it merely involves selecting a known alternative placement of the deck without changing the structural configuration of the columns, girders, or deck plates. Such modification yields no unexpected structural or functional result beyond the predictable consequence of altering elevation. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to lower a bridge deck to be flush with the ground and creating a tunnel structure underneath and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the viaduct of Chang flush with the ground as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (CN106149540) in view of Zhou (CN110644361).
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a viaduct structure (Figure 1) discloses an assembly type steel plate combined beam bridge based on a reinforced concrete combined
bridge deck slab (see description, paragraphs [0055]-[0058], and figures 1-6), comprising a plurality of supporting bridge piers (2) disposed from back to front in a longitudinal bridge direction, main steel beams (2-1) (equivalent to a steel plate beam), a bottom steel plate (1-1), and cast-in-place concrete structures (6). The bridge piers support the main steel beams (2) and the bridge deck slab, and the main steel beams (2) support the bridge deck slab above. The main steel beams (2) are connected, at an upper portion thereof, to the bottom steel plate by means of bolts. Two main steel beams (2) are provided on the left and on the right of the bridge. It can be seen from the figures that the main steel beams (2) are as long as the bridge; the width of the bottom steel plate is the width of the bridge deck; the length of the bottom steel plate is the length of the bridge; the bottom steel plate (1-1) contains a lower side of the bridge deck, and can prevent cement slurry from flowing downward when concrete is cast on the bottom steel plate; the bottom steel plate, the main steel beams (2) and the supporting bridge piers from a ceiling type steel structure, which is so secure as to be able to sustain pressure from the bridge deck and vehicles above; and the cast-in-place concrete structures (6) are securely bonded to the bottom steel plate. Chang fails to teach the bridge columns are made of steel and the steel bridge columns, the steel plate beam and the bridge deck bottom steel plate are connected by means of welding; and the viaduct structure comprises bridge deck side steel plates, which are welded above two sides of the bridge deck bottom steel plate; the length of the bridge deck side steel plates is the same as the viaduct; the bridge deck side steel plates at the left and right sides and the bridge deck bottom steel plate form a recessed structure; and cement concrete is disposed on the bridge deck bottom steel plate and in the recessed structure; the bridge deck side steel plates can block cement slurry from flowing outward when cement concrete is cast; and the cement concrete with gravels bonds to the bridge deck side steel plates. Zhou teaches a steel-concrete combined beam bridge deck slab (paragraph [0040], figures 1-3), comprising concrete (1) and a steel bottom plate. The steel bottom plate comprises cantilever bridge deck steel plates (7), steel beam top plates (8), a bridge deck support steel plate (9), steel beam central plates (10), and longitudinal bridge deck steel side plates (11). The steel side plates (11) are disposed above two sides of the bridge deck bottom steel plate; the length of the steel side plates (11) is the same as that of the bridge; the steel side plates (11) at the left and right sides and the bridge deck bottom steel plate form a recessed structure; cement concrete is disposed on the bridge deck bottom steel plate and in the recessed structure; the steel side plates (11) can block cement slurry from flowing outward when concrete is cast; and the concrete bonds to the steel side plates (11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the side steel plates of Zhou on the viaduct structure of Chang and further to make the plates of Chang steel as taught by Zhou as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Chang as modified by Zhou fails to teach the components are connected via welding, however the examiner takes official notice that welding steel components together is old and well known in the art and 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 viaduct components of Chang as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Further it is noted that the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 5, Chang as modified by Zhou teaches the structural features of the bridge but fails to explicitly teach the positioning of the deck with respect to the ground. However, this is an intended use and functional result language that does not positively recite additional structure is not given patentable weight. It is well established that statements of intended use or result do not impart patentable weight where the structure is otherwise the same. The recited visual effect and functional characterization of the passage do not structurally limit the claimed viaduct beyond its elevation relative to the surrounding terrain. Accordingly, the functional language does not further limit the structure in a patentable manner. To the extent that claim 5 is interpreted as requiring that the bridge deck be positioned at a lower elevation such that it is substantially flush with the surrounding ground, such positioning constitutes a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization. The elevation of a bridge deck relative to ground level is determined by site conditions, terrain, required clearance, aesthetic considerations, and intended traffic configuration. Adjusting the vertical position of the deck to align with surrounding grade in order to form a tunnel-like passage is a predictable variation within the skill of an ordinary bridge designer. Lowering a bridge deck to grade level to create an underpass or tunnel configuration would have been an obvious modification of the viaduct structure of claim 1, as it merely involves selecting a known alternative placement of the deck without changing the structural configuration of the columns, girders, or deck plates. Such modification yields no unexpected structural or functional result beyond the predictable consequence of altering elevation. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to lower a bridge deck to be flush with the ground and creating a tunnel structure underneath and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the viaduct of Chang flush with the ground as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 10, Chang teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach side plates. Zhou teaches a steel-concrete combined beam bridge deck slab (paragraph [0040], figures 1-3), comprising concrete (1) and a steel bottom plate. The steel bottom plate comprises bridge deck steel plates (7), steel beam top plates (8), a bridge deck support steel plate (9), steel beam central plates (10), and longitudinal bridge deck steel side plates (11), wherein the bridge deck side steel plates (11) are made of steel, the bridge deck side steel plates (11) are connected to upper portions of two sides of the bridge deck bottom steel plate , the bridge deck side steel plates (11) have a length the same as that of the viaduct, and a groove-like structure is formed by the bridge deck side steel plates (11) on a left side and a right side and the bridge deck bottom steel plate (9). . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the side steel plates of Zhou on the viaduct structure of Chang and further to make the plates of Chang steel as taught by Zhou as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 11, Chang as modified by Zhou teaches cement-gravel concrete (6), wherein the cement-gravel concrete (6) is poured in the groove-like structure formed by the bridge deck side steel plates (11) and the bridge deck bottom steel plate (3), and the bridge deck side steel plates (11) can prevent cement slurry from flowing out when the cement-gravel concrete (6) is poured, and the cement-gravel concrete (6), the bridge deck side steel plates (11) and the bridge deck bottom steel plate (3) are coagulated together and bonded firmly.
Claim(s) 2-4, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (CN106149540) in view of Zhou (CN110644361) and in further view of Li (CN 210712428U).
Regarding claim 2, Chang as modified by Zhou fails to teach an asphalt layer. Li teaches a steel bridge deck with surfacing layers including a concrete layer (3) and an asphalt concrete layer (1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Regarding claim 3, Chang as modified by Zhou and Luo teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the cement-gravel concrete (5) can be replaced with cement-lava concrete. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the concrete of Chang a cement lava concrete, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Chang as modified by Zhou and Luo teaches a layer of cement-lava concrete (4) is laid under the cement-gravel concrete (3) while the layer of asphalt concrete (1) is laid on the cement-gravel concrete (3).
Regarding claim 12, Chang as modified by Zhou fails to teach an asphalt layer. Li teaches a steel bridge deck with surfacing layers including a concrete layer (3) and an asphalt concrete layer (1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Regarding claim 13, Chang as modified by Zhou and Luo teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the cement-gravel concrete (5) can be replaced with cement-lava concrete. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the concrete of Chang a cement lava concrete, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 14, Chang as modified by Zhou and Luo teaches a layer of cement-lava concrete (4) is laid under the cement-gravel concrete (3) while the layer of asphalt concrete (1) is laid on the cement-gravel concrete (3).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (CN106149540) in view of Zhou (CN110644361) and in further view of Yamauchi (JP2015042836).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Chang as modified by Zhou teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the steel columns are steel plates. Yamauchi teaches a steel viaduct structure where the columns are long plates (4) to create a space under the bridge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the columns of Chang with the plates of Yamauch as it is obvious to substitute one known element for another known element to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 17-20 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 written to overcome the 112 rejection as outlined above.
Regarding claims 7,8 and 17-18, the prior art does not fairly suggest replacing the steel columns, plates, side plates and girders of Chang with hollow core structures.
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. Chen teaches a bridge viaduct with steel columns and deck plate.
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 February 20, 2026