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.
Specification Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the maximum allowable limit of 150 words and comprises of more than one paragraph. 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 and 10 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.
Regarding Claim 1: The recitation in bullet point "a" of wording, “namely said bridge deck or said support structure” is unclear regarding the metes and bounds of such a limitation. As the claim recites “or”, it is not clear if the condition exists wherein multiple support structures are present, if each individual support structure must comprise a predetermined position, or if only one of the plurality must. Clarification is required as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The recitation in bullet point "b" of wording, “namely said bridge deck or said support structure” is unclear regarding the metes and bounds of such a limitation. As the claim recites “or”, it is not clear if the condition exists wherein multiple support structures are present, if each individual support structure must comprise a predetermined position, or if only one of the plurality must. Clarification is required as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes that claims 2 through 9 are also rejected as depending from an indefinite claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 10: The recitation of wording as quoted here, “namely said bridge deck or said support structure” is unclear regarding the metes and bounds of such a limitation.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jean Muller, U.S. (5,088,142), herein referred to as Muller in view of Werner Brand et al. (US 2008/0250576) herein referred to as Brand.
Regarding Claim 1: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchorage (Figs. 5 & 6) and a support structure (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary. Muller further teaches in Fig. 2 a second bridge state wherein at least one stay cable or at least one new stay cable replacing said at least one stay cable extends according to a second catenary, wherein said bridge deck side anchorage and said support structure side anchorage (see Figs. 5 & 6) each having an anchor unit for receiving and holding an allocated end of said at least one stay cable, and a fastening unit for fastening said anchor unit to said bridge deck (see Fig.1, (1) and Figs. 5 & 6) and said support structure (see Fig.1, 4) respectively, and said method comprising at least one of the steps of a) providing at a predetermined position of a first building part, namely said bridge deck (Figs. 5 & 6) or said support structure (see Fig.1, (4)).
Muller does not teach regarding a further anchorage for receiving and holding an end of said at least one stay cable previously received and held by a first anchorage (see Fig.1, (4)), namely said bridge deck side anchorage (Figs. 5 & 6) or said support structure side anchorage (Fig. 1,(4)), and or an end of said at least one new stay cable, and b) displacing said anchor unit of said first anchorage or said further anchorage relative to the allocated fastening unit of said first anchorage or said further anchorage to said predetermined position, said predetermined position being located closer to or further away from a respective other building part, namely said support structure or said bridge deck, than said first anchorage or said anchor unit of said first anchorage or said further anchorage respectively, and being determined such that a tangent to the second catenary of said at least one stay cable or said at least one new stay cable at an entrance to said anchor unit of a second anchorage, namely said support structure side anchorage or said bridge deck side anchorage, located at said respective other building part is substantially parallel to an axis of a recess pipe of said anchor unit of said second anchorage.
However, Brand et al. teaches (see Brand paragraph 0007) wherein during normal bridge maintenance and safety inspection regimens, bridge support elements can be repaired or replaced as deemed necessary by the inspectors.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that maintenance and preservation activities are usual and common place in order to maintain the service safety, structural integrity and operating life of a bridge. Bridge structures can have existing elements replaced with improved components that are lighter, stronger, cheaper and more resilient to corrosion during the life span of the bridge. The activity of continued upkeep is a common maintenance regimen which is important and involves nothing novel or above standard structure inspection protocols.
Regarding Claim 10: Muller teaches in (see Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1), a cable supported bridge comprising a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5-Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3-Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchorage (Figs. 5 & 6) and a support side structure anchorage (Fig. 1, 5-Mast), located at said support structure said bridge deck side anchorage and said support structure side anchorage each having an anchor unit for receiving and holding a respective free end of said stay cable (Fig. 2, 3-Guy), and a fastening unit (Fig. 2, 10-plate, 17,18-Screws) for fastening said anchor unit to said bridge deck and said support structure, respectively, said anchor unit and said fastening unit of a first anchorage of said bridge deck side anchorage and said support structure side anchorage allocated to a first building part, namely said bridge deck or said support structure.
Muller does not teach regarding the anchor unit or stay cable being adapted and configured to allow displacement of said anchor unit relative to said fastening unit to a predetermined position, said predetermined position being located closer to or further away from a respective other building part, namely said support structure or said bridge deck, than a previous position of said anchor unit of said first anchorage, and being predetermined such that a tangent to the catenary of said stay cable at an entrance to said anchor unit of a second anchorage of said bridge side anchorage and said support structure side anchorage located at said respective other building part is substantially parallel to a recess pipe of said anchor unit of said second anchorage.
However, Brand does teach (see paragraph 007) wherein, later replacement of tension elements during maintenance and repair or later augmentation of a tension member with additional tension elements to increase the load capacity of the structure.
However, it would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the maintenance and tension member replacement activities of Brand, to the bridge structure of Muller in order to maintain the service safety, structural integrity and operating life of a bridge. Bridge structures can have existing elements replaced with improved components that are lighter, stronger, cheaper and more resilient to corrosion during the life span of the bridge. The activity of continued upkeep is a common maintenance regimen which is important and involves nothing novel.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (5,088,142) in view of Brand (2008/0250576) as applied to Claim 10 above, and in further view of Rachid Annan (WO 2017/036514) herein referred to as Annan.
Regarding Claim 11:
Muller teaches (see Figs. 5, 7 & 8) a cable stay anchor attached to the side of the bridge deck (1) that has two flat bars (25) that are arranged relative to plate (20) that form a fork between the inner surfaces of flat bars (25), where end piece (27) bears against flat bars (25) as it is attached to the one end of cable (3, Guy). Muller does not teach wherein a slot is placed in the longitudinal axis on flat bars (25) to accommodate a sliding and pivoting bolt that can be affixed through a second end of cable (3, Guy) with an appropriate cable termination collar.
However, Annan teaches in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, pivotable connection (2) for a tension cable attached to support structures (1) at both ends of the cable (3), wherein flanges (8) of a clevis coupler (6) has a pin (9) inserted through the hole in the clevis coupler.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a pivoting mechanism to the cable anchor unit, to allow for changes in the cable catenary length due to cable stretching.
Claims 2-5, 8, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (5,088,142) in view of Brand (2008/0250576) as applied to Claim 11 above, and in further view of Xue-lei Pang, (CN 106012798), herein referred to as Pang.
Regarding Claim 2: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach a pivot connection using a clevis type anchor unit to connect the stay cable to the bridge structure.
However, Pang teaches (see Fig. 6,) a clevis anchor unit (not labeled) that is employed at the ends of steel rope/cable types (44, 421, 422 and 423) to connect to tower body (412), wherein the clevis anchor unit allows the steel rope/cable types (44, 421 and 422) to move in a pivotable action. It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include the pivoting clevis anchor unit of Pang, in order to allow the anchor connection of Muller to pivot to compensate for any stretching in the stay cable.
Regarding Claim 3: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach a pivot connection for the stay cable anchor connection to be displaced relative to a predetermined position.
However, Pang discloses (see Fig. 6,) a clevis anchor unit (not labeled) that is employed at the ends of steel rope/cable types (44, 421, 422 and 423) to connect to tower body (412), wherein the clevis anchor unit allows the steel rope/cable types (44, 421 and 422) to move in a displaceable/direction as predetermined by the load exerted on it.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include the pivoting anchor unit of Pang, in order to allow the anchor connection of Muller to pivot to move in a displaceable/direction as predetermined by the load exerted on it.
Regarding Claim 4: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach a pivot connection for the stay cable anchor connection to be displaceable relative to said allocated fastening unit.
However, Pang teaches (see Fig. 6,) a clevis anchor unit (not labeled) that is employed at the ends of steel rope/cable types (44, 421, 422 and 423) to connect to tower body (412), wherein the clevis anchor unit allows the steel rope/cable types (44, 421 and 422) to move in a displaceable/direction relative to said allocated fastening unit.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include the clevis anchor unit of Pang, in order to allow the anchor connection of Muller to pivot to be displaceable relative to said allocated fastening unit.
Regarding Claim 5: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach a pivot connection using a clevis type anchor unit to connect the stay cable to the bridge structure.
However, Pang teaches (see Fig. 6,) a clevis anchor unit (not labeled) that is employed at the ends of steel rope/cable types (44, 421, 422 and 423) to connect to tower body (412), wherein the clevis anchor unit allows the steel rope/cable types (44, 421 and 422) to move in a pivotable action. It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include the pivoting clevis anchor unit of Pang, in order to allow the anchor connection of Muller to pivot to compensate for any stretching in the stay cable.
Regarding Claim 8: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach wherein said fastening unit comprises two separate substantially U-shaped fastening sub-units.
However, Pang teaches (see Fig. 2) a cable (52) with both ends comprising of separate "U" shaped clevis anchor units, that attach at one end to the bridge (20) and the other end to lower limb (312) which is part of support arm (313).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include the separate "U" shaped clevis anchor units of Pang, that attach at one end to the bridge (20) and the other end to lower limb (312) which is part of support arm (313). This would allow the stay cable anchoring connection of Muller to pivot about the connection point to accommodate any movement in the stay cable.
Regarding Claim 12: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach a pivot connection for the stay cable anchor connection to be displaced relative to a predetermined position.
However, Pang discloses (see Fig. 6,) a clevis anchor unit (not labeled) that is employed at the ends of steel rope/cable types (44, 421, 422 and 423) to connect to tower body (412), wherein the clevis anchor unit allows the steel rope/cable types (44, 421 and 422) to move in a displaceable/direction as predetermined by the load exerted on it.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include the pivoting anchor unit of Pang, in order to allow the anchor connection of Muller to pivot to move in a displaceable/direction as predetermined by the load exerted on it.
Regarding Claim 13: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach a pivot connection for the stay cable anchor connection to be displaceable relative to said allocated fastening unit.
However, Pang teaches (see Fig. 6,) a clevis anchor unit (not labeled) that is employed at the ends of steel rope/cable types (44, 421, 422 and 423) to connect to tower body (412), wherein the clevis anchor unit allows the steel rope/cable types (44, 421 and 422) to move in a displaceable/direction relative to said allocated fastening unit.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include the clevis anchor unit of Pang, in order to allow the anchor connection of Muller to pivot to be displaceable relative to said allocated fastening unit.
Regarding Claim 14: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach a pivot connection using a clevis type anchor unit to connect the stay cable to the bridge structure.
However, Pang teaches (see Fig. 6,) a clevis anchor unit (not labeled) that is employed at the ends of steel rope/cable types (44, 421, 422 and 423) to connect to tower body (412), wherein the clevis anchor unit allows the steel rope/cable types (44, 421 and 422) to move in a pivotable action. It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include the pivoting clevis anchor unit of Pang, in order to allow the anchor connection of Muller to pivot to compensate for any stretching in the stay cable.
Regarding Claim 17: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach wherein said fastening unit comprises two separate substantially U-shaped fastening sub-units.
However, Pang teaches (see Fig. 2) a cable (52) with both ends comprising of separate "U" shaped clevis anchor units, that attach at one end to the bridge (20) and the other end to lower limb (312) which is part of support arm (313).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include the separate "U" shaped clevis anchor units of Pang, that attach at one end to the bridge (20) and the other end to lower limb (312) which is part of support arm (313). This would allow the stay cable anchoring connection of Muller to pivot about the connection point to accommodate any movement in the stay cable.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (5,088,142) in view of Pang, (CN 106012798), as applied to Claims 2-5, 8, 12-14, and 17 above, and in further view Yves Bounard, (U.S. 7,814,600), herein referred to as Bounard.
Regarding Claim 9: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach the stay cable or any single strand thereof to be coated with epoxy.
However, Bounard teaches in Column 5=>Lines 18-20 wherein the tensile elements (9) of the steel member (8, Cable Stay) can be coated with epoxy, zinc or paint in order to protect against corrosion.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include epoxy coating of the stay cable in order to provide corrosion protection and an increase in service life.
Regarding Claim 18: Muller teaches in Column 1 Lines=>6-10 and Fig. 1, a cable supported bridge, a bridge deck (1), a plurality of support structures (5, Mast) and a plurality of stay cables (3, Guy) extending between a bridge deck side anchoring connection (Figs. 5 & 6) to a support structure anchoring connection (Fig. 1=>5, Mast), wherein the cables/guys extend as a first catenary.
Muller does not teach the stay cable or any single strand thereof to be coated with epoxy.
However, Bounard teaches in Column 5=>Lines 18-20 wherein the tensile elements (9) of the steel member (8, Cable Stay) can be coated with epoxy, zinc or paint in order to protect against corrosion.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stay cable anchoring of Muller to include epoxy coating of the stay cable in order to provide corrosion protection and an increase in service life.
Claim Objections
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because [1]. 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).
Claims 6, 7, 15 and 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made or record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. KR 102236155 to Kim Seung Ik relates to a clevis connection for a tension cable end connected to a support structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT C. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3053. The examiner can normally be reached 7.30am to 5pm.
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.
/KALPIT C. PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights