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.
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 1-12 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.
* It is vague and indefinite as to what “a composite top chord” comprises.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee US 5,305,571 in view of Tadros et al. US 5,671,573. Yee discloses a method for making a prestressed, open web steel girder composite bridge comprising the steps of:
Forming a composite, open web steel girder (10) comprising a flat top chord (12)
connected at its ends to a curved bottom chord (14) and supported therebetween
by vertical and diagonal cross beams (18, 20).
Aligning cables (44) and anchorages within the bottom chord.
Tensioning said cables (44); Forming end cross girders with at least two main girders,
and supporting said girders over bearings (28, 62).
Post tensioning the composite steel open web girders. Col. 3, lns. 1-55; Figs. 1, 2, 5.
Although Yee does not disclose the length of the girders, Yee does disclose the steel
truss (10) is reinforced and accommodates post-tensioned steel tendons having an ultimate strength of 270,000 psi for use in long span and multi-span bridging applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the girder could support bridges over 10m long. Yee further discloses the precast, long span trusses can be used to support concrete slabs (64) metal decking and the like. Col. 4, lns. 50-60. But does not disclose the use of shear stirrups to connect the girders to the bridge deck. However, Tadros et al. teach an open web, prestressed concrete joist (10) for use in supporting a bridge deck (12) see Figs, 1-2, the joist comprising shear connectors (60) configured to bonding to a cast-in-place bridge deck (62). Figs.17-18. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of making a bridge of Yee with the step of providing a plurality of shear stirrups to the girder and casting a concrete bridge deck thereon, as taught by Tadros et al. in order to accommodate vehicular traffic.
With respect to claims 2-12 Yee discloses prestressing the cables (44) increases the strength of the girder and prevents sagging in long/multi-span bridges. Tadros et al. teach shear stirrups increase strength and stiffness while making bridge deck composite with the girders. Col. 6, lns. 45-65. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of making a bridge of Yee with the step of providing a plurality of shear stirrups to the girder and casting a concrete bridge deck thereon, as taught by Tadros et al. in order to accommodate vehicular traffic.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 2/2/2026