DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
All claims have been examined.
Specification
The title of the invention is too long. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-21 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 “exhibiting,” “exhibits” and “exhibit” (claims 1-3, 10 and 16) are indefinite because it is unclear if the recitations which follow are or are not positively recited. Looking to the recitation in claim 1, the support “exhibiting” a structure is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitations which follow are positively recited. Similarly in claims 3 and 16, it is unclear how a part could “exhibit” a “hinge design,” rather than, for example, “the support acts as a hinge.”
Claims 4-9, 11-15 and 17-21 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mu et al. (CN 111851282 A).
Mu discloses a modular expansion joint including first (1) and second (2) beams spaced from one another to define a lateral gap there between (Figures 1 and 2, for example). There are respective top surfaces (Figure 2, for example) with an upper expansion support (adjacent 41, Figure 2, for example) positioned in the gap adjacent the top surfaces (Figure 2, for example). The structure is compressible as claimed (by moving rods 4 about the hinge shafts).
Regarding claim 3, Mu is hinged vertically (at 6). Claim 2 is deemed to be met since the structure is solid and the hinges accommodate lateral movement only.
Regarding claims 4-7, the three flanges shown in Figure 2 meet claim recitations.
Regarding claim 8, there is a moisture seal (7) positioned below the upper expansion support (Figure 15).
Regarding claim 9, there are a plurality of compliant flexure joints (6).
Regarding claim 10, Mu exhibits a chevron structure (Figure 1, for example).
Regarding claim 12, there are a plurality of sections (4) attachable together.
Regarding claim 13, there is a central strip (3) defining central hinge points (Figure 1, for example).
Regarding claim 14, at least the lugs (41) are within the scope of outer strips.
Regarding claim 15, Mu could be installed as claimed, thereby meeting claim recitations.
Regarding claims 16-19, as discussed above, Mu teaches the claimed arrangement.
Further regarding claim 18, while Mu is not located between expansion supports, it is capable of being positioned in the manner. This is enough to meet the “configured to be” recitation.
Regarding claim 21, Mu is designed to be positioned in a roadway; therefore, it is configured to receive a vehicular weight load. Because such a load would naturally be conveyed to supports, and because there is no part designed for vertical deflection, claim limitations are met.
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 11, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (CN 111851282 A), as applied above.
Regarding claim 11, Mu does address absorbing wheel noise, but is silent regarding the claimed materials on the upper expansion support. The examiner takes Official notice that that claimed materials are well known to use in expansion joints. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Mu as claimed in order to achieve a desired result, such as sound suppression, corrosion resistance or impact resistance, for example, as known in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Mu is silent regarding bent plates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included bent plates in order to suit a particular application or appearance as desired. Note there are no recitations regarding the degree to which the plates are “bent”; therefore, this term has minimal patentable weight.
Regarding claim 22, given the design of Mu discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use the method steps in order to install the joint.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach expansion joints.
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, 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights