DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 is 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 recitations of the flanges in claim 6 is indefinite because the flanges are already present in parent claim 1. The recitations of “a,” rather than “the” or “said” make the antecedent basis unclear.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 12, 16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Braun (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0046504).
Braun discloses an expansion joint including joint beams (12a, 12b) with respective top (not labeled, just above lead line 18, Figure 1) and bottom (not labeled, just below lead line 52, Figure 1) flanges (Figure 1). There is a gap (at left side 18, Figure 1) between the beams (12a, 12b) with an upper expansion support (20) positioned proximate the first top surface and between the top and bottom flanges (Figure 1). There is a lower expansion support (16) positioned between the webs.
Because the purpose of Braun is to support vehicular traffic thereover, claim 2 is deemed to be met.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, sliding bearings (50) broadly meet the recitations of “hinge design arranged for pivoting about a vertically extending axis,” since movement of the components is enabled relative to the axes these bearings create.
Regarding claim 6, lower sliding bearing (52) is considered to be part of the lower expansion support.
Regarding claim 7, the outer supports (20a) appear to be secured as claimed.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the folded portions (unlabeled, Figure 1) between slats (20) appear to be a moisture barrier, as well as compliant flexure joints. Also note the 103 rejections, below.
Regarding claim 12, the sections are attachable together (Figures 1 and 2, for example).
Regarding claim 21, the joint is configured to receive a vehicle weight load as claimed.
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 2, 8, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0046504), as applied above.
Regarding claim 2 is deemed to be met, as discussed above. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Braun as claimed in order to function for its intended purpose.
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 18, there appears to be a compliant barrier between the slats (20) (unlabeled, Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured this as a moisture barrier in order to prevent ingress into the supporting parts of the joint.
Braun is silent regarding the material of this barrier discussed with respect to claims 8 and 9. Regarding claim 11, t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the material as claimed in order to make this portion of the structure, as these materials are well known to use in flexible and/or moisture barriers.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method in order to obtain the finished arrangement as shown.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13, 14, 19 and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. In the previous Office action, a reference was made to “hinge design” in the 112 rejection. While not indefinite, this has been treated more broadly than a recitation of a simply, “hinge.” This “design” recitation denotes that a device which enables a similar movement as would a hinge, is within the scope of the claim. The rejection is commensurate with this broader reading.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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