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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “Disclosed are…” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shao (CN 109024221).
Regarding claim 1, Shao teaches composite box girder structure, comprising a box enclosure (2) and an inner core (8), wherein the inner core (8) comprises a thin-walled steel shell (7) and shear connectors (3), and the thin-walled steel shell (7) is attached and fixed to an interior of the box enclosure (2) by means of the shear connectors (3).
Regarding claim 8, Shao teaches the box enclosure (12) is internally provided with internal prestressing tendons (6) in the longitudinal bridge direction.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (CN 109024221) in view of Wan (CN111305040).
Regarding claim 2, Shao teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach diaphragms. Wan teaches a box beam having a box enclosure (3) and in inner core comprising diaphragms (4), the diaphragms (4) are fixed to an inner side of the thin-walled inner wall in a cross-sectional direction of the inner core, the plurality of diaphragms (4) are arranged at the inner side of the thin-walled shell in a longitudinal bridge direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include diaphragms on the box beam of Shao as taught by Wan as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Wan fails to teach the interval between diaphragms is 2-10m, however, 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 interval between the diaphragms 2-10 m, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Shao as modified by Wan teaches the plurality of diaphragms (23) are connected by several external prestressing tendons (6) but fails to teach the diaphragms are made of weathering resistant steel, the diaphragms have a thickness of 0.008 m-0.020 m. 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 steel of Shao a weather resistant steel, 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. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the diaphragms with a thickness of 0.008 m-0.020 m, since such a modification would have involved a mere chance in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (CN 109024221).
Regarding claim 4, Shao fails to teach the thin-walled steel shell is made of weathering resistant steel, and the thin-walled steel shell has a thickness of 0.008 m-0.020 m. 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 steel of Shao a weather resistant steel, 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. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the steel shell of Shao with a thickness of 0.008 m-0.020 m, since such a modification would have involved a mere chance in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Shao teaches the thin- walled steel shell (7) completely covers and is attached and fixed to an inner surface of the ultra- high performance concrete box enclosure (2). Shao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the shell is square shaped, however, however, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to have provided the shell of Shao in a suitable shape. Furthermore, it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (CN 109024221) in view of Shao (CN102352597) (“Shao II”).
Regarding claim 6, Shao teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the box is made of UHPC plates. Shao II teaches a composite box girder structure wherein the box enclosure (2) is composed of ultra-high performance concrete plates (23,22), and ultra-high performance concrete is reactive powder concrete or ultra-high-performance fiber reinforced concrete (paragraph [0005]) having a compressive strength of not smaller than 100 MPa (paragraph [0007]); and the box enclosure (2) comprises an ultra- high performance concrete (UHPC) bridge deck (21), a UHPC web plate (23), and a UHPC bottom plate (22), wherein the UHPC bridge deck (21) has a thickness of 0.15 m-0.30 m, the UHPC web plate (23) has a thickness of 0.10 m-0.60 m, and the UHPC bottom plate (22) has a thickness of 0.15 m-1.50 m (paragraph [0007]). 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 box girder of Shao out of UHPC plates as taught by Shao II as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 7, Shao as modified by Shao II teaches the UHPC bridge deck (21) is in a shape of a flat plate (Figure 8) or a one-way longitudinal rib plate.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (CN 109024221) in view of Li (2019/0309488).
Regarding claim 9, Shao teaches a construction method for the composite box girder structure according to claim 2, comprising the following steps:Si, welding thin-walled steel plates (7) to form a thin-walled steel shell (2), welding shear connectors (3) to an outer surface of the thin-walled steel shell (2) at certain intervals, and welding diaphragms (8) to an inner surface of the thin-walled steel shell (7) at certain intervals, so as to form an inner core (11); S2, erecting an external form of a box enclosure (12), and hanging the inner core (11) in the external form of the box enclosure (12) and fixing the inner core; S3, forming the box enclosure (12) through pouring, so as to form the composite box girder structure (1). Shao fails to teach conducting high temperature steam curing on the box girder. Li teaches a UHPC box girder construction method including conducting high-temperature steam curing on the composite box girder structure (paragraph [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use high temperature steam curing in the construction method of Shao as taught by Li as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Shao fails to explicitly teach transporting, hoisting and then finishing the deck of the bridge, however, the examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to transport box girders, erect them with hoisting equipment and then construct the deck on the box girder and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the known construction steps in the invention of Shao as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 10, Shao teaches the box enclosure is formed through pouring, the inner core (7) is used as an internal form (page 2, paragraph 6).
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 beam with a steel shell and core having shear connectors.
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 January 10, 2026