DETAILED ACTION This is a first action on the merits addressing the disclosure provided 20 September 2023. The following is the status of the claims provided: Claims 1-16 are pending. 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. Drawings The drawings dated 20 September 2023, are entered. Objections – claimed subject matter not shown: The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature that the “ plurality of taper members are adapted to nest against one another ” (claim 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Upon review of the disclosure, including the figures and written description, paragraphs [0041] – [0043] discuss “nest”; however, “nest” implies that one portion is received within another, and the disclosure does clearly show this feature. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Objection – minor informalities: The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4 is not a clear black-and-white drawing as required. See MPEP 608.02 citing 37 CFR 1.84. The lines are blurry and not clear. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without indicating how the members nest against each other as claimed, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew , 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Upon review of the disclosure, the examiner was unable to determine any features or limitations that permit ”nesting against”, as nesting typically means some degree of one member being received by another. As a result, the examiner takes the position that the claim lacks enabling. 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) 1-10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Whiteley (U.S Publication 2018/0155895 A1) . Below is a reproduction of applicant’s claims with the examiner’s comments in bold italics . Claim 1: Whiteley discloses A road plate taper system (22; see paragraph [0002] which notes it can be for a road surface) , comprising: at least one taper member (Fig. 2: 22) having a body portion (as shown) and a receiving portion (portion receiving 12) , wherein said receiving portion is adapted to receive an edge of a road plate (12 as shown) . Claim 2: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 1, wherein said at least one taper member is free of any aperture that is adapted to fasten said at least one taper member to a surface (as shown, see Figs. 1 and 2)) . Claim 3: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 1, wherein said receiving portion is adapted to permit an edge of said road plate to nest within said receiving portion (as shown in Fig. 2, the limitation is met) . Claim 4: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 1, wherein said body portion and said receiving portion are made from a single, continuous material (as shown; see paragraph [0043]) . Claim 5: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 1, wherein said plate taper system comprises a plurality of said at least one taper member (paragraph [0043] notes that more than one member may be interconnected) . Claim 6: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 5, wherein said plurality of taper members are adapted to nest against one another (as best understood, paragraph [0043] notes four members may be integrally interconnected, which would meet the claimed limitation) . Claim 7: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 5, wherein said plurality of taper members are adapted to be coupled to a road plate (12; see Fig. 2 which shows coupling) to form a frame around a periphery of said road plate (as exemplified in Fig. 1) . Claim 8: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 5, wherein said plurality of taper members include at least one side taper member and at least one end taper member (as disclosed in paragraph [0043], four ramp members may be interconnected at the corners, which means they would extend along the sides of the panel, so one taper member would be along a side, or longer side, and one would be on along an end, which would be a shorter side) . Claim 9: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 8, wherein the receiving portion of said at least one side taper member is adapted to receive a side of a road plate (as exemplified in Fig. 2) . Claim 10: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 8, wherein the receiving portion of said at least one end taper member is adapted to receive at least one corner of a road plate (as disclosed in paragraph [0043] the tapered members join at a corner which meets the claimed limitation) . Claim 12: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 1, wherein said receiving portion comprises a bottom lip and a top lip (see Annotated Portion of Fig. 2 from Whiteley, below) . 2057400 508635 Receiving portion 0 20000 Receiving portion 2809876 518160 0 1095375 422910 End 0 20000 End 1543049 613410 0 0 4229100 184785 Void 0 20000 Void 3495674 384810 0 0 3981450 1165859 0 0 4371975 1468755 Bottom Lip 0 20000 Bottom Lip 2314575 -66675 Top Lip 0 20000 Top Lip 2933700 -38100 Annotated Portion of Fig. 2 from Whiteley Claim 13: Whitley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 12, wherein said receiving portion comprises a void between said bottom lip and said top lip (see Annotated Portion of Fig. 2 from Whiteley, above) . Claim 14: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 12, wherein said bottom lip is longer than said top lip (as shown generally in Fig. 2) . Claim 15: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 12, wherein said bottom lip and said top lip form an end of said at least one taper member (as best understood, the form a back end of the taper member, and they extend to the longitudinal ends of the member) . Claim 16: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 1, wherein said body portion forms an end of said taper member opposite said receiving portion (as shown) , wherein the height of said receiving portion is greater than said height of said end (see above) . 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 nonobviousness. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whiteley . Below is a substantial reproduction of the claims presented with the examiner’s comments in bold italics . Claim 11: Whiteley discloses The road plate taper system of claim 8, except wherein said at least one end taper member is u-shaped. Paragraph [0043] however, makes it clear that the taper portion can be integral or can be individual. As a result, i t would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice to have this limitation because a configuration of an invention is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP §2144.04. One having ordinary skill in the art would make the tapered members a desired shape based on the overall desired shape of the panel being surrounded and the overall desired number of pieces to assemble. To have the claimed shape would not depart from the scope of operability of the prior art or the claimed invention. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For similar art, see the following: Whiteley (GB 2571079 A) Luxton et al. (U.S. Patent 7,900,294 B2) Heinz (U.S> Publication 2009/0189130 A1) Benedettini (U.S. Publication 2003/0221388 A1) – Fig. 3A Johnson (U.S. Patent 6,505,444 B1 Armfield et al. (U.S. Publication 2002/0184718 A1) – e.g., Fig. 3 Callas (U.S. D439,462 S) Balzer et al. (U.S. Patent 4,654,245) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9055 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 0800-0430 Eastern . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Eileen Lillis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571.272.6928 . 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. /WILLIAM V GILBERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993