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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10 are pending
Claims 1-6 and 10 have been amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-14, filed 4/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Specification
The amendment filed 4/21/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Claim 1, lines 20-24 recite
“measuring a bending moment of the steel plate-reinforced joint in real time; comparing a measured bending moment with the ultimate bending moment; if the measured bending moment is equal to or larger than the ultimate bending moment, issuing an early warning to a related operator, and performing steel plate replacement or secondary reinforcement for the steel plate-reinforced joint.”
Although applicant admits there is no mention of this in the original specification and relies on the step being well understood to those skilled in the art (Remarks, page 5); MPEP 608.04(a) states matter not present in specification, claims, or drawings on the application filing date as new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the disclosure fails to comply with the written description of the limitations “measuring a bending moment of the steel plate-reinforced joint in real time; comparing a measured bending moment with the ultimate bending moment; if the measured bending moment is equal to or larger than the ultimate bending moment, issuing an early warning to a related operator, and performing steel plate replacement or secondary reinforcement for the steel plate-reinforced joint.”. For example, para [70] discloses the arrangement of the bending moment, however, nothing in the written description have basis for the limitations “measuring a bending moment of the steel plate-reinforced joint in real time; comparing a measured bending moment with the ultimate bending moment; if the measured bending moment is equal to or larger than the ultimate bending moment, issuing an early warning to a related operator, and performing steel plate replacement or secondary reinforcement for the steel plate-reinforced joint.”
Claims 2 – 10 are also rejected for depending on claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a measured bending moment" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether it is referring to the bending moment of the steel plate-reinforced joint or another measured bending moment. If it is referring to the bending moment of the steel plate-reinforced joint in line 21, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the measured bending moment of the steel plate-reinforced joint”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The updated search yielded 2 prior art that teach,
Reference 1, US 20150377836 A1 Lanza di Scalea; Francesco et al. teaches
“Methods and apparatus, including computer program products, are provided for nonlinear ultrasonic testing. In one aspect there is provided a method, which may include generating at least one ultrasonic wave to enable the at least one ultrasonic wave to propagate through a solid; detecting the at least one ultrasonic wave propagating through the solid; and determining a stress of the solid based on at least one of an imaginary component of a wavenumber, a wave amplitude, a wave strength, a statistical moment in a time domain, or a statistical moment in a frequency domain of the at least one ultrasonic wave.” See abstract.
Reference 2, US 20140316719 A1 Lanza di Scalea; Francesco et al. teaches
“Methods and apparatus, including computer program products, are provided for determining rail stress. The method may include generating at least one ultrasonic guided wave to enable the at least one ultrasonic guided wave to propagate through a rail; detecting at least one of a fundamental frequency component of the at least one ultrasonic guided wave, one or more harmonics of the at least one ultrasonic guided wave, and/or a mixing component of the at least one ultrasonic guided wave; and determining a stress of the rail based on at least a nonlinearity parameter determined from the detected at least one of the fundamental frequency component, the one or more harmonics, and the mixing component. Related apparatus, systems, methods, and articles are also described.” See abstract.
However, regarding claim 1, the updated prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 1,
“measuring a bending moment of the steel plate-reinforced joint in real time; comparing a measured bending moment with the ultimate bending moment; if the measured bending moment is equal to or larger than the ultimate bending moment, issuing an early warning to a related operator, and performing steel plate replacement or secondary reinforcement for the steel plate-reinforced joint.”
Claims 2-10 would also be allowed due to their dependence on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20150377836 A1 Lanza di Scalea; Francesco et al. are embodiments for Nonlinear Ultrasonic Testing For Non-Destructive Measurement Of Longitudinal Thermal Stresses In Solids
US 20140316719 A1 Lanza di Scalea; Francesco et al. are embodiments for stress detection in rail.
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 CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights