DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 29, 2026 (see Remarks of 05/29/2026) is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 29, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species V (to figure 8) in the reply filed on May 29, 2026 (see Remarks of 05/29/2026) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a species restriction based upon figures and directed to generic claims is improper. This is not found persuasive because not all the claims are generic. For example, at least claim 17 is directed to figure 14, and at least claim 18 is directed to figure 15. This requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1,142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Species I-IV and VI-XIII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 29, 2026.
Drawings
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 following claimed limitations (see below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The claimed limitations not shown are:
“wherein at least a portion of the load positioning system is secured to the gantry by hydraulic mechanisms” (claim 13, as hydraulic mechanisms are not shown)
No new matter should be entered.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 9-11 and 14, independent claim 1 is directed to the structure of a load positioning system. These claims appear directed to 1) the physical structure that a partially assembled bridge extends over (see claims 9-11), and 2) the type of structure the gantry of the load positioning system extends over (see claim 14). The limitations of these claims do not further limit the structure of the load positioning system of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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 1-8, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US Patent 10,947,680 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. (from here on just referred to as Liu) discloses a lifter assembly and system for removing highway or railway bridges (see figures 1-10, especially figures 7-10) comprising:
A load positioning system (see below), comprising:
a gantry (20 and 46, see figures 1-10, especially figures 9-10) extending over a structure (62, see figures 9-10) of a partially-assembled bridge (see figures 9-10), the partially-assembled bridge at least partially extending over a physical feature (considered the ground under the bridge support 62);
a load descent mechanism (64 and 66, see figures 1-10, especially figures 9-10) arranged and disposed to lower a load (30, see figures 1-10, especially figures 9-10, and see column 4 lines 28-32); and
a load location mechanism (38 and/or 40, see figure 3) arranged and disposed to move the load from being laterally-proximal to a first location of the structure and laterally-distal to a second
location of the structure to being laterally-distal from the first location of the structure
and laterally-proximal to the second location of the structure (as either sets of wheels 38 and 40 moves assists in moving the load from first location to a second location and vice-versa, see column 3 lines 59-63);
wherein the load descent mechanism and the load location mechanism are physically supported by the gantry (see figures 1-10, especially figures 9-10), and
the load having a mass of at least 10 kg (Column 5 lines 38-53 of Liu discloses the gantry transports and lifts a bridge span 30. See figures 7-10. The bridge span 30 has a mass of at least 10 kg).
Regarding claim 2, Liu further shows wherein the load descent mechanism is further arranged and disposed to raise the load (see column 4 lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 3, Liu further shows an additional load descent mechanism (see additional structures of 64 and 66 in figures 9-10) supported by the gantry.
Regarding claim 4, Liu further shows where the load positioning system is supporting the load (see figures 1-10, especially figures 9-10), and the load is or includes components (bridge span 30, see figures 1-10, especially figures 9-10) for the partially-assembled bridge.
Regarding claim 5, Liu further shows where the load positioning system is supporting the load (see figures 7-10), and the load is or includes tools for the process of constructing the bridge (as the device of Liu is capable of supporting tools for the process of constructing the bridge).
Regarding claim 6, Liu further shows where the load positioning system is supporting the load (see figures 7-10), and the load is or includes systems for analyzing the partially-assembled bridge (as the device of Liu is capable of supporting systems for analyzing the partially-assembled bridge).
Regarding claim 7, Liu further shows wherein the gantry is on the structure (see figures 6-10).
Regarding claim 8, Liu further shows wherein the gantry is on (see figures 6-10) or within the physical feature.
Regarding claim 12, Liu further shows wherein at least a portion of the load positioning system is secured to the gantry by chains, cables (see figures 9-10), wires (see figures 9-10), ropes (see figures 9-10), or combinations thereof .
Regarding claim 14, Liu further shows wherein the structure is a bridge deck (62, see figures 9-10).
Regarding claim 15, Liu further shows wherein the mass of the load is at least 100 kg (Column 5 lines 38-53 of Liu discloses the gantry transports and lifts a bridge span 30. See figures 7-10. The bridge span 30 has a mass of at least 100 kg).
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 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.
Claims 9-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US Patent 10,947,680 B2).
Regarding claims 9-11, Liu further shows the gantry extends over the structure and at least a portion of the physical feature (see figure 6-10).
Liu does not explicitly disclose 1) the physical feature being a body of water with air above the body of water, 2) the physical feature being land with air above the land, and 3) the physical feature being a paved surface with air above the paved surface.
Liu teaches that bridges showing serious damage or corrosion need to be replaced or removed in order to guarantee safety use of the bridges (see column 1 lines 23-30). Alternatively, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known that bridges extend over bodies of water with air above the water, bridges extend over land with air above the land, and bridges extend above a paved surface with air above the paved surface.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the load positioning system of Liu by utilizing the load position system on bridges above a body of water with air above the body of water, on land with air above the land, and on a paved surface with air above the paved surface, as bridges showing serious damage or corrosion need to be replaced or removed in order to guarantee safety use of the bridges as taught by Liu, and/or as it is well known that bridges are on or above these claimed physical features.
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses the claimed invention except for the load having a mass of at least 1,000 kg. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to lift loads having a mass of at least 1,000 kg, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US Patent 10,947,680 B2) in view of Muck et al. (US Patent 10,597,264 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the load positioning system is secured to the gantry by hydraulic mechanisms. Thus, the difference between Liu and this claim is that Liu uses winches and not hydraulic mechanisms.
Muck et al. discloses a semi-autonomous system (see figures 1-50, especially figure 11) and teaches a gantry system (300) comprising linear motion actuators including hydraulic cylinders (see column 20 lines 48-65).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the load positioning system of Liu by substituting hydraulic cylinders for the winches of Liu, to utilize hydraulic cylinders in a gantry system as taught by Muck et al., to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and/or to as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN J CAMPOS, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5229. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Robert W. Hodge can be reached on phone number (571)272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJC/
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights