DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is written in the manner of a claim and is a run-on type sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 7, 8, 12, 15 and 16 are 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 within the parentheses “( )” in claim 7 are indefinite because it is unclear if the recitations therein are intended to be positively recited as part of the invention.
Claim 8 is directed to an arrangement prior to the finishing of the product of parent claim 1. This is essentially an improper process within the product claim. The product claims are based upon the structure recited, not in the manner the components were arranged prior to the finishing of the claimed product. Claim 8 has not been further treated on the merits.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “between 5 – 40mm,” and the claim also recites “12 and 20mm” and “13 and 17mm” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. Similarly, claim 15 recites “150-300,” and subsequently recites “225-300.” The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the respective claims, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the network layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All other recitations of “network” are directed to a reinforcement network, not a “layer.”
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (JP 2004-19185).
Takahashi discloses a transport surface including a foundation layer (3), top surface layer (1), bituminous layer (2) and a reinforcement network (21, 22). The reinforcement network includes fiber structures oriented along two axes (Figure 5, for example). There is an electrical input (11, 12) connected to a power source (via 50).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the fibers include carbon fiber strands (paragraph 12, for example).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi is a heater (abstract, for example).
Regarding claims 5-7, see Figure 4, for example.
Regarding claim 11, there are two inputs (11, 12).
Regarding claims 9, 13 and 16, a bitumen layer (2) and reinforcement layer are configured as claimed (Figure 1, for example). Note that no patentable weight has been given to the recitation of “pre-encapsulated” in claim 16 because this refers to a state prior to the claimed finished product.
Takahashi is formed in the manner of claim 17.
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 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as applied above.
Regarding claim 10, the examiner takes Official notice that DC power is well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any type of current suitable to provide electrical energy to the fibers.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any content deemed best suited to a particular application. This is standard substrate engineering design practice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach transport surface reinforcement systems.
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