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 .
This final Office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 4/10/2026.
Currently, claims 1-14 are pending and examined.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 2005/0110179 to Loeffler-Lenz (‘Loeffler’).
Re claim 1: Loeffler discloses a tube structure 10 (Fig. 1) comprising: a tube body 21 having therein a movement path 17 along which a traveling body moves; and a reinforcing block 23 (i.e. concrete 13) that is formed of a different material (see Fig. 2) from the tube body 21 (i.e. metal, par. [0022]) and coupled to the tube body 21 in the longitudinal direction of the tube body 21 to reinforce the tube body 21, wherein the reinforcing block 23 has a contact surface in surface contact with an outer surface of the tube body 21, and the contact surface extends in the longitudinal direction of the reinforcing block 23 (Fig. 1).
Re claim 2: wherein the tube body 21 is comprised of a tubular member (Fig. 1) formed of a metal material (par. [0022]), and the reinforcing block 23 is comprised of precast concrete 13, and the contact surface has a shape corresponding to the outer surface of the tube body 21 (Fig. 1).
Re claim 3: wherein the reinforcing block 23 is coupled to an upper side of the tube body 21.
Re claim 4: wherein the tube body 21 is configured so that a plurality of unit tubes 21/21/21 (see Abstract, Fig. 1) are continuously disposed in a longitudinal direction, and the reinforcing block 23 connects adjacent unit tubes 21/21/21.
Re claim 5: wherein the tube body 21 is configured so that a plurality of unit tubes 21/21/21 (see Abstract, Fig. 1) are continuously disposed in the longitudinal direction, the reinforcing block 23 is configured so that a plurality of unit blocks 23/23/23 are continuously disposed in the longitudinal direction, and the unit blocks 23/23/23 are installed over the unit tubes 21/21/21 adjacent to each other to connect adjacent unit tubes 21/21/21.
Re claim 6: wherein the reinforcing block 23 is configured so that a plurality of unit blocks 23/23/23 are continuously disposed in a longitudinal direction, and the unit block 23 comprises a plurality of unit block units (i.e. wherein 23 points in two ends of the block) in which at least one of an installation width in a width direction (i.e. from 26 to 27 point to, Fig. 2) and a minimum installation height in a height direction (i.e. from 17 to 14 point to) is varied (due to curved configuration of the tube).
Re claim 13: wherein the tube body 21 is configured so that a plurality of unit tubes 21/21/21 are continuously disposed in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1), and the tube structure further comprises: a sealing unit 41 having a ring-shaped shape (i.e. a ring shaped shape before 42 was installed) into which an end region of the adjacent unit tubes 21 in the longitudinal direction is inserted and a space between the adjacent unit tubes is sealed (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 7-12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 2005/011079 to Loeffler.
Re claims 7-8: Loeffler discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the reinforcing block has an installation width in a range of 20 to 35% of a diameter of the tube body in a width direction; and wherein the reinforcing block is configured so that a minimum installation height in a height direction is in a range of 10 to 20% of the installation width. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to different ratios for the reinforcing block has an installation width in a range of 20 to 35% of a diameter of the tube body in a width direction and the reinforcing block is configured so that a minimum installation height in a height direction is in a range of 10 to 20% of the installation width in order to optimize the reinforcement the tube more integrity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claims 9, 10, 11: Loeffler discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above and further discloses a fastening unit 31 and fastened while penetrating through the reinforcing block 23 to connect the tube body 21 and the reinforcing block 23 via apertures 27 (see Figs. 2-3) but does not disclose expressly installed to protrude from the outer surface of the tube body 21; wherein the fastening unit 35 comprises: a first fastening member 31, a second fastening member 27 detachably fastened to the first fastening member 31, and configured to bring the contact surface of the reinforcing block 23 into close contact with the outer surface of the tube body 21. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention install to protrude from the outer surface of the tube body for optimizing a quicker installation since installers have more space from outside.
Re claim 12: wherein a plurality of fastening units 35 are formed to be spaced apart from each other in the longitudinal direction of the tube body 21 (i.e. along wherein each 22/22/22 points to), and a plurality of first fastening members 35 are formed to be spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the tube body 21.
Re claim 14: Loeffler discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above and further discloses the sealing unit 41 comprises: a sealing body (i.e. wherein 41 points to, Fig. 4) disposed between two adjacent unit tubes 21 but does not disclose expressly a first insertion groove formed on one side of the sealing body and into which the unit tube of one side is inserted; and a second insertion groove formed on the other side of the sealing body and into which the unit tube of the other side is inserted. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose different shapes with each groove on each of the body for the sealing unit in order accommodate the tube and reinforcing block shapes for preventing air gap leak in between the tube body and the reinforcing block, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known sealing unit with different shapes on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/10/2026, with respect to 112 2nd rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant's arguments that the applied reference (Loeffler-Lenz) is a temporary formwork dismantled after the concrete cures. It does not form a movement path for a moving body after dismantling have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the limitation whether “permanent framework” or “temporary framework” is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner believes that the applied reference discloses the Applicant’s claimed invention as set forth above; therefore, the rejections are maintained and made it final.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
323
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights