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 .
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) 1-4, 6,10-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soil Dynamics.
Regarding claim 1, Soil Dynamics teaches a flexible bridge abutment, comprising: a retaining wall (reinforced wall) operable to support an embankment; and a column (pile or column) operable to support a deck, fixed to a diaphragm beam (upper beam); wherein the retaining wall and the column are fixed to a common foundation element, and the diaphragm beam is free to move with respect to the retaining wall (See figure j below).
[AltContent: textbox (Diaphragm Beam)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Embankment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Foundation)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
220
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Soil Dynamics teaches the diaphragm beam is operable to support a portion of an embankment (to the right of the earth wall).
Regarding claim 3, Soil Dynamics teaches the diaphragm beam and the retaining wall are vertically spaced apart (See figure j).
Regarding claim 4, Soil Dynamics teaches the diaphragm beam and the retaining wall are substantially aligned on at least one side (See Figure j).
Regarding claim 6, Soil Dynamics teaches the retaining wall and the column are rigidly fixed to the common foundation element (See figure j above).
Regarding claim 10, Soil Dynamics teaches a plurality of retaining walls and/or columns.
Regarding claim 11, Soil Dynamics teaches a method of constructing a flexible bridge abutment, the method comprising the steps of: fixing at least one column element (column, see figure j above) and at least one retaining wall element (retaining wall, figure j above) to a foundation element; and fixing a diaphragm beam to the one or more column elements, such that the diaphragm beam is free to move with respect to the one or more retaining wall elements (See figure j above).
Regarding claim 15, Soil Dynamics teaches the at least one column element and at least one retaining wall element are a single interconnected element (interconnected through the foundation).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 13-14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soil Dynamics in view of Nelson (4,957,395).
Regarding claim 5, Soil Dynamics teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the specifics of the retaining wall. Nelson teaches a retaining wall (4) wherein the retaining wall is an open or closed section, the column (3abcde) being located within the section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the retaining wall of Soil Dynamics with an open or closed section with a column as taught by Nelson as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 7, Soil Dynamics teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the specifics of the retaining wall. Nelson teaches a retaining wall (4) wherein the column (3) comprises concrete with at least one protruding rebar (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the retaining wall of Soil Dynamics with a concrete column having rebar as taught by Nelson as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 8, Soil Dynamics teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the specifics of the retaining wall. Nelson teaches a retaining wall (1) wherein the retaining wall comprises a one or more units (4) aligned to form a substantially flat face (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the retaining wall of Soil Dynamics with a one or more units as taught by Nelson as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Soil Dynamics as modified by Nelson fails to teach protusions not more than 50mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ensure the retaining wall of Soil Dynamics doesn’t protrude more than 50mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Soil Dynamics teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a cast column. Nelson teaches a retaining wall and casting at least one column element (3) operable to support a deck, optionally wherein the casting of the at least one column element is remote from the bridge abutment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cast a column element in the retaining wall of Soil Dynamics as taught by Nelson as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 14, Soil Dynamics teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach casting at least one retaining wall element operable to support a deck, optionally wherein the casting of the at least one retaining wall element is remote from the bridge abutment. Nelson teaches a retaining wall and casting at least one retaining wall element operable to support a deck, optionally wherein the casting of the at least one retaining wall element is remote from the bridge abutment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cast a retaining wall element in the retaining wall of Soil Dynamics as taught by Nelson as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 17, Soil Dynamics as modified by Nelson teaches the casting of the at least one column element is remote from the bridge abutment (pre-cast).
Regarding claim 18, Soil Dynamics as modified by Nelson teaches the casting of the at least one retaining wall element is remote from the bridge abutment (pre-cast).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soil Dynamics in view of Heitkap (5,911,545).
Regarding claim 9, Soil Dynamics teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a capping panel. Heitkap teaches a retaining wall (3) with a capping panel (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a capping panel on the retaining wall of Soil Dynamics as taught by Heitkap as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 16, Soil Dynamics as modified by Heitkap fails to explicitly teach an elastically compressible seal between the cap and the wall, however, Heitkap does teach expanding foam being used to seal cracks in the wall, therefore the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to also use foam seal between the wall and the cap in Soil Dynamics to stabilize the wall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Svensson teaches a bridge with abutments with walls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights