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 . 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirakawa US 5,971,655. Shirakawa discloses a road plate connecting assembly comprising:
Adjacent and partially overlapping 1st & 2nd road plates (1) having a throughhole (4).
A coupling device (13) the coupling device comprising:
A base (11) and at least two fastening means (11a) spaced apart on said base (11).
A fastening part (5) having a fixing means (5a) such as a threaded bolt configured to be received in said fastening means by rotating the fastening part (5) relative to the base such that the bolt head overlies the road plate. Col. 4, lns. 25-67.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirakawa US 5,971,655 in view of Mair US 4,498,827. Shirakawa discloses a road plate assembly including a coupling device, but do not disclose an elongate plate opening or coupling device. However, Mair teaches a fastening device having an elongate base (30) elongate neck (32) and an elongate key (80) configured to be rotated between open and locking positions. See Col. 2, ln. 25-Col. 4, ln. 56.Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the road plate assembly of Shirakawa with elongate openings and coupling devices, as taught by Mair, in order to increase the contact surface between the keys and the road plates being assembled.
With respect to claims 3-4, 6-13, 15-19 Mair teaches a coupling device having a
Chamfered at a position of an upper outer end and an aligning means (54) extending from a lower side of the key (50) and aligns the fastening part to a respective road plate fastening means. See Fig. 3. Although Shirakawa in view of Mair do not disclose the dimensions claimed, to do so would be a simple matter of design choice based on the intended use of the road plate assembly.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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 on 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 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 need help 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.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 9/15/2026
Prosecution Insights