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 § 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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, step (2) recites “installing a plurality of third stiffening girder sections one by one in a direction respectively from the first stiffening girder and the second stiffening girder toward a mid-span until a mid-span closure is completed.” However, step (3) subsequently recites “installing a plurality of fourth stiffening girder sections one by one respectively from the first stiffening girder section toward the first tower and from the second stiffening girder section toward the second tower until a stiffening girder is closed at mid-span.”
It is unclear what closure is required by step (3), because mid-span closure has already been completed in step (2), and the installation directions specified in step (3) proceed toward the respective towers rather than toward mid-span. Consequently, it is unclear whether step (3) requires an additional closure at mid-span, completion of the remaining girder sections adjacent to the towers, or maintenance of the closure previously completed in step (2).
Although paragraph [0052] repeats the disputed language, paragraphs [0096]–[0098] describe completing mid-span closure and subsequently installing the remaining girder sections near the towers. Figures 21a–21f likewise illustrate successive construction stages. These disclosures do not clearly identify a separate mid-span closure to be performed during the tower ward installation of step (3). Accordingly, the acts necessary to satisfy step (3), and therefore the scope of the claimed method, are unclear.
Claims 2–10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and do not resolve the foregoing ambiguity. Therefore, claims 2–10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1 and 2 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, step (2) recites “an azimuth angle of a main cable around a central axis thereof at each of the clips,” but step (4) subsequently recites “measuring an azimuth angle of the central axis of the main cable at each of the clips.” Claim 2 similarly recites measuring and comparing an “azimuth angle of the central axis of the main cable.”
An angle describing rotation of a main-cable section around the cable’s central axis is distinct from an angle describing the spatial orientation of the central axis itself. It is therefore unclear whether step (4), including the measurements and comparisons further specified in claim 2, concerns rotation of the cable section around its central axis or orientation of the central axis relative to a reference direction.
Paragraph [0062] describes the azimuth angle using the angular change of a top-bottom connecting line of a main-cable section relative to its tightened state, indicating rotation of the section around the central axis. However, the disputed language expressly identifies an angle of the central axis rather than an angle around that axis. Clarification is required to establish which quantity is measured and, in claim 2, used to modify the prediction model and determine the clip adjustment. Accordingly, the scope of claims 1 and 2 is unclear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowed if the 112 rejections outlined above are overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the claimed combination of installing hanger-rod clips with the specified initial alignment and lateral pre-deflection; installing first and second stiffening girder sections at respective positions spaced longitudinally from the two towers; installing additional girder sections from those positions toward mid-span until mid-span closure is completed; and subsequently installing the remaining girder sections from those positions toward the respective towers, while measuring main-cable rotation during erection and calculating the lateral deflection angle of each clip as the lateral inclination angle of the corresponding hanger rod minus the main-cable rotation angle at the clip.
Although the prior art teaches spatial main-cable suspension bridges, selection of cable-clamp installation angles, and measurement of main-cable torsion under loading, the prior art of record does not establish that it would have been obvious to combine those teachings with the particular erection sequence and angular relationship recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1, considered as a whole, is allowable over the prior art of record. Claims 2–10 are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
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. Lu teaches a main cable suspension bridge with clamps and suspensers connecting the cables to girders.
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 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights