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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 16-25 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.
Claim 16 recites, in part, “conveying with at least one vehicle an nth girder of the first plurality of girders along the first transportation pathway formed by the girders of the first plurality of girders previously positioned” and “conveying with the at least one vehicle a yth platform of the plurality of platforms along the first transportation pathway formed by the girders of the first plurality of girders previously positioned.”
The claim does not define “n” or “y,” does not specify whether “n” and “y” are positive integers, does not specify whether “n” and “y” correspond to the same section of the substructure, and does not specify whether the claimed steps are performed once or iteratively for successive girders and platforms. The claim also refers to “previously positioned” girders without clearly reciting the relationship between those previously positioned girders, the “nth girder,” the “yth platform,” and any initial section of the substructure. As a result, it is unclear which girder and which platform are required to be conveyed and positioned, and it is unclear where in the erection sequence the claimed method begins.
The specification provides explanatory context for indexed elements, including the relationship among an xth section, an nth girder, a yth platform, and a zth pier. See, e.g., specification paragraphs [0117]-[0124]. However, claim 16 does not include sufficient corresponding language to make the scope of the claim reasonably clear. Because claims 17-25 depend from claim 16, claims 17-25 inherit this indefiniteness.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 16 to define the indexed variables and the relevant sequence. For example, applicant may clarify that n and y are integers greater than one, that the first transportation pathway is formed by one or more previously positioned girders, and that the recited conveying and positioning steps are performed for each additional section after an initial section. Alternatively, applicant may replace “nth girder” and “yth platform” with “a next girder” and “a next platform” and clearly recite the already-erected section/pathway that supports vehicle travel.
Claim 24 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the nth girder of the first plurality of girders is positioned after the girder of the first transportation pathway forming the second extremity and the yth platform is positioned after the platform of the service pathway forming the second extremity.”
The phrase “positioned after” is unclear because it may be read either as a temporal limitation, meaning positioned subsequent to another positioning step, or as a spatial limitation, meaning positioned downstream of another structural element. The claim also fails to clarify whether “the second extremity” refers to the final second extremity of the completed substructure or the then-current second extremity of the substructure under construction. If the phrase refers to the final second extremity of the completed substructure, then the limitation is internally unclear because positioning the nth girder “after” the girder forming the second extremity would appear to place the nth girder beyond the second extremity. The specification distinguishes the second extremity of the substructure under construction from the final completed substructure. See, e.g., specification paragraphs [0097], [0108], and [0124]. Claim 24 does not include that clarification.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 24 to specify, for example, that the nth girder is positioned downstream of and adjacent to the girder that, before positioning of the nth girder, forms a then-current second extremity of the first transportation pathway under construction, and that the yth platform is similarly positioned downstream of and adjacent to the platform that, before positioning of the yth platform, forms a then-current second extremity of the service pathway under construction.
Claim 25 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 25 recites “wherein, in step b), vehicles of the at least one vehicle are set up with the tube segments at the first extremity of the substructure.”
The phrase “vehicles of the at least one vehicle” is unclear. The phrase “at least one vehicle” encompasses a single vehicle, whereas “vehicles of” implies a plurality of vehicles or a subset of a plurality of vehicles. It is therefore unclear whether the claim requires one vehicle, multiple vehicles, all vehicles used in step b), or only some vehicles used in step b) to be set up with the tube segments. The term “set up” itself appears to be explained in the specification as encompassing loading or connecting a vehicle with an element. See specification paragraph [0102]. However, the grammatical relationship between “vehicles” and “the at least one vehicle” renders the scope of claim 25 unclear.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 25 to recite, for example, “wherein, in step b), the at least one vehicle is set up with the tube segments at the first extremity of the substructure,” or “wherein, in step b), one or more vehicles are set up with the tube segments at the first extremity of the substructure.”
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim 23 is objected to because of informal language. Claim 23 recites “at least a girder” and “at least a platform.” For clarity and proper grammar, applicant should amend these phrases to “at least one girder” and “at least one platform.”
Claim 26 is objected to because of an apparent inconsistency in terminology. The preamble recites “[a] portion of a transportation structure,” while the body of the claim recites “the portion of the transportation infrastructure.” It is unclear whether “transportation infrastructure” is intended to refer to the previously recited “transportation structure” or to a different entity. Because the surrounding claim language suggests that this is likely a typographical or drafting inconsistency, this issue is treated as an objection rather than a rejection. Applicant should amend “transportation infrastructure” to “transportation structure,” if that is the intended antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-30 are allowed.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights