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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “The invention relates to” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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) 23-27, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN109024103) in view of Luo (CN114016383).
Regarding claim 23, Zhu teaches a portion of a transportation structure for pods traveling substantially free of air friction in an assembly of tube segments placed under low air pressure, the portion of the transportation infrastructure comprising: a plurality of piers (12) substantially regularly spaced along a longitudinal axis of the portion of transportation structure; a first plurality of girders (9a) positioned on at least some of the piers and forming: a first assembly of tube segments (9a), the first assembly being capable of being placed under low air pressure and capable of allowing the circulation of pods travelling substantially free of air friction in the tube segments, and a first rooftop transportation pathway (convex portion of 9a) running from the first extremity of the portion of the transportation structure to the second one, each girder of the first plurality of girders including: a tube segment of the first assembly of tube segments, a second plurality of girders (9b) positioned on at least some of the piers and forming: a second assembly of tube segments, the second assembly being capable of being placed under low air pressure and capable of allowing the circulation of pods travelling substantially free of air friction in the tube segments, a second rooftop transportation pathway (convex portion of 9b) running from the first extremity of the portion of the transportation structure to the second one, alongside the first rooftop transportation pathway, each girder of the second plurality of girders comprising: a tube segment of the second assembly of tube segments. Zhu fails to teach a metallic structure embedding the tube segment. Luo teaches a tube segment protection device comprising a metallic structure embedding the tube segment of the first assembly of tube segments, the upper surface of the metallic structure being a portion of the first rooftop transportation pathway. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a metallic cage on the tube segment assemblies of Zhu as taught by Luo to increase stability of the tube segments.
Regarding claim 24, Zhu as modified by Luo teaches the portion of transportation structure does not comprise any platform forming a service pathway (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 25, Zhu as modified by Luo teaches all the girders of the first plurality of girders (9a) are positioned successively and continuously one after the other along the longitudinal axis of the portion of the transportation structure and all the girders of the second plurality of girders (9b) are positioned successively and continuously one after the other along the longitudinal axis of the portion of the transportation structure 9.
Regarding claim 26, Zhu as modified by Luo teachs the metallic structure includes a lower deck (3), an upper deck (2) and transverse reinforcements (1) connecting the lower deck to the upper deck.
Regarding claim 27, Zhu as modified by Luo teaches each transverse reinforcement extends substantially in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the portion of transportation structure.
Regarding claim 30, Zhu as modified by Luo teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach a third plurality of girders positioned on the first plurality of girders or a fourth plurality of girders positioned on the second plurality of girders. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a third and fourth girder, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN109024103) in view of Luo (CN114016383) and in further view of Mineta (JP2005171705)
Regarding claim 28, Zhu as modified by Luo teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach each transverse reinforcement extends horizontally so as to match the contour of the cross-section of the tube segment. Mineta teaches a tube segment with a transverse reinforcement (11) that matches the contour of the tube segment (Figure 2). 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 reinforcements on the tube structure of Zhu match the contour of the tube as taught by Mineta to ensure proper reinforcement to increase stability and as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN109024103) in view of Luo (CN114016383) and in further view of Mann (2018/196928)
Regarding claim 29, Zhu as modified by Luo teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the upper deck is a substantially flat surface suitable for vehicle traffic. Mann teaches a bridge tube structure having an upper deck with a substantially flat surface suitable for traffic. 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 upper deck of Zhu flat as taught by Mann as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-22 are allowed.
The Mann reference is the closest prior art but fails to teach a metallic structure embedding the tube segment of the first assembly of tube segments, the upper surface of the metallic structure being a portion of the first rooftop transportation pathway, conveying with vehicle(s) girders of the first and second pluralities of girders along the first rooftop transportation pathway formed by the girders of the first plurality of girders previously positioned, positioning the girders at their use position alternately at the second extremity of the first rooftop transportation pathway and at the second extremity of the second rooftop transportation pathway and having the vehicles return to the first extremity of the portion of the transportation structure along the second rooftop transportation pathway formed by the girders of the second plurality of girders previously positioned. These limitations in combination with the remaining limitations in the independent claim read over the prior art.
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. Bermingham teaches a method for erecting a bridge with a tube structure.
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 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights