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
Applicant has provided a copy of co-pending applications which are commonly assigned to the same owner of the instant application. Examiner appreciates the disclosure, but would note that only the claims and specifications of the co-pending application has been considered. If Applicant wishes for the Examiner to consider any other documents, including Office Actions, communications, etc., that are present in the other co-pending applications, Applicant must submit those documents as individually listed documents on an IDS form and a copy of those documents submitted therein (see MPEP §609).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-30 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-20 and 22-30 of copending Application No. 18/840,123 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims completely overlap aside from the instant claims requiring a second set of girders. See the claim mapping presented below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/840,140
Reference Application 18/840,123
Claim 16
Claim 16 - It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the girders in order to build the structure and as shown in Claim 22 of the reference application.
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 19
Claim 20
Claim 20
Claim 21
Claim 18
Claim 22
Claim 22
Claim 23
Claim 23
Claim 24
Claim 25
Claim 25
Claim 26
Claim 26
Claim 27
Claim 27
Claim 28
Claim 28
Claim 29
Claim 29
Claim 30
Claim 30
Claim 24
Claims 16-30 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 18-23, and 25-30 of copending Application No. 18/840,137 in view of Tutzauer et al US Patent Application Publication 2004/0255815. The claims of the copending application and the instant application completely overlap in scope (as detailed below), but the copending claims fail to teach a service pathway formed by a plurality of platforms. Tutzauer teaches an analogous elevated transportation structure (see Figures 3a-3c) which comprises a plurality of platforms (P) which service as a service pathway [0024]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the claimed inevntion in application 18/840,137 to include a service pathway in order to allow for emergency or maintenance use as taught by Tutzauer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application 18/840,140
Reference Application 18/840,137 in view of Tutzauer (US 2004/0255815)
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 19
Claim 20
Claim 20
Claim 21
Claim 21
Claim 22
Claim 22
Claim 23
Claim 23
Claim 25
Claim 24
Claim 26
Claim 25
Claim 27
Claim 26
Claim 28
Claim 27
Claim 29
Claim 28
Claim 26
Claim 29
Claim 25
Claim 30
Claim 30
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OVER THE PRIOR ART
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Kang et al US Patent Application Publication 2008/0301889 appears to be the closest art. Kang teaches a construction method wherein each consecutive section is rolled along the previous section prior to installation. Kang teaches piers and girders, but fails to disclose tube segments. Additionally, Kang fails to teach wherein the consecutive sections are rolled along the rooftop of the tube segments.
Dinis US Patent 5,511,266 teaches a similar system as Kang
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA SCHIMPF whose telephone number is (571)270-7741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 3:30pm EST.
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, John Fristoe can be reached at (571) 272-4926. 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.
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights