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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 21st, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 6 and 10-13 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection over Conger is maintained.
New rejections follow.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 19 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process such as one utilizing a plurality of transverse primary structural members. Additionally, the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different process such as one that does not utilize a load mounting structure.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 19 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “at least one adjustable tensioning truss assembly comprising tension transfer cables arranged in a cross pattern and connected to in-line turnbuckles anchored to base plates on subsurface foundation elements”. There’s no mention in the specification specifically of “in-line turnbuckles” or of “base plates on subsurface foundation elements”. Accordingly, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “the turnbuckles configured to be selectively tightened to structurally tune pretension of the longitudinal tensioned cables and isolate the plurality of columns from bending moments”. There is no support in the specification for this phrase. Accordingly, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18, Applicant recites, “the turnbuckles”. Its unclear if this is referencing the in-law turnbuckles already recited or if different turnbuckles are being further limited. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conger (US 2010/0089433 A1).
In view of Claim 18, Conger discloses a structural grid for supporting an elevated load (Fig. 41) the structural grid comprising:
a plurality of longitudinal tensioned cables (Fig. 41, #308 – Paragraph 0189);
a plurality of transverse primary structural members positioned to support the longitudinal tensioned cables (Fig. 41, #399 – Paragraph 0203);
a plurality of columns supporting the transverse primary structural members (Fig. 41, #398/#400);
a load mounting structure comprising at least one transverse rail set coupled to at least two of the longitudinal tensioned cables via clamp assemblies (Figs. 50-51 & Paragraph 0216 – the load is secured to the cables by clamping means, thus each cable is clamped to the transverse rail of the load mounting structure).
at least one adjustable tensioning truss (Paragraph 0012) assembly comprising tension transfer cables arranged in a crossing pattern (Fig. 44, #410/#412 – Paragraph 0208) and connected to in-line turnbuckles (Fig. 99, #710-#711 – Paragraph 0272) that’s anchored to base plates (piles) on subsurface foundation elements (Paragraph 0019-0020 – helical distal tips); and
that the adjustable tensioning truss assembly is selectively tightened to structurally tune pretension of the longitudinal tension cables and isolate the plurality of columns from bending moments (Paragraph 0017 – if the configuration wasn’t isolating the columns from bending moments the system would structurally fail, thus this is an inherent feature of the design, to maintain the structure upright, thus the selective tightening accomplishes this limitation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Conger does not disclose tension transfer cables arranged in a crossing pattern. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Conger discloses tension transfer cables arranged in a crossing pattern (Fig. 44, #410/#412). Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Conger does not disclose column isolation from bending moments. First, the Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that this limitation has no support in the instant specification. Additionally, Conger discloses the adjustable tensioning truss assembly is selectively tightened to structurally tune pretension of the longitudinal tension cables and isolate the plurality of columns from bending moments (Paragraph 0017 – if the configuration wasn’t isolating the columns from bending moments the system would structurally fail, thus this is an inherent feature of the design, to maintain the structure upright, thus the selective tightening accomplishes this limitation). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention produces structural architecture that contradicts classical engineering expectations. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973). Accordingly, at least for this reason the argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention produces structural architecture that contradicts classical engineering expectations because “classical structural mechanics distance that steel mass increases quadratically as span length increases”, while also stating the constructed embodiments of the present invention demonstrate the opposite: as the transverse clear-span increased by 29%, the required steel intensity decreased by 4.5% The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that its unclear where these numbers are “coming from” or how they are associated with the instant invention, or how they even show the “unexpected result”. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the “near-flat or inverted scaling is physically impossible under the catenary cable physis of Conger”. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Conger discloses that the embodiment relied upon in the rejection of record (Fig. 41) is essentially flat. Its also noted that Applicant is using a catenary cable system as well that in its simplest embodiment (Instant Specification – Fig. 6) is remarkably similar and flat to Conger’s Fig. 41. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights