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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of the Appeal Brief filed June 21, 2025. Claims 35 and
41-50 remain pending in the present application.
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on September 3, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new grounds of rejection is set forth below. To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply
under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed
by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and
appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth
in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant
must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by
signing below:
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bobbitt (US 4,068,445).
Re. Cl. 16, Bobbitt discloses: A method of supporting a structure (see claims) comprising: placing a shell (12) atop a portion of soil such that the shell is aligned under a portion of the structure that requires support; injecting a load bearing foam into the shell through an access aperture defined through the shell (abstract, Col. 2: lines 12-20, and 60-69, Col. 3; lines 42-55); and placing a support post (18) atop a top surface of the shell.
Re, Cl. 18, Bobbitt discloses: wherein the load bearing foam is injected until the load bearing foam consolidates the soil below the shell.
Re, Cl. 19, Bobbitt discloses: excavating a portion of earth to define the portion of soil upon which the shell is placed.
Re. Cl. 20, Bobbitt discloses: adjusting a vertical height of the support post (18, 26 and Col. 3; lines 9-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergelt (US 6,219,981) in view of Wells (US 4,673,157).
Re. Cl. 1, Bergelt discloses: Alternate arrangements and various construction modification intended for the lightweight support (Figs. 1-7) including a post (C) and using the shell (26) to act as a form (Col. 3; lines 61-67) comprising: an open bottom side; a top surface (32) opposing the open bottom side; a first sidewall (34) spanning from the open bottom surface to the top surface; a second sidewall opposing the first sidewall and spanning from the open bottom side to the top surface; a third sidewall spanning from a first lateral edge of the first sidewall to a first lateral edge of the second sidewall, and the third sidewall spanning from the open bottom side to the top surface; a fourth sidewall opposing the third sidewall, the fourth sidewall spanning from a second lateral edge of the first sidewall to a second lateral edge of the second sidewall, and the fourth sidewall spanning from the open bottom side to the top surface; wherein each of the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall angle inward such that they converge towards one another as they extend from the open bottom side to the top surface, and wherein the top surface comprises a centered, planar, solid and continuous post support surface portion defined between the convergence of the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall.
Bergelt fails to disclose, however Wells teaches the use of a flange (21) extending horizontally outwardly at the bottom side from each of the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall, wherein the flange is continuous and lies entirely in a common plane.
It would have been very obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergelt’s lightweight support with Well’s well Know use of a flange extending horizontally outwardly at the bottom side from each of the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall, wherein the flange is continuous and lies entirely in a common plane.
Doing so would provide an alternate stable surface connection for reinforcing support for columns.
Re. Cl. 2, Bergelt discloses: each of the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall terminates in a top edge vertically above the post support surface portion to define a ridge portion.
Re. Cl. 5, Bergelt discloses: an open interior surface defined upwardly from the bottom side.
Re. Cl. 6, Bergelt discloses: wherein the lightweight footing is shaped as a truncated four-sided pyramid.
Re. Cl. 7, Bergelt discloses: wherein the lightweight footing comprises a singular body.
Re. Cl. 9, Bergelt discloses: wherein each of the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall are planar.
Re. Cl. 10, Bergelt discloses: an access aperture (58) defined through one of the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall of the lightweight footing from an outer surface to an inner surface thereof.
6. Claims 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergelt (US 6,219,981) in view of Wells (US 4,673,157) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Bobbitt (US 4,068,445).
Re. Cl. 12, Bergelt lightweight support as modified by Wells, discloses all the claimed limitations but fails to disclose, however Bobbitt teaches the use of a load bearing foam disposed in the open interior of a lightweight support foundation (Abstract, Col. 2, lines 12-35, Col. 3, lines 42-44, Col. 5, lines 19-35).
It would have been very obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Bergelt’s lightweight support with Bobbitt’s use of injecting a load bearing foam disposed in the open interior.
Doing so would provide a foundation so that the characteristic forces imposed on the foundation by a supported load can be safely handled even in loose or otherwise undesirable soils, as disclosed by Bobbitt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 14 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRELL L MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 am to 4:30 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:/Avwww.uspto.gov/interview practice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Terrell L McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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:/Avww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.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.
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632