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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Liang does not teach the claimed installation modules that are configured to disconnect from the helical piles and template because the detachability in Liang is limited to a bearing seat and does not include the worm wheel is noted but is not considered persuasive because the installation modules of Liang are fully detachable from the helical piles and template. Liang discloses that “the driving part is detachably installed on the top surface of the bucket foundation” at page 5, lines 1-2 of the translation. Further, Liang discloses that the “steel shell 11 is fixedly connected to the top surface of the bearing seat 9” and “the bearing seat 9 is detachably installed on the top surface of the bucket foundation” at page 5, second paragraph of the translation. Liang then discloses that the “hydraulic motor [12] is fixedly mounted on a steel casing 11” and the “output shaft of the hydraulic motor 12 is fixedly connected with a worm 13” at page 5, fourth paragraph of the translation. Thus, elements 11-13 are all fixedly connected to bearing seat 9 and are therefore detachable from the helical piles and template along with bearing seat 9. Liang also discloses that the “steel casing 11 is rotationally connected with the side wall of the bearing cover 6” at page 6, third paragraph of translation. Finally, Liang discloses that “the bearing cover 6 is rotatably connected with the top end of the worm wheel 5 through an upper tapered roller bearing 7” and “the top surface of the bearing seat 9 is rotatably connected with the bottom end of the worm gear through a lower tapered roller bearing 10” at page 5, second paragraph of translation. These disclosed connections, along with Fig. 5, show that the detachable driving part includes parts 6-13. Examiner also notes that it does not appear physically possible to limit the detachability to bearing seat 9 as suggested by Applicant. As seen in Fig. 5, elements 6-8 and 10-13 are placed on bearing seat 9 and would therefore have to be detached in order to detach bearing seat 9 as disclosed. Examiner also notes that the worm gear 5 being fixedly sleeved on the pile 4 as argued by Applicant does not limit the detachability of the installation modules because worm gear 5 is not part of the installation modules.
Applicant’s argument that Liang’s worm wheel is not disclosed as a drive head, does not mechanically mate with pile-side lugs, and does not engage the pile along its length to drive the pile from a point along its length is noted but is not considered persuasive because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1, for example, only requires the drive head to be capable of rotating the shaft of the helical pile. The worm 13 of Liang satisfies this broad limitation at page 5, third and fifth paragraph of translation. Further, worm 13 of Liang is considered a drive head because it drives the rotation and insertion of the pile. Finally, the worm 13 of Liang meshes with worm wheel 5 which is fixedly connected to the pile, therefore worm 13 mechanically mates with the worm wheel (which includes pile-side lugs) along the length of the pile.
Applicant’s argument that Liang’s worm-wheel lugs are not features of the pile body, are not distributed along the pile length, and are not configured to mate with a drive head is noted but is not considered persuasive because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The piles are not positively claimed. Instead, the piles are only recited as a functional limitation of the drive head. The drive head of Liang is capable of mating with lugs similar to the lugs of worm gear 5 which are spaced along the length of the pile, therefore Liang satisfies the functional claim limitation.
Applicant’s argument that Liang merely varies motor speed to indirectly influence descent while claim 23 requires controlling both pile rotation and vertical motion which implies control over rotational torque and axial movement as distinct installation variables is noted but is not considered persuasive because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Liang controls vertical motion by controlling pile rotation, therefore Liang controls both pile rotation and vertical motion as claimed. Examiner disagrees that “controlling pile rotation and vertical motion” implies distinct installation variables. Examiner notes that positively claiming that the pile rotation and the vertical motion are independently controlled would overcome the current rejection of the method claims, and defining the structural elements which impart the independent vertical motion to the piles would overcome the current rejection of the apparatus claims.
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 14-21, 23 and 24 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.
Regarding claim 14, the wording of “two of the helical piles” in line 7 is confusing. The helical piles are previously recited as “one or more helical piles” in line 1. How can there be “two of the helical piles” in the case of the “one or more helical piles” being just one helical pile? Examiner interprets the claim to require two or more helical piles and suggests changing “one or more helical piles” to “two or more helical piles” throughout the claim. Claims 15 and 24 are rejecting for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear whether “the at least two helical piles” in line 4 (and repeated in line 5 and claim 23) are the same as or different than “two or more helical piles” in lines 1-2 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the at least two helical piles” to mean “the two or more helical piles”. Claims 17-21 and 23 are rejecting for depending from a rejected claim.
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 1-3, 6, 11-15, 24-28 and 30-33 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang (LU 501903).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses an installation tool for installing a group anchor system (e.g. Fig. 1, claim 1), wherein the group anchor system comprises: at least two helical piles (e.g. 4, Fig.’s 1 and 3, claim 1); and a template (e.g. 1, Fig.’s 1 and 2, claim 1), wherein the template defines an aperture for a shaft of each of the at least two helical piles allowing each shaft to pass therethrough and to be secured therein (e.g. 2, Fig. 2, claim 1); the installation tool (e.g. 6-17, Fig.’s 3 and 5) removably attachable to the template (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 3, claim 2) and configured to install the at least two helical piles and the template into ground (e.g. claim 8), the installation tool comprising: a plurality of installation modules (e.g. 6-13 for each pile 4, Fig.’s 3 and 5), wherein each installation module is configured to install a helical pile of the at least two helical piles (e.g. claim 8) and comprises: a drive head to rotate the shaft of the helical pile (e.g. 13, Fig. 5, claim 3); and a drive motor for driving the drive head to insert or remove the helical pile (e.g. 12, Fig. 5, claim 3); and wherein the installation tool is configured to disconnect from the at least two helical piles and the template responsive to installation of the at least two helical piles (e.g. claim 2, and claim 8, step 7).
Regarding claim 2, Liang further discloses that each installation module comprises: a linear guide rail (e.g. 16, Fig. 5); wherein each installation module of the plurality of installation modules comprises a driver platform configured to engage the linear guide rail for movement thereon (e.g. portion of 15 adjacent each pile, Fig.’s 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Liang further discloses that each installation module comprises a roller based drive system (e.g. 5/13 are considered roller based because of their rotation).
Regarding claim 6, Liang further discloses that the installation tool is adapted for subsea use (e.g. claim 8).
Regarding claim 11, Liang further discloses that the installation tool is adapted for driving one or more helical piles that are rigid piles, wherein each rigid pile has a plurality of lugs along its length for mating with the drive head such that the rigid pile is driven from a point along its length (e.g. similar to 5, Fig.’s 3 and 5, claims 2 and 3, wherein a worm wheel includes a plurality of lugs, and wherein Examiner notes that the piles are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 12, Liang further discloses that the plurality of installation modules comprises 2-100 installation modules, inclusive, arranged in a predetermined pattern with respect to each other and each corresponding to a location of a helical pile to be driven (e.g. four installation modules, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Liang further discloses a control system permitting manual, semi-automatic, or automatic driving of each installation module independently or simultaneously (e.g. page 7, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 14, Liang discloses a system (e.g. Fig. 1, claim 1) for installation of one or more helical piles (e.g. 4, Fig.’s 1 and 3, claim 1), the system comprising: a template (e.g. 1, Fig.’s 1 and 2, claim 1), wherein the template defines an aperture for each of the one or more helical piles allowing each of the one or more helical piles to pass therethrough and to be secured therein (e.g. 2, Fig. 2, claim 1); an installation tool (e.g. 6-17, Fig.’s 3 and 5) removably attachable to the template (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 3, claim 2) and configured to install at least two of the helical piles and the template into ground (e.g. claim 8), the installation tool comprising: a plurality of installation modules (e.g. 6-13 for each pile 4, Fig.’s 3 and 5), wherein each installation module is configured to install a helical pile of the one or more helical piles (e.g. claim 8) and comprises: a drive head to rotate a shaft of the helical pile (e.g. 13, Fig. 5, claim 3); and a drive motor for driving the drive head to insert or remove the helical pile (e.g. 12, Fig. 5, claim 3), wherein the installation tool is configured to: anchor the template by installing the one or more helical piles (e.g. claim 8, steps 1-6); and disconnect from the template (e.g. claim 2, and claim 8, step 7).
Regarding claim 15, Liang further discloses a skirt fixed to a perimeter of the template and extending therefrom towards the ground and wherein the installation tool is configured to embed the skirt into the ground (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 2, where the top surface of 1 is considered the template and the vertical surface of 1 is considered the skirt).
Regarding claim 24, Liang further discloses a skirt fixed to a perimeter of the template and projecting toward the ground from the template (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 2, where the top surface of 1 is considered the template and the vertical surface of 1 is considered the skirt); wherein driving the helical piles into the ground pulls the system, including the template and the skirt, into the ground to a desired depth, angle, and position (e.g. claim 8, step 5); wherein the system provides for withdrawing the helical piles to leave the template and the skirt in place (e.g. claim 8, step 7, wherein the system does not prevent (and therefore “provides for”) withdrawing the helical piles, and pile withdrawal does not require withdrawal of the template and skirt, therefore the piles are capable of being withdrawn while the template and skirt remain in place).
Regarding claim 25, Liang discloses a group anchor system (e.g. Fig. 1, claim 1) comprising: a plurality of helical piles (e.g. 4, Fig.’s 1 and 3, claim 1); a plurality of installation modules (e.g. 6-13 for each pile 4, Fig.’s 3 and 5), wherein each installation module is configured to install a helical pile of the plurality of helical piles (e.g. claim 8) and comprises: a drive head to rotate a shaft of the helical pile (e.g. 13, Fig. 5, claim 3); and a drive motor for driving the drive head to insert or remove the helical pile (e.g. 12, Fig. 5, claim 3); a template (e.g. 1, Fig.’s 1 and 2, claim 1), wherein the template defines an aperture for each of the plurality of piles allowing the pile to pass therethrough and to be secured therein (e.g. 2, Fig. 2, claim 1); a mooring connection (e.g. 21, Fig. 5); and wherein at least an installation module of the plurality of installation modules is configured to: anchor the template by installing at least a helical pile of the plurality of helical piles (e.g. claim 8, steps 1-6); and disconnect from the template (e.g. claim 2, and claim 8, step 7).
Regarding claim 26, Liang further discloses a skirt fixed to a perimeter of the template and extending therefrom towards a ground (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 2, where the top surface of 1 is considered the template and the vertical surface of 1 is considered the skirt); and wherein the at least an installation module is further configured to embed the skirt into the ground using the installed at least a helical pile (e.g. claim 8, step 5).
Regarding claim 27, Liang further discloses that the skirt extends either perpendicularly, or at an outward angle from the template (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 28, Liang further discloses that one or more of the plurality of helical piles are each provided with an inner skirt (e.g. enlarged portion of 4 just below 9, Fig. 5, wherein the enlarged portion forms an outer periphery of the pile and is therefore considered a skirt), associated therewith and the at least an installation module is further configured to embed each inner skirt of the one or more of the plurality of helical piles (e.g. claim 8, step 5).
Regarding claim 30, Liang further discloses a load distribution system for distributing the loads from the helical piles across the group anchor system (e.g. 15, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, Liang further discloses that the group anchor system further comprises a skirt fixed to a perimeter of the template and extending therefrom towards the ground (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 2, where the top surface of 1 is considered the template and the vertical surface of 1 is considered the skirt); and wherein the installation tool is configured to embed the skirt into the ground using the at least two helical piles (e.g. claim 8, step 5).
Regarding claim 32, Liang further discloses that the skirt extends either perpendicularly, or at an outward angle from the template (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 33, Liang further discloses that the skirt is configured to resist lateral load components acting on the template (e.g. Fig. 2, page 6, paragraph 3, wherein the concrete material of the skirt will resist lateral loads).
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.
Claims 16-21 and 23 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (LU 501903) alone.
Regarding claim 16, Liang discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses a method of installing a group anchor system comprising two or more helical piles (e.g. 4, Fig.’s 1 and 3, claim 8), the method comprising: providing the installation tool of claim 1 (e.g. as described above); installing, using the installation tool, the at least two helical piles into the ground, wherein installation of the at least two helical piles occurs subsea (e.g. claim 8). Liang does not explicitly disclose that the subsea location is at deep ocean depth. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install the piles of Liang at deep ocean depth for the expected benefit of ensuring that the offshore wind turbines of Liang are far enough from a coast to avoid interference with people and vessels.
Regarding claim 17, Liang further discloses that the two or more helical piles are in a group configuration (e.g. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Liang further discloses providing, using motors (e.g. 12, Fig. 5, claim 3) attached to the drive head (e.g. 13, Fig. 5, claim 3) of at least an installation module of the plurality of installation modules, downward force on one of the helical piles (e.g. claim 8, step 5), and monitoring, using at least a sensor, the at least an installation module (e.g. 18, page 7, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 19, Liang further discloses that installing the piles into the ground is at intermediate points of the piles, and installing comprises an installation process which utilizes a controller (e.g. claim 8, page 7, paragraph 5) but Liang does not explicitly disclose that the process is automated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to automate the process of Liang because it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, and an automated process would provide the expected benefit of reducing the requirements of an operator and reducing the chance of operator error.
Regarding claim 20, Liang further discloses that installing the piles into the ground is at intermediate points of the piles, and installing comprises an installation process which utilizes a controller (e.g. claim 8, page 7, paragraph 5) but Liang does not explicitly disclose that the process is user-controlled. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to allow the process of Liang to be user-controlled for the expected benefit of allowing a user to adjust the process based on the needs of the project.
Regarding claim 21, Liang further discloses operating each installation module of the plurality of installation modules simultaneously or independently, or in a group to facilitate leveling of the group anchor system (e.g. page 7, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 23, Liang further discloses that installing the at least two helical piles includes controlling pile rotation and vertical motion (e.g. page 7, paragraph 5, wherein controlling the pile rotation results in controlling vertical motion of the pile).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678