Application/Control Number: 18/192,862 Page 2
Art Unit: 3633
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/1/2025 has been entered.
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 21-25, 27-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson (US2014/0260023) in view of Hirsh (US Patent No. 2,375,921) and ‘135 (EP1469135).
For claim 21, Henderson discloses a pier foundation (fig. 1) comprising a concrete pier formed in an excavation, the concrete pier including a plurality of anchor bolts (11, it would have been obvious to make the anchor bolts sleeved since Henderson discloses sleeving the spiral loop addition [0034] to allow post-tightening and increase the durability of the anchor bolts) embedded therein in an annular arrangement, the anchor bolts each having a lower end (near 18), and being secured together at their lower ends to form a bolt cage having an outer perimeter of the anchor bolts, the anchor bolts extending from adjacent a bottom of the pier foundation to above a top thereof, and a spiral loop flexible steel addition (16) of an unrolled and windable continuous steel strand (the spiral loop comes rolled and will be unrolled at the excavation site [0011]) having opposing ends wrapped around the outer perimeter of the bolt cage and secured to the anchor bolts (ties [0014]), to provide lateral shear reinforcement to the pier foundation, and wherein the spiral loop flexible steel addition is wrapped around the outer perimeter of the bolt cage while the bolt cage is being lowered into the excavation [0040], and the excavation including at least an annular area filled with concrete in which the bolt cage wrapped with the spiral loop flexible steel addition is embedded.
Henderson does not disclose that the steel addition is secured to the sleeved anchor bolts individually, wherein the opposing ends of the spiral loop flexible steel addition are embedded in the concrete.
Hirsh discloses the obviousness of reinforcing a tubular concrete structure (figs. 1 and 17) with a spiral loop flexible steel addition (fig. 1, 18), wherein the opposing ends of the spiral loop flexible steel addition are embedded in concrete (fig. 19, 89).
‘135 discloses the obviousness of wrapping a rebar cage (fig. 10, 6) with spiral loop steel (4), wherein the spiral loop steel is secured to the rebars of the cage individually (see at 5, see illustration below).
PNG
media_image1.png
259
299
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to secure the continuous steel strand of Henderson to the modified sleeved anchor bolts individually wherein the opposing ends of the spiral loop flexible steel addition are embedded in the concrete as made obvious by Hirsh and ‘135 to provide increased strength to the pier foundation in a case where post-tensioning of the foundation is not required/desired.
For claim 22, the combination discloses that the spiral loop steel addition can extend over at least a bottom one-third of the bolt cage (Hirsh fig. 1, 18).
For claim 23, the combination discloses that the spiral loop steel addition can extend over substantially an entire vertical extent of the bolt cage (Hirsh fig. 1, 18).
For claim 24, the combination discloses that the annular area is defined by an outer corrugated metal pipe and an inner corrugated metal pipe (Henderson fig. 1, 12, 13).
For claim 25, the combination discloses that the annular area can be defined by an inner corrugated metal pipe (Henderson fig. 1, 13) and a sidewall of the excavation (outer perimeter of 12, the start and end of the annular area can be subjective).
For claim 27, the combination discloses that the excavation is formed as a cylindrical hole and that the cylindrical hole is filled with concrete having the wrapped bolt cage embedded therein, and the obviousness of filling the entire hole with concrete (Henderson fig. 4, 62 shows a hole filled entirely with concrete).
For claim 28, the combination discloses that the spiral loop flexible steel addition can be hoop steel (Henderson [0017]) arranged in a plurality of loops vertically spaced between about 3 inches and about 6 inches apart (~ 6 inches, page 5 of submitted publication ‘135, last paragraph, fig. 10, D).
For claim 29, the combination disclose that the hoop steel is a continuous strand of high strength steel having a diameter of ~0.5 inches (Henderson [0010]) and a tensile strength on the order of 270,000 psi (this is obvious since the strand of steel of the prior art has approximately the same diameter and made of the same material).
For claim 30, the combination discloses that the bolt cage includes an anchor ring (Henderson fig. 1, 14) adjacent the bottom of the pier to which the lower ends of the anchor bolts are secured.
For claim 31, the combination discloses that the spiral loop flexible steel addition is wound in loops around a perimeter of the bolt cage (Henderson fig. 1, 16).
For claim 32, the combination discloses that the loops can be wound around at least a lower end of the bolt cage (Hirsh fig. 1, 18).
For claim 33, the combination discloses that the loops can be wound around substantially an entire vertical extent of the pier foundation (Hirsh fig. 1, 18).
For claim 34, the combination discloses that the foundation includes a corrugated metal pipe (Henderson fig. 1, 12, 13), the bolt cage being positioned radially inwardly of the corrugated metal pipe (14).
For claim 35, the combination discloses that the foundation includes a corrugated metal pipe (Henderson fig. 1, 13), the bolt cage being positioned radially outwardly of the corrugated metal pipe (13).
For claim 36, the combination discloses that the pier foundation includes a concrete plug (Henderson fig. 1, 14) formed within a bottom interior area of the corrugated metal pipe.
For claim 37, the combination discloses that the loops have a vertical spacing (Hirsh fig. 9, 18) that creates an angle from horizontal having a slope, but does not disclose that the slope is about 4 inches over 14 ft. However it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to make the slope 4 inches over 14 ft since this merely involves optimizing already disclosed elements to get predictable and expected results like a stronger and sturdier foundation.
For claim 38, Henderson discloses a method of installing a laterally reinforced concrete pier foundation (fig. 1) comprising: excavating a hole [0040]; assembling a tower anchor bolt cage having an outer perimeter including a plurality of anchor bolts (fig. 1, 11, it would have been obvious to make the anchor bolts sleeved since Henderson discloses sleeving the spiral loop addition [0034] to allow post-tightening and increase the durability of the anchor bolts) in an annular arrangement and secured at their lower ends, said lower ends being adjacent a bottom of the laterally reinforced concrete pier foundation with the upper ends of the anchor bolts extending above a top of the laterally reinforced concrete pier foundation when the tower anchor bolt cage is placed within the hole; and wrapping the outer perimeter of the tower anchor bolt cage with and securing (ties [0014]) the anchor bolts to, a spiral loop flexible steel addition (16) of an unrolled and windable continuous steel strand (the spiral loop comes rolled and will be unrolled at the excavation site [0011]) having opposite ends over at least a lower end thereof to produce a wrapped tower anchor bolt cage and provide lateral shear reinforcement to the laterally reinforced concrete pier foundation, wherein the spiral loop flexible steel addition is wrapped around the outer perimeter of the bolt cage while the bolt cage is lowered into the excavated hole [0040], and securing the wrapped tower anchor bolt cage with concrete (103) after said wrapped tower anchor bolt cage is positioned within the hole with the lower ends of the sleeved anchor bolts at the bottom of the laterally reinforced concrete pier foundation.
Henderson does not disclose that the spiral loop steel addition is individually secured to the sleeved anchor bolts with the opposing ends of the spiral loop flexible steel addition being embedded in the concrete.
Hirsh discloses the obviousness of reinforcing a tubular concrete structure (figs. 1 and 17) with a spiral loop flexible steel addition (fig. 1, 18), wherein the opposing ends of the spiral loop flexible steel addition are embedded in concrete (fig. 19, 89).
‘135 discloses the obviousness of wrapping a rebar cage (fig. 10, 6) with spiral loop steel (4), wherein the spiral loop steel is secured to the rebars of the cage individually (see at 5, see illustration below).
PNG
media_image1.png
259
299
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to secure the continuous steel strand of Henderson to the modified sleeved anchor bolts individually wherein the opposing ends of the spiral loop flexible steel addition are embedded in the concrete as made obvious by Hirsh and ‘135 to provide increased strength to the pier foundation in a case where post-tensioning of the foundation is not required/desired.
For claim 39, the combination discloses that the step of excavating includes digging a cylindrical hole (Henderson fig. 1), the wrapped tower anchor bolt cage being lowered into said cylindrical hole [0040] and said step of securing including filling the cylindrical hole with cementitious material (103).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 is allowed.
Claim 26 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record neither anticipates or makes obvious a pier foundation comprising all the limitations of the concrete pier set forth in claim 21 and further comprising that the step of excavating the hole includes digging an annular trench with undisturbed native soil forming a center area encircled by the trench, the bolt cage being lowered into the trench and filling the trench with cementitious material.
Response to Arguments
In response to the argument that ‘135 teaches a stirrup structure that is implemented in a workshop and then transferred to the site of installation which is contrary to the teachings of Henderson, the examiner argues that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). ‘135 and Hirsh are relied upon to disclose that all the elements claimed by the applicant are obvious teachings that are readily available to one having ordinary skill in the art, whether these teachings are implemented in the factory or on site does not negate their obviousness.
All other arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached on 571-272-6754. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633