DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed 07/15/2025
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are currently pending;
Claims 1, 10, and 21 are currently amended;
Claims 2-9, 11-20, and 22-23 were previously presented;
Claims 1-23 are rejected hereinafter.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 2006/0257210) in view of Wang (CN 209277363).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a floating foundation assembly (“Residential basement flooring system and method using pier capitals for supporting pre-cast slabs”, title), comprising: a plurality of piers (110) arranged at predetermined distances from each other in a ground surface (piers 110 spaced apart a predetermined, i.e. planned before installation, distance, Fig. 1); and one or more precast decks (precast decks, pre-cast slabs 130, Fig. 1; “...the flooring assembly 100 makes use of pre-cast slabs 130...”, Para. 0020), arranged transversely across tops of the plurality of piers (pre- cast slabs 130 are on the tops of piers 110, Fig. 1), configured for affixing a structure on top of the one or more precast prestressed decks (although not being positively recited, a structure, i.e. wall sections 150, are affixed on slabs 130, Fig. 1), and wherein each of the one or more precast prestressed decks is securely mounted on one or more of the plurality of piers (figure 1; see slab being securely mounted on piers 110, 120). Williams fails to explicitly disclose prestressed decks. Wang is in the same field of endeavor of concrete decks (“Green and environment-friendly concrete laminated slab’, title) and teaches prestressed decks. (“The prefabricated slab comprises. a prefabricated slab bottom layer 1, a prefabricated slab middle layer 2, a prefabricated slab top layer 3, bolts 4, nuts 5, longitudinal prestressed steel bars 11, shear keys 21, double rows of short tie bars 22, double rows of long tic bars 23 and transverse prestressed steel bars 31.”, Lns. 126-130). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Williams with the teaching of Wang where the slab is prestressed, the motivation being that prestressed slabs are stronger.
Regarding claim 2, modified Williams discloses the floating foundation assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of piers are screwed at predetermined depths in the ground surface (screw piers 110 inherently installed at predetermined depths, Fig. 1; “The piers 110 may be poured concrete, helical screws, or the like...”, Para. 0022).
Regarding claim 3, modified Williams discloses the floating foundation assembly of claim 2, wherein the predetermined distances and the predetermined depths are based on at least one of a size of the structure, a shape of the structure, a load of the structure, and one or more characteristics of soil underlying sections of the structure (such parameters are inherent based on static civil engineering design. In other words, the structural design process mandates soil mechanics and load evaluations).
Regarding claim 4, modified Williams discloses the floating foundation assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more decks are precast and prestressed in an environment at a location different from a location of the plurality of piers, and wherein the one or more precast prestressed decks are transported to the location of the plurality of piers once the plurality of piers is arranged at the predetermined distance from each other in the ground surface (“In contrast, the flooring assembly 100 makes use of pre-cast slabs 130 that are manufactured offsite, such as at a warehouse or manufacturing facility, are transported to the site and then lifted and positioned to form a floor.”, Para. 0020).
Regarding claim 5, modified Williams discloses the floating foundation assembly of claim 1. Williams in view of Wang fails to explicitly disclose the one or more precast decks are prestressed on a 300 to 400 feet prestressing line prior to their arrangement across the tops of the plurality of piers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the one or more precast decks such that they are prestressed on a 300 to 400 feet prestressing line prior to their arrangement across the tops of the plurality of piers, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be provide the strength in the slab to accommodate the specific design load.
Regarding claim 6, modified Williams discloses the floating foundation assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more precast prestressed decks are spaced apart to spread a load of the structure in a predetermined manner over the piers (there are multiple slabs 130 on and sharing piers 110, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Williams discloses the floating foundation assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of piers comprise helical screw piers (“The piers 110 may be poured concrete, helical screws, or the like...”, Para. 0022). Williams fails to explicitly disclose the piers are made of steel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the helical screw from steel, since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to make the piers strong.
Regarding claim 8, modified Williams discloses the floating foundation assembly of claim |. Williams fails to explicitly disclose the one or more precast prestressed decks comprise green concrete. Wang teaches one or more precast prestressed decks comprise green concrete (“To the above problem, the utility model discloses a green's concrete superimposed sheet.’’, Lns. 32-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Williams with the teaching of Wang where green concrete is used for the slab, the motivation being to make an environmentally friendly structure.
Regarding claim 9, modified Williams discloses the floating foundation assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more precast prestressed decks comprise a ribbed deck, a waffle deck, or both (“The slabs 130 may include channels formed between joists or ribs and edge or carrying beams as discussed below, and for additional strength and integrity...”, Para. 0023).
Regarding claim 10, Williams discloses a method for manufacturing a foundation assembly (“Residential basement flooring system and method using pier capitals for supporting pre-cast slabs”, title), the method comprising: arranging a plurality of piers at predetermined distances from each other in a ground surface (piers 110 spaced apart a predetermined, i.e. planned before installation, distance, Fig. 1); and installing one or more precast decks, transversely across tops of the plurality of piers, for affixing a structure on top of the one or more precast prestressed decks (precast decks, pre-cast slabs 130, Fig. 1; “... the flooring assembly 100 makes use of pre-cast slabs 130...”, Para. 0020), arranged transversely across tops of the plurality of piers (pre-cast slabs. 130 are on the tops of piers 110, Fig. 1), configured for affixing a structure on top of the one or more precast prestressed decks (although not being positively recited, a structure, i.e. wall sections 150, are affixed on slabs 130, Fig. 1) and wherein each of the one or more precast prestressed decks is securely mounted on one or more of the plurality of piers (figure 1; see slab being securely mounted on piers 110, 120). Williams fails to explicitly disclose prestressed decks. Wang is in the same field of endeavor of concrete decks (“Green and environment-friendly concrete laminated slab’, title) and teaches prestressed decks (“The prefabricated slab comprises a prefabricated slab bottom layer 1, a prefabricated slab middle layer 2, a prefabricated slab top layer 3, bolts 4, nuts 5, longitudinal prestressed steel bars 11, shear keys 21, double rows of short tie bars 22, double rows of long tie bars 23 and transverse prestressed steel bars 31.”, Lns. 126-130). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Williams with the teaching of Wang where the slab is prestressed, the motivation being that prestressed slabs are stronger.
Regarding claim 11, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 10, wherein arranging the plurality of piers comprises screwing the plurality of piers at predetermined depths in the ground surface (screw piers 110 inherently installed at predetermined depths, Fig. 1; “The piers 110 may be poured concrete, helical screws, or the like...”, Para. 0022).
Regarding claim 12, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 11. Williams fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined depths and the predetermined distances at which the plurality of piers are screwed in the ground surface are based on at least one of a size of the structure, a shape of the structure, a distributed load of the structure, characteristics of the underlying soil, and local historical weather conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to base the predetermined depths and the predetermined distances at which the plurality of piers are screwed in the ground surface on at least one of a size of the structure, a shape of the structure, a distributed load of the structure, characteristics of the underlying soil, and local historical weather conditions, since it was known in the art to use such well known soil mechanics and structural design. The motivation for doing so would be design a structure that will not fail and will enjoy longevity.
Regarding claim 13, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising: prestressing the one or more precast prestressed decks at a location different from a location of the plurality of piers; and transporting the one or more precast prestressed decks to the location of the plurality of piers (“In contrast, the flooring assembly 100 makes use of pre-cast slabs 130 that can are manufactured offsite, such as at a warehouse or manufacturing facility, are transported to the site, and then lifted and positioned to form a floor.”’, Para. 0020).
Regarding claim 14, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 13. Williams fails to explicitly disclose prestressing the one or more precast prestressed decks occurs prior to installing the one or more precast prestressed decks on top of the plurality of piers. Wang is in the same field of endeavor of concrete decks (“Green and environment-friendly concrete laminated slab’’, title) and teaches prestressing one or more precast prestressed decks occurs prior to installing the one or more precast prestressed decks on top of a plurality of piers (Wang teaches prestressing slabs; “The prefabricated slab comprises a prefabricated slab bottom layer 1, a prefabricated slab middle layer 2, a prefabricated slab top layer 3, bolts 4, nuts 5, longitudinal prestressed steel bars 11, shear keys 21, double rows of short tie bars 22, double rows of long tie bars 23 and transverse prestressed steel bars 31.”, Lns. 126-130. Williams teaches that the slabs are constructed at a remote location and then transported to the building site). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Williams with the teaching of Wang where the slab is prestressed, the motivation being that prestressed slabs are stronger.
Regarding claim 15, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising prestressing the one or more precast prestressed decks on a 300 to 400 feet prestressing line. Williams in view of Wang fails to explicitly disclose prestressing the one or more precast prestressed decks on a 300 to 400 feet prestressing line prior to their arrangement across the tops of the plurality of piers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the one or more precast decks such that they are prestressed on a 300 to 400 feet prestressing line prior to their arrangement across the tops of the plurality of piers, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be provide the strength in the slab to accommodate the specific design load.
Regarding claim 16, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising: coupling the one or more precast prestressed decks to the plurality of piers (slabs 130 are coupled to piers 110, Fig. 1); and loading walls of the structure on the installed one or more precast prestressed decks (a structure, i.e. wall sections 150, are affixed on slabs 130, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the one or more precast prestressed decks are configured to evenly spread loads of the structure across the piers (it is inherent in the design of such a structure that loads are evenly distributed).
Regarding claim 18, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the plurality of piers comprise helical screw piers (“The piers 110 may be poured concrete, helical screws, or the like...”, Para. 0022). Williams fails to explicitly disclose the piers are made of steel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the helical screw piers from steel, since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to make the piers strong.
Regarding claim 19, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 10. Williams fails to explicitly disclose the one or more precast prestressed decks comprise green concrete. Wang teaches one or more precast prestressed decks comprise green concrete (“To the above problem, the utility model discloses a green's concrete superimposed sheet.”, Lns. 32-33). Tt would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Williams with the teaching of Wang where green concrete is used for the slab, the motivation being to make an environmentally friendly structure.
Regarding claim 20, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the one or more precast prestressed decks comprise a ribbed deck, a waffle deck, or both (“The slabs 130 may include channels formed between joists or ribs and edge or carrying beams as discussed below, and for additional strength and integrity...”, Para. 0023).
Regarding claim 21, Williams discloses a method of determining locations and depths of piers for supporting a foundation, the method (“Residential basement flooring system and method using pier capitals for supporting pre-cast slabs”, title), the method comprising: determining locations and corresponding depths of the piers to support the structure (piers 110 are located at predetermined locations and at predetermined depths to support slabs 130 and walls 150); inserting the piers into the soil at the locations to the corresponding depths (piers 110 are inserted/installed in the soil, Fig. 1); and coupling precast decks to the piers, thereby forming a floor of a foundation (precast decks, pre-cast slabs 130, are coupled to piers 110, Fig. 1); and wherein each of the one or more precast prestressed decks is securely mounted on one or more of the plurality of piers (figure 1; see slab being securely mounted on piers 110, 120). . Williams fails to explicitly disclose determining load distributions for a structure across an area supporting the structure; based on the load distributions and soil characteristics across the area, determining locations and corresponding depths of the piers to support the structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine load distributions for a structure across an area supporting the structure; based on load distributions and soil characteristics across the area, determining locations and corresponding depths of piers to support structure, since it was known in the art to use such well known soil mechanics and structural design. The motivation for doing so would be design a structure that will not fail and will enjoy longevity. Williams fails to explicitly disclose prestressed decks. Wang is in the same field of endeavor of concrete decks (“Green and environment-friendly concrete laminated slab’, title) and teaches prestressed decks (“The prefabricated slab comprises a prefabricated slab bottom layer 1, a prefabricated slab middle layer 2, a prefabricated slab top layer 3, bolts 4, nuts 5, longitudinal prestressed steel bars 11, shear keys 21, double rows of short tie bars 22, double rows of long tie bars 23 and transverse prestressed steel bars 31.”, Lns. 126-130). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Williams with the teaching of Wang where the slab is prestressed, the motivation being that prestressed slabs are stronger.
Regarding claim 22, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the soil characteristics comprise the load-bearing properties of the soil (it is inherent that the soil properties/characteristics define the load bearing properties thereof).
Regarding claim 23, modified Williams discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the soil characteristics correspond to types of the soil, a slope of the soil, or any combination thereof (such features of the soil/topography inherently define the soil characteristics).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed s07/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In responds to Applicants argument that “Williams teaches a residential basement flooring system and method using pier capitals for supporting pre-cast slabs. Williams describes precast slabs 130 that are supported by pier capitals 120. However, the slabs in Williams are described as resting upon the pier capitals. For example, it is stated in paragraph [0030] of Williams that “[t]he slab 130 are shown supported on capitals 120 and piers 110 (i.e., by resting the carrying members (not shown) on the weight bearing surfaces of capitals 120,” and it is stated in paragraph [0024] of Williams that “each slab 130 is supported on top of capitals 120, which in turn are supported by piers 110. As shown, two abutting slabs 130 have end portions 234, 236 that abut or contact each other and are supported by a capital surface 126.” Williams does not disclose nor suggest, for example, any secure mounting of the slabs to the piers. Williams does not teach, for example, wherein the precast, prestressed decks are securely mounted on the piers.” – Examiner respectfully disagrees. Williams teaches to securely mounting the prestressed decks on one or more of the plurality of piers. In this case Williams resting the slab 130 on top of pier 110 and capital 120 is considered to read on the term “securely mounted”, since it does not require any further structural elements such as bolts, dowels, rebars or the like to connect the slab to the piers. Therefore, the prior art still reads on the new limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678