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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A encompassing claims 1-6, 9-16, 19, and 20 in the reply filed on October 6, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant did not point out errors but instead emphasized that the unelected species contains clamps as opposed to the bolted connection contained in the elected species. The two modes of connection are not obvious variants.
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 5, 6, 15, and 16 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 claims 5 and 15: The term “torqued to be seismically safe” in claims 5 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “torqued to be seismically safe” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There has been no determination to what level would make a device seismically safe.
Referring to claims 6 and 16: It is unclear what makes a bracket “adaptable in form”. What is adaptable about the device? How does it match a size and shape of a frame?
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, -16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Patent No 8,734,058) in view of McConnell (US Patent No 3,085,148).
Referring to claim 1: Schmidt teaches providing a multiple-part pile cap that includes a top portion (item 112) and a bottom portion (items 104 and 108) to supply a mechanical interface between a first foundation pile providing the foundation for the structure and the frame of the structure itself; providing the multiple-part pile cap onto the first foundation pile of a set of foundation piles driven into a ground to provide the foundation for the structure using the multiple-part pile cap as the mechanical interface between the first foundation pile and the frame of the structure being secured to the first foundation pile (figures 7). Schmidt does not teach providing the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap that is i) matched in width to a width of a webbing of the first foundation pile and ii) has one or more holes in a first flange of the multiple-part pile cap to be bolted to the webbing of the first foundation pile. However, McConnell teaches providing the bottom portion (item 28) of the multiple-part pile cap that is i) matched in width to a width of a webbing of the first foundation pile (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the method taught by Schmidt and replace the bottom portion with that of McConnell in order to allow attachment to a different shaped pile from the original round one. They do not teach the bottom portion has one or more holes in a first flange of the multiple-part pile cap to be bolted to the webbing of the first foundation pile. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include holes in the first flange in order to allow for easy disassembly and reassembly of the components. Replacing a welded portion with a bolted portion would be obvious in order to allow all portions to be removable.
Referring to claim 2: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not specifically teach installing the multiple-part pile cap on the first foundation pile that in which one or more foundation piles of the set of foundation piles driven into the ground have been cut relative the other foundation piles in the set of foundation piles so that portions of the foundation piles in the set of foundation piles extending above ground level form a substantially level plane for the frame of the structure being secured to a set of multiple-part pile caps corresponding to the set of foundation piles so that the frame of the structure will be level when mechanically secured to the set of foundation piles. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place the pile cap on foundation piles that have been set to a uniform height in order to provide a level base for a structure. It is well known to install pile or posts and before installation of an upper structure, create a level mounting be either ensuring the posts are driven to a certain depth that exposes a certain length of post or cutting posts to a certain height.
Referring to claim 3: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. McConnell teaches the first flange of the angle bracket is i) matched in width to a width of the webbing (figure 1). They do not teach the first flange of the angle bracket has one or more holes in the first flange to be bolted to the webbing of the first foundation pile, and bolting a first flange of an angle bracket in the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap to the webbing in the first foundation pile. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Schmidt and McConnell and have bolt holes in the first flange and bolt the angle bracket to the pile instead of welding the two components together in order to make for easier less specialized assembly and easy disassembly.
Referring to claim 4: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not specifically teach bolting a second flange of an angle bracket in the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap to a first flange of another angle bracket in the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap, where one or more holes in the second flange of an angle bracket in the bottom portion are matched in location with one or more holes in the first flange of another angle bracket in the top portion when mated together; and thus, the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap is bolted to the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that a second flange of a bottom angle bracket (item 28 in McConnell) would be bolted to a first flange of an top angle bracket (item 112) when the bottom portion of Schmidt is replaced with the angle bracket of McConnell as in the instant claim.
Referring to claim 5: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Schmidt teaches bolting the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap to the top portion of the multiple part pile cap, and then, the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap is mechanically secured to the frame of the structure, and then any bolted connections are torqued to be seismically safe (figure 11). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to torque all fasteners to appropriate levels that are determined by the installation.
Referring to claim 6: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Schmidt teaches bolting the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap to the top portion of the multiplepart pile cap, where the top portion of the multiple-part cap pile is adaptable in form to match both a size and a shape of a frame of the structure that the first foundation pile is attaching to through the top portion of the multiple-part cap pile (figures 7 and 11).
Referring to claim 9: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Schmidt teaches the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap is a second angle bracket (item 112) and McConnell teaches the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap is a first angle bracket (item 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that replacing the bottom portion of Schmidty with the bracket of McConnell would result in the first angle bracket in the bottom portion and the second angle bracket in the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap are attached together in opposite 90-degree rotations when attached like the two portions of Schmidt would be.
Referring to claim 10: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Schmidt teaches where a flange of the second angle bracket in the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap bolts to the frame of the structure (figure 11).
Referring to claim 11: Schmidt teaches a multiple-part pile cap includes a top portion (item 112) and a bottom portion (items 102 and 108) that are configured to supply a mechanical interface between a first foundation pile providing a foundation for a structure and a frame of a structure itself; wherein the multiple-part pile cap is configured to be installed onto the first foundation pile of a set of foundation piles driven into a ground to provide the foundation for the structure using the multiple-part pile cap as the mechanical interface between the first foundation pile and the frame of the structure being secured to the first foundation pile (figure 7). Schmidt does not teach wherein the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap is configured to be i) matched in width to a width of a webbing of the first foundation pile and ii) has one or more holes in a first flange of the multiple-part pile cap to be bolted to the webbing of the first foundation pile. However, McConnell teaches the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap (item 28) is configured to be i) matched in width to a width of a webbing of the first foundation pile (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Schmidt and replace the bottom portion with that of McConnell in order to allow attachment to a different shaped pile from the original round one. They do not teach the bottom portion has one or more holes in a first flange of the multiple-part pile cap to be bolted to the webbing of the first foundation pile. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include holes in the first flange in order to allow for easy disassembly and reassembly of the components. Replacing a welded portion with a bolted portion would be obvious in order to allow all portions to be removable.
Referring to claim 12: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the multiple-part pile cap is configured to be installed on the first foundation pile where one or more foundation piles of the set of foundation piles driven into the ground have been cut relative the other foundation piles in the set of foundation piles so that portions of the foundation piles in the set of foundation piles extending above ground level form a substantially level plane for the frame of the structure being secured to a set of multiple-part pile caps corresponding to the set of foundation piles so that the frame of the structure will be level when mechanically secured to the set of foundation piles. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place the pile cap on foundation piles that have been set to a uniform height in order to provide a level base for a structure. It is well known to install pile or posts and before installation of an upper structure, create a level mounting be either ensuring the posts are driven to a certain depth that exposes a certain length of post or cutting posts to a certain height.
Referring to claim 13: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. McConnell teaches wherein a first flange of an angle bracket in the bottom portion of the multi-part pile cap is configured to be mated to the webbing in the first foundation pile, wherein the first flange of the angle bracket is i) matched in width to a width of the webbing (figure 1). They do not teach the first flange of the angle bracket has one or more holes in the first flange to be bolted to the webbing of the first foundation pile. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Schmidt and McConnell and have bolt holes in the first flange and bolt the angle bracket to the pile instead of welding the two components together in order to make for easier less specialized assembly and easy disassembly.
Referring to claim 14: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein a second flange of an angle bracket in the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap is configured to be bolted to a first flange of another angle bracket in the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap, where one or more holes in the second flange of an angle bracket in the bottom portion are matched in location with one or more holes in the first flange of another angle bracket in the top portion when mated together; and thus, the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap is bolted to the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that a second flange of a bottom angle bracket (item 28 in McConnell) would be bolted to a first flange of an top angle bracket (item 112) when the bottom portion of Schmidt is replaced with the angle bracket of McConnell as in the instant claim.
Referring to claim 15: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, Schmidt teaches wherein the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap is configured to be bolted to the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap, and then, the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap is mechanically secured to the frame of the structure, and then any bolted connections are configured to be torqued to be seismically safe. (figure 11). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to torque all fasteners to appropriate levels that are determined by the installation.
Referring to claim 16: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, Schmidt teaches wherein the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap is configured to be bolted to the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap, where the top portion of the multiple-part cap pile is adaptable in form to match both a size and a shape of a frame of the structure that the first foundation pile is attaching to through the top portion of the multiple-part cap pile (figures 7 and 11).
Referring to claim 19: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, Schmidt teaches the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap is a second angle bracket (item 112) and McConnell teaches the bottom portion of the multiple-part pile cap is a first angle bracket (item 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that replacing the bottom portion of Schmidty with the bracket of McConnell would result in the first angle bracket in the bottom portion and the second angle bracket in the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap are attached together in opposite 90-degree rotations when attached like the two portions of Schmidt would be.
Referring to claim 20: Schmidt and McConnell teach all the limitations of claim 19 as noted above. Additionally, Schmidt teaches where a flange of the second angle bracket in the top portion of the multiple-part pile cap is configured to be bolted to the frame of the structure (figure 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635