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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 November 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 18 is 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. Claim 18 depends from cancelled claim 16. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 18 has been interpreted as depending from claim 12 as best understood by Examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (JP 09119141) in view of Hughs (US 976,879), Ramme (US 2007/0240620), and Feng et al. (CN 107310022).
Regarding claim 1, Arakawa discloses an electrically grounded and corrosion-protected assembly, comprising: a structure (electric utility pole 3) having a bottom portion that is buried in the earth; a water impermeable and electrically conductive cementitious surround (cement 4; Examiner takes the position that the slurry of which the cement is formed contains water, which is electrically conductive and, therefore the cement as disclosed by Arakawa reads on the claim limitation(s).) applied to at least a section of the portion that is buried in the earth (ground 1), wherein the surround is in direct contact with the section and is between the section and the earth (Figs. 2 and 4; abstract; paragraph 0008). Arakawa fails to explicitly disclose the structure is metallic; the cementitious surround has an electrical resistivity of less than or equal to 10,000 ohm cm; and a brace embedded in the surround and supporting the metallic structure, wherein the brace is non-electrically conductive and non-water permeable and comprises a gravel. Hughs teaches a metallic telephone pole (12) (page 1, lines 8 - 17). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the pole as disclosed by Arakawa with the metallic material as taught by Hughs as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Hughs fails to teach the cementitious surround has an electrical resistivity of less than or equal to 10,000 ohm cm; and a brace embedded in the surround and supporting the metallic structure, wherein the brace is non-electrically conductive and non-water impermeable and comprises a gravel. Ramme teaches a cementitious material has an electrical resistivity of less than or equal to 10,000 ohm cm (less than about 6,000 ohm cm) (paragraph 0035) for use in structures that may be struck by lightning to provide a material which conducts energy efficiently into the earth quickly and seamlessly. Arakawa is silent regarding the electrical resistivity of the cementitious material. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the cementitious material as disclosed by Arakawa with the electrical resistivity as taught by Ramme to provide a material which conducts energy efficiently into the earth quickly and seamlessly, thereby providing protection for a metallic structure such as a utility pole that might be struck by lightning by dissipating energy quickly and efficiently. Feng teaches a brace (gravel) embedded in the surround (cement) and supporting the pole (foundation pile 1), wherein the brace is non-electrically conductive and non-water impermeable and comprises a gravel (Figs. 2 - 4; abstract; pages 1, 2, and 4 of the previously submitted translation of the description) to provide lateral support for the foundation pile. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the cement as disclosed by Arakawa with the brace comprising gravel that is embedded in the surround as taught by Feng (gravel mixed with cement to form concrete) to provide lateral support for the metallic structure.
Regarding claim 2, Arakawa further discloses the structure is a utility pole (electric pole 3) (abstract; paragraph 0008).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Hughs, Ramme, and Feng et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kinnan (US 4,618,287). Arakawa in view of Hughs, Ramme, and Feng discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except an electrically conductive and water impermeable jacket applied to the metallic body. Kinnan teaches an electrically conductive and water impermeable jacket (steel casing 12) applied to the metallic body (utility pole 16) (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 2 - 22). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the jacket as taught by Kinnan to provide lateral support for the metallic structure.
Claim 7 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Hughs, Ramme, and Feng et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sirola et al. (US 2005/0194576).
Regarding claims 7 - 9, Arakawa in view of Hughs, Ramme, and Feng discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cementitious surround comprises a cementitious matrix comprising Portland cement and a particulate carbonaceous material comprising calcined petroleum coke dispersed in the cementitious matrix. Sirola teaches the cementitious surround comprises a cementitious matrix comprising Portland cement and a particulate carbonaceous material comprising calcined petroleum coke dispersed in the Portland cement (paragraph 0044 and 0056). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the surround as disclosed by Arakawa with the cementitious matrix comprising Portland cement and the particulate carbonaceous material comprising calcined petroleum coke as taught by Sirola to provide the surround with desired properties, such as a particular viscosity.. The substitution of one known element (surround comprising a cementitious matrix comprising Portland cement and a particulate carbonaceous material comprising calcined petroleum coke as taught by Sirola) for another (cement as disclosed by Arakawa) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Regarding claim 10, Arakawa in view of Hughs, Ramme, and Feng discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cementitious surround comprises between 5 wt% and 70 wt% Portland cement, and between 30 wt% and 90 wt% calcined petroleum coke. Sirola teaches the cementitious surround comprises between 5 wt% and 70 wt% Portland cement (50%; paragraph 0056), and between 30 wt% and 90 wt% calcined petroleum coke (45% - 55%) (paragraphs 0044 and 0056). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the surround as disclosed above with the cementitious surround comprising between 5 wt% and 70 wt% Portland cement and between 30 wt% and 90 wt% calcined petroleum coke as taught by Sirola to provide the surround with desired properties, such as a particular viscosity.
Regarding claim 11, Arakawa in view of Hughs, Ramme, and Feng discloses all of the claim limitations except the cementitious surround comprises up to 50% slag. Sirola teaches a cementitious surround (carbonaceous concrete conductive sheathing) comprising up to 50% Portland cement (paragraphs 0044 and 0056) and the cementitious surround can be composed of Portland cement or slag (abstract; paragraphs 0011 and 0044). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the cementitious binder as disclosed above with the slag as taught by Sirola as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element (cementitious binder comprising Portland cement) for another (cement binder) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to have substituted 50% slag for 50% Portland cement to maintain the same relative proportions of carbon material and cementitious material in the slurry.
Claims 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Hughs, Sun et al. (US 2018/0002885), and Slagle (US 3340929).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Arakawa discloses a method for electrically grounding and corrosion-protecting a metallic structure that has been lowered into a hole in the earth, comprising: a bottom portion of the structure that has been lowered into a hole in the earth (1), wherein a gap is between the bottom portion and the earth; applying a cementitious slurry (cement 4) to the gap between the bottom portion and the earth; and curing the cementitious slurry to form a water impermeable and electrically conductive cementitious surround (Examiner notes that even a hardened cement contains at least a small amount of water and water is electrically conductive.) on the bottom portion (Figs. 2 and 4; abstract; paragraph 0008). Arakawa fails to disclose the structure is metallic; at least partially filling a gap with a non-electrically-conductive and non-water-impermeable gravel to form a brace around a bottom portion of a metallic structure that has been lowered into a hole in the earth, and wherein the brace is positioned around the metallic structure to support the metallic structure; combining a cementitious powder with water to form a cementitious slurry, wherein the cementitious slurry comprises a cementitious matrix and a particulate carbonaceous material dispersed in the matrix, and wherein the cementitious powder is combined with water in a ratio of between 4 US gallons of water and 5 US gallons of water per 55 lb of cementitious powder; and enveloping the brace in the cementitious slurry by applying the cementitious slurry to the gravel and flowing the cementitious slurry through the gravel to fill spaces in the gravel; and curing the cementitious slurry with the brace embedded therein. Hughs teaches a metallic telephone pole (12) (page 1, lines 8 - 17). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the pole as disclosed by Arakawa with the metallic material as taught by Hughs as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Hughs fails to teach at least partially filling a gap with a non-electrically-conductive and non-water-impermeable gravel to form a brace around a bottom portion of a metallic structure that has been lowered into a hole in the earth, and wherein the brace is positioned around the metallic structure to support the metallic structure; combining a cementitious powder with water to form a cementitious slurry, wherein the cementitious slurry comprises a cementitious matrix and a particulate carbonaceous material dispersed in the matrix, and wherein the cementitious powder is combined with water in a ratio of between 4 US gallons of water and 5 US gallons of water per 55 lb of cementitious powder; and enveloping the brace in a cementitious slurry by applying the cementitious slurry to the gravel and flowing the cementitious slurry through the gravel to fill spaces in the gravel, wherein the cementitious slurry comprises a cementitious matrix and a particulate carbonaceous material dispersed in the matrix; and curing the cementitious slurry with the brace embedded therein. Sun teaches at least partially filling a gap with a non-electrically-conductive and non-water-permeable gravel (gravel layer 9) to form a brace in a gap around a bottom portion of a structure (anchor rod 101) that has been lowered into a hole (drill hole 7) in the earth, and wherein the brace (9) is positioned around the structure to support the structure; and enveloping the brace (9) in a cementitious slurry (mortar anchorage body 8) by applying the cementitious slurry to the gravel and flowing the cementitious slurry through the gravel to fill spaces in the gravel, wherein the cementitious slurry comprises a cementitious matrix and a particulate carbonaceous material dispersed in the matrix (paragraph 0027); and curing the cementitious slurry with the brace embedded therein (paragraph 0027) (Fig. 2; paragraphs 0021 - 0027). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the steps of at least partially filling a gap with a non-electrically-conductive and non-water-permeable gravel to form a brace in a gap around a bottom portion of a structure and enveloping the brace in a cementitious slurry as taught by Sun to improve the structural strength of the cementitious material and provide additional lateral support for the metallic structure. Examiner takes the position that the flowable cementitious slurry as taught by Arakawa is composed of water mixed with sand and since sand is smaller than gravel at least a small amount of the flowable cementitious slurry would obviously flow through the voids within the gravel. Sun fails to teach the cementitious powder is combined with water in a ratio of between 4 US gallons of water and 5 US gallons of water per 55 lb of cementitious powder. Slagle teaches the cementitious powder is combined with water in a ratio of between 4 US gallons of water and 5 US gallons of water (claimed range is between 4:55 = 0.07 gal/lb and 0.09 gal/lb; Slagle teaches between 0.03 gal/lb and 0.08 gal/lb) (see co. 5, lines 29 - 30 of Slagle teaches a water cement ratio of between 0.03 and 0.08) to improve the bonding strength between a pipe and the cement. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the cementitious slurry with the ratio of gallons of water to pounds of cement as taught by Slagle to improve the bonding strength between the metallic structure and the cement. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 20 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Arakawa discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except filling the gap with the gravel. Sun teaches filling the gap with the gravel (paragraphs 0022 and 0025). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the step of filling the gap with the gravel as taught by Sun to improve the structural strength of the cementitious material and provide additional lateral support for the metallic structure.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Hughs, Sun et al., and Slagle as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of White et al. (US 6,142,712). Arakawa in view of Hughs, Sun, and Slagle discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except step a. further comprises compacting the gravel. White teaches compacting gravel (19) to support a post (Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 34 - 39). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the step of compacting the gravel as taught by White to improve the structural strength of the brace in which the metallic structure is supported.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Hughs, Sun et al., and Slagle as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sirola et al.
Regarding claim 18, Arakawa in view of Hughs, Sun, and Slagle discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cementitious surround comprises between 5 wt% and 70 wt% Portland cement, and between 30 wt% and 90 wt% calcined petroleum coke. Sirola teaches the cementitious surround comprises between 5 wt% and 70 wt% Portland cement (50%; paragraph 0056), and between 30 wt% and 90 wt% calcined petroleum coke (45% - 55%) (paragraphs 0044 and 0056). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the surround as disclosed above with the cementitious surround comprising between 5 wt% and 70 wt% Portland cement and between 30 wt% and 90 wt% calcined petroleum coke as taught by Sirola to provide the surround with desired properties, such as a particular viscosity.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Hughs, Sun et al., and Slagle as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 112145180). Arakawa in view of Hughs, Sun, and Slagle discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except there is a delay of at least one day between steps a. and b. Li teaches allowing at least one day (120 - 240 hours) for gravel to dry and settle naturally (abstract). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the step of including a delay of at least one day as taught by Li between steps a. and b. to allow the gravel to settle naturally, thereby increasing the amount of structural support the brace provides for the metallic structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 3, 7 - 13, 15, and 18 - 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 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://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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
1/28/2026