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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson III et al (US 8,613,571) herein referred to as Watson.
As to claim 1, Watson discloses a method for constructing a pile in soil, comprising: driving a lead section 11 comprising a shaft 12 having a flight of helical screws 12a between a top end and a bottom end into the soil, thereby forming a hole in the soil about the lead section, wherein the lead section 11 is joined to a driving section 24 that applies force to the lead section; adding one or more extension sections 33 between the lead section and the driving section, wherein the one or more extension sections 33 are joined at a lower end to the lead section and are joined at an upper end to the driving section; wherein the top end is a depth below a surface of the soil: uncoupling the lead section 11 from the lower end of the one or more extension sections: removing the driving section 24 and the one or more extension sections 33 from the hole; followed by adding a reinforcing structure 65 to the hole, thereby forming the pile in the soil.
As to claim 2, Watson discloses wherein a bit 20 is coupled in proximity to the lead section 11.
As to claim 3, Watson discloses wherein the reinforcing structure 65 is chosen from a rebar cage 65, a pipe, or a combination thereof.
As to claim 4, Watson discloses wherein the depth is greater than about 10 feet.
As to claim 5, Watson discloses wherein the depth is no greater than about 40 feet.
As to claim 6, Watson discloses further comprising: adding liquid grout 66 to the hole.
11. As to claim 7, Watson discloses the use of grout, such grout is capable of being added during the driving the lead section.
12. As to claim 8, Watson discloses the use of grout, such grout capable of being added before the uncoupling the lead section.
As to claim 9, Watson discloses wherein at least some of the liquid grout 66 is added after the adding of the reinforcing structure 65.
As to claim 10, Watson discloses wherein the liquid grout 66 completely surrounds the reinforcing structure 65 below the surface of the soil.
As to claim 11, Watson discloses wherein the bit 20 remains in the hole after the uncoupling the lead section.
As to claim 12, Watson discloses wherein the bit 20 is removed from the hole before the adding the reinforcing structure 65.
As to claim 13, Watson discloses wherein the one or more extension sections 33 are added with at least one bolted splice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 14, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest the pile including a bit proximal to the top end of the lead section, the bit comprising one or more teeth that bite the soil to create a hole in the soil wider than a lead section diameter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 2/16/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as stated above.
As to claim 1, as stated above, Watson discloses removing the driving section 24 and the one or more extension sections 33 which is then followed by adding reinforcement structure 65.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm.
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.
/FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678