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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Each independent claim (claims 1, 8, and 15) has been amended to recite “wherein the saddle bracket is movable in three degrees of freedom such that one degree of freedom is a linear axis and the remaining degrees of freedom are rotational parallel axes”. The aforementioned limitation is not described in the specification and, therefore, represents new matter. The specification only describes two degrees of freedom; sleeve 101 permits a full 360 degrees of rotation and slots 104 allow for linear movement. A second rotational degree of freedom is not disclosed.
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 1 - 19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the base" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “the base plate”, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “non-conventionally sized construction materials” is vague because it does not clearly define dimensions of the construction materials. Claims 14 and 19 contain similar errors.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the base" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “the base plate”, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the bracket is configured to a round shaped pier” renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the bracket is configured to do relative to a round shaped pier. The aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “the bracket is configured to accommodate a round shaped pier”, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “standard sized shipping container” is vague because it does not clearly define dimensions of the container. Examiner has interpreted a “standard size” as a container having dimensions that are whole numbers (i.e. a 4 inch by 4 inch container).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the base" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “the base plate”, 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 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomchesson et al. (US 2016/0186403) in view of Kim (KR 20110005392).
Regarding claim 1, Tomchesson discloses a rotating linear adjustment bracket (RLAB) for use in providing connective support between building construction materials and a ground mounted pier comprising: a cylindrical sleeve (coupling member 340); a base plate (unlabeled horizontal bottom plate of base 335) mounted on top of the sleeve; at least one gusset (unlabeled gusset attached to the bottom side of unlabeled plate associated with support 335 and to the sleeve 340 as shown in Fig. 13) bridging the base to the cylindrical sleeve; and a saddle bracket (330) attached to the base plate for connecting construction materials (object 305) to the base plate, wherein the saddle bracket (330) is moveable in two degrees of freedom (saddle bracket 330 may move linearly in a horizontal direction by adjusting pins 365 in slots 345; coupling member 340 is rotatable about a vertical rotational axis) (Figs. 11 - 15; paragraphs 0040 - 0043). Tomchesson fails to disclose the bracket is moved in a third degree of freedom, wherein the third degree of freedom is a rotational axis that is parallel to the rotational axis as disclosed by Tomchesson. Kim teaches a linearly rotatable bracket (the bracket can move linearly and rotatably relative to the base plate), wherein the bracket (connecting part 30) is linearly rotatable (part 30 can move linearly along slot 301 and the part 30 is rotatable about guide piece 204/302) (Figs. 2 and 3; pages 7 and 8 of the attached translation of the description). 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 to include the linearly rotatable bracket as taught by Kim to allow the bracket to be stably installed by correcting a pier that deviates from a central axis due to obstacles such as rocks or uneven soil into which the pier is installed.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, the embodiment of Fig. 13 as disclosed by Tomchesson teaches all of the claim limitation(s) except at least one of screws, clamps, adhesives are used to join the RLAB to a pier. The embodiment of Fig. 22A teaches a bolt (148, which is functionally equivalent to a screw) to join a pile cap (lower body 2230) to a pier (145) (Figs. 22A and 22B; paragraphs 0068 and 0071). 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 coupling comprising a sleeve as disclosed by the embodiment of Fig. 13 of Tomchesson to include a screw connection between the sleeve and the pier (pile assembly 300) as taught by the embodiment of Figs. 22A and 22B of Tomchesson to provide a more secure but releasable connection between the bracket and the pier.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18, Tomchesson further fails to specify the size of the lumber to be accommodated by the saddle bracket. Examiner takes the position that the size of the lumber to be accommodated by the saddle bracket lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Tomchesson further discloses the saddle bracket is configured to accommodate a round shaped pier (145) (Figs. 11 and 13; paragraph 0027). Examiner notes that paragraph 0027 of Tomchesson discloses extension 145 may have a circular shape.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Tomchesson further discloses the saddle bracket (330) is configured to accommodate a standard sized shipping container (Figs. 11 - 14).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 19, Tomchesson further discloses the saddle bracket (330) is configured as an adapter for accommodating a non-conventionally sized shipping container (Figs. 12 - 14).
Regarding claim 8, Tomchesson discloses a bracket for use in providing connective support between building construction materials and a ground mounted pier comprising: a cylindrical sleeve (140); a base plate (335) mounted on top of the sleeve; at least one gusset (unlabeled gusset attached to the bottom side of unlabeled base 335 and to the sleeve 140 as shown in Fig. 13) bridging the base to the cylindrical sleeve; a saddle bracket (330) attached to the base plate for connecting the construction materials (object 305) to the base plate; and wherein the saddle bracket (330) is moveable in two degrees of freedom (saddle bracket 330 may move linearly in a horizontal direction by adjusting pins 365 in slots 345; coupling member 340 is rotatable about a vertical rotational axis) (Figs. 11 - 15; paragraphs 0040 - 0043). Tomchesson fails to disclose the bracket is moved in a third degree of freedom, wherein the third degree of freedom is a rotational axis that is parallel to the rotational axis as disclosed by Tomchesson. Kim teaches a linearly rotatable bracket (the bracket can move linearly and rotatably relative to the base plate), wherein the bracket (connecting part 30) is linearly rotatable (part 30 can move linearly along slot 301 and the part 30 is rotatable about guide piece 204/302) (Figs. 2 and 3; pages 7 and 8 of the attached translation of the description). 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 to include the linearly rotatable bracket as taught by Kim to allow the bracket to be stably installed by correcting a pier that deviates from a central axis due to obstacles such as rocks or uneven soil into which the pier is installed.
Regarding claim 15, Tomchesson discloses a bracket for use in providing connective support between building construction materials and a ground mounted pier comprising: a cylindrical sleeve (140) for mounting in the ground; a base plate (335) mounted on top of the sleeve having a slot therein (345); at least one gusset (unlabeled gusset attached to the bottom side of unlabeled plate associated with support 335 and to the sleeve 340 as shown in Fig. 13) bridging the base to the cylindrical sleeve; a saddle bracket (330) attached to the base plate (335) for connecting the construction materials (305) to the base plate; and wherein the saddle bracket (330) is moveable in two degrees of freedom (saddle bracket 330 may move linearly in a horizontal direction by adjusting pins 365 in slots 345; coupling member 340 is rotatable about a vertical rotational axis) (Figs. 11 - 15; paragraphs 0040 - 0043). Tomchesson fails to disclose the bracket is moved in a third degree of freedom, wherein the third degree of freedom is a rotational axis that is parallel to the rotational axis as disclosed by Tomchesson. Kim teaches a linearly rotatable bracket (the bracket can move linearly and rotatably relative to the base plate), wherein the bracket (connecting part 30) is linearly rotatable (part 30 can move linearly along slot 301 and the part 30 is rotatable about guide piece 204/302) (Figs. 2 and 3; pages 7 and 8 of the attached translation of the description). 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 to include the linearly rotatable bracket as taught by Kim to allow the bracket to be stably installed by correcting a pier that deviates from a central axis due to obstacles such as rocks or uneven soil into which the pier is installed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 19 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
1/29/2026