Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/528,443

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR LIFTING A CONCRETE SLAB

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Dec 04, 2023
Examiner
SADLON, JOSEPH
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Independence Materials Group LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
477 granted / 756 resolved
+11.1% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
797
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 756 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 CORRESPONDENCE This communication is a second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20, as amended 24 DEC. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows; Cl. 18-20 remain withdrawn as previously detailed: Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities: The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s): Cl. 1 ln. 8-9: the phrase “a portion received within the floor aperture“ has/have not been explicitly pointed out; the Examiner notes the specification provides for “The excavation” to receive the lift apparatus (“The excavation only needs to be large enough (e.g., deep and/or wide enough) to accommodate at least a portion of the lift apparatus 20.” p. 11, ln. 21-23) but it is unclear how this is required by the claim; Examiner notes the phrase “floor aperture” is not positively claimed, and it is not clear what comprises “a portion”; for examination purposes, this will be treated broadly Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Cl. 1 ln. 18: after “in the floor using the pier” insert--drive-- Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-9 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ong US 8556541 B2 As per claim 1 Ong teaches a lifting system, the lifting system comprising: a lifting apparatus (“PILE DRIVER”, title) comprising two or more lifting rods (threaded section 51, FIG. 3), wherein the lifting apparatus (“PILE DRIVER”, title) is configured to be operatively coupled (see FIG. 3) to a lower surface of a floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) through a floor aperture (space between “sub-structure (8)” elements, FIG. 3) within the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) , and wherein the two or more lifting rods (threaded section 51, FIG. 3) extend through the floor aperture (space between “sub-structure (8)” elements, FIG. 3) above the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) ; a reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) abutting an upper surface of the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3), the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) comprising two or more rod apertures (apertures at bolts 32, FIG. 3), a pier aperture (socket joint 21, FIG. 3), one or more flanges (left and right extents of block 2 and structure 3, FIG. 3) extending radially outward relative to the pier aperture (socket joint 21, FIG. 3), and a portion (see at least lower portion of rams 44 and block 2 received within the aperture as above identified, FIG. 3) received within the floor aperture (space between “sub-structure (8)” elements, FIG. 3), wherein the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) is configured to be removably operatively coupled with the upper surface of the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) and the lifting apparatus (“PILE DRIVER”, title) by receiving the two or more lifting rods (threaded section 51, FIG. 3) within the two or more rod apertures (apertures at bolts 32, FIG. 3), and wherein the pier aperture (socket joint 21, FIG. 3) of the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) receives one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3); and a pier drive (jacks 4, FIG. 3) configured to be removably operatively coupled with the one or more flanges (left and right extents of block 2 and structure 3, FIG. 3) of the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) and the one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3) to drive the one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3) into the ground, wherein the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) aligns the pier drive (jacks 4, FIG. 3) with respect to the one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3); wherein the one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3) are driven into the ground through the pier aperture (socket joint 21, FIG. 3) of the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) and the floor aperture (space between “sub-structure (8)” elements, FIG. 3) in the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) using the pier --drive--(jacks 4, FIG. 3). In other words, the examiner's position is that Ong inherently has a floor aperture —that is to say, an “opening”— between the elements of the sub-structure “8”. However, in the alternative, if Ong does not disclose a floor aperture, then it certainly would have been obvious to a skilled artisan art at the time of filing to modify the supporting substructure of Ong by substituting the opening in the slab and sleeve assembly (11, 19 FIG. 1) in order to allow piles to be driven below a slab. As per claim 2 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Ong further discloses: a lifting drive (rams 43, FIG. 3) configured to be operatively coupled (see FIG. 3) with the lifting apparatus (“PILE DRIVER”, title) or the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) after removal of the pier drive (jacks 4, FIG. 3), wherein the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) is lifted by moving the lifting apparatus (“PILE DRIVER”, title) or the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) with respect to the one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3). As per claim 3 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Ong further discloses at least a portion of pier drive (jacks 4, FIG. 3) surrounds (see the rings around hole unidentified hole 35, FIG. 3, shown in FIG. 1) the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) to align the pier drive (jacks 4, FIG. 3) with the one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3) extending through the pier aperture (socket joint 21, FIG. 3) of the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) . As per claim 4 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 3, and Ong further discloses wherein the lifting apparatus (“PILE DRIVER”, title) comprising: a first portion (block 2, FIG. 3); and a second portion (thrust block frame structure 3, FIG. 3); wherein during installation, a lifting drive (rams 43, FIG. 3) lifts the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) and moves the second portion (thrust block frame structure 3, FIG. 3) towards the first portion (block 2, FIG. 3), and wherein after lifting the first portion (block 2, FIG. 3), the second portion (thrust block frame structure 3, FIG. 3), and the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) restrict movement between the first portion (block 2, FIG. 3), the second portion (thrust block frame structure 3, FIG. 3), the one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3), and the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3). As per claim 5 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 4, and Ong further discloses wherein the first portion (block 2, FIG. 3) comprises: a base (lowermost block shaped portion of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to portion with hole 28, FIG. 2b); and an extension member (top half of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to top wing section 22, FIG. 2b) operatively coupled (see FIG. 3) to the base (lowermost block shaped portion of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to portion with hole 28, FIG. 2b); wherein the extension member (top half of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to top wing section 22, FIG. 2b) is removable or adjustable horizontally with respect to the base (lowermost block shaped portion of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to portion with hole 28, FIG. 2b); wherein the extension member (top half of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to top wing section 22, FIG. 2b) of the first portion extends outwardly (see left and right extents of above identified “top half” FIG. 3; this is recognized to extend “outwardly” and “under” as broadly claimed) under the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) and is operatively coupled (see FIG. 3) to the lower surface of the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3); and the second portion (thrust block frame structure 3, FIG. 3) is operatively coupled (see FIG. 3) with the first portion (block 2, FIG. 3) and a pier (pile 61, FIG. 3) of the one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3). As per claim 6 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 5, and Ong further discloses herein the extension member (top half of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to top wing section 22, FIG. 2b) is removable with respect to the base (lowermost block shaped portion of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to portion with hole 28, FIG. 2b); and wherein during installation the base (lowermost block shaped portion of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to portion with hole 28, FIG. 2b) is installed within (see “installed within” FIG. 3) the floor aperture (space between “sub-structure (8)” elements, FIG. 3) in the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) separately from the extension member (top half of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to top wing section 22, FIG. 2b). As per claim 7 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 5, and Ong further discloses the extension member (top half of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to top wing section 22, FIG. 2b) is adjusted horizontally with respect to the base (lowermost block shaped portion of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to portion with hole 28, FIG. 2b) to allow for installation within the floor aperture (space between “sub-structure (8)” elements, FIG. 3) in the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) and extension of the extension member (top half of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to top wing section 22, FIG. 2b) horizontally under (see left and right extents of above identified “base” FIG. 3; this is recognized to extend “horizontally” and “under” as broadly claimed) the lower surface of the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3). As per claim 8 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 5, and Ong further discloses wherein the extension member (top half of block 2, FIG. 3; compare to top wing section 22, FIG. 2b) comprises: two or more plates (see left and right upward facing surfaces of block 2, FIG. 3; compare left and right side “plates” proximate joint 21, FIG. 2b), comprising at least a first plate and a second plate (compare left and right side “plates” proximate joint 21, FIG. 2b); and wherein the two or more plates have a surface (see FIG. 5) that engages the lower surface of the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) adjacent the floor aperture (space between “sub-structure (8)” elements, FIG. 3) around a majority of a circumference (see “around” —that is to say, “near”— the above identified aperture) of the floor aperture (space between “sub-structure (8)” elements, FIG. 3). As per claim 9 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 8, and Ong further discloses the first plate or the second plate are c- shaped plates (see “C-shaped” opening proximate left side hole 28, FIG. 2b; also EXRFIG. 2b, below). PNG media_image1.png 640 764 media_image1.png Greyscale As per claim 15 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Ong further discloses wherein the pier drive (jacks 4, FIG. 3) is configured to be operatively coupled (see FIG. 3) with the one or more flanges (left and right extents of block 2 and structure 3, FIG. 3) to align (see FIG. 3) the pier drive (jacks 4, FIG. 3) with the one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3) extending through the pier aperture (socket joint 21, FIG. 3) of the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3). As per claim 16 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Ong further discloses the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) comprises a tube (see tube-shaped frame around joint 21, FIG. 3; compare to FIG. 1; this is recognized as an elongated cylinder as broadly claimed) extending from an upper surface of the pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) configured to receive the one or more piers (pile 61, FIG. 3). As per claim 17 Ong teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Ong further discloses the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) comprises a projection (see block-shaped projection coinciding with arrow at character “2”, FIG. 3) extending from a lower surface of the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) configured to extend (the above identified “block-shaped” element extends within the area as claimed) into the floor aperture (space between “sub-structure (8)” elements, FIG. 3) to aid in aligning the reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3) with the floor aperture (space between “sub-structure (8)” elements, FIG. 3). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 10-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Although some/all of the elements may be taught in the references of record, the examiner believes that the combination of all of the elements as specifically claimed would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art without relying on hindsight. Thus, the claims are allowable over the prior art references of record. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 24 DEC. 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As per the argument (p. 10): In particular, while Ong may teach a lifting apparatus, as illustrated in Figure 7 (reproduced below for reference), it does not teach or suggest a reusable pier drive support member abutting an upper surface of a floor with one or more flanges extending radially outward relative to the pier aperture and a portion received within the floor aperture. the Examiner submits the drawing (“FIG. 7”) shared in the remarks filed 24 DEC. 25 appears to be taken from a reference which was not applied. This shared drawing appears to be taken from Ong US 8540461 B2 to Ong. The present action and the preceding action were based on Ong US 8556541 B2. The cited floor in Ong ‘541 (sub-structure 8, FIG. 3) is capable of being engaged with the cited reusable pier drive support member (clamping block 2, thrust block frame structure 3, rams 44 FIG. 3). FIG. 3 in Ong shows the support member engaged with the floor (beams 7, sub-structure 8, FIG. 3), in particular the upper surface of the floor (beams 7, FIG. 3). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM. 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 D MATTEI can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JJS/ /BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 04, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 29, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 24, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601174
Load Bearing Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595658
TILE AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE FOR VERTICAL MOUNTING TILES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577773
MODULAR DECKING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577776
Interlocking Composite Construction Block
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571198
VERTICAL TOOL SHED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+26.8%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 756 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month