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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08 January 2024 and 25 April 2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding Fig. 3, the reference characters used to designate the diameter of the concrete column at difference locations along the column, the aforementioned reference characters being shown in the concrete, are difficult to read because the reference characters are partially covered by the markings used to represent the concrete. Figs. 5 and 7 contain similar issues.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of paragraphs 000109, “figure 6(b)” should be changed to “Figure 6(b)” because the term “figure” refers to a specific figure ID.
In line 1 of paragraph 000111, it appears that “Step 100” should be changed to “Step 110” because the method step described in paragraph 00111 refers to Step 110 as shown in Fig. 6(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 5, “an at least one attachment bar” should be changed to “the at least one attachment bar”.
In line 2 of claim 7, “an at least one attachment bar” should be changed to “the at least one attachment bar”.
In line 4 of claim 17, “discharger” should be changed to “discharge”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3 - 9, 12 - 20, and 22 - 24 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 claim 1, the phrase “a shaped lower portion; and” as recited in the final line (line 22) of the claim renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because ending the claim with the term “and” indicates that there should be at least one additional limitation recited in the claim. Since it is unclear whether Applicant intended to recite additional limitation(s) in the claim, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim(s).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one high voltage discharge pulse” in lines 5 - 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one high voltage discharge pulse" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the concrete column if configured to support is a wind turbine” renders the claim vague and indefinite because the term “if” indicates that the respective limitation is not required. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what the concrete column is configured to support if the concrete column is a wind turbine.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “the concrete column; and” as recited in the final line (line 14) of the claim renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because ending the claim with the term “and” indicates that there should be at least one additional limitation recited in the claim. Since it is unclear whether Applicant intended to recite additional limitation(s) in the claim, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim(s).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is indefinite because claim 13 depends from claim 13 and a claim cannot depend from itself. Since it is unclear as from which claim the claim depends, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of claim 13. For purposes of examination, claim 13 has been interpreted as depending from claim 12, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is indefinite because claim 15 depends from claim 15 and a claim cannot depend from itself. Since it is unclear as from which claim the claim depends, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of claim 15. For purposes of examination, claim 15 has been interpreted as depending from claim 14, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is indefinite because claim 16 depends from claim 16 and a claim cannot depend from itself. Since it is unclear as from which claim the claim depends, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of claim 16. For purposes of examination, claim 16 has been interpreted as depending from claim 15, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is indefinite because claim 18 depends from claim 18 and a claim cannot depend from itself. Since it is unclear as from which claim the claim depends, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of claim 18. For purposes of examination, claim 18 has been interpreted as depending from claim 17, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 22, the claim depends from cancelled claim 21 and a claim cannot depend from a cancelled claim. It is unclear from which claim claim 22 depends. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim(s). For purposes of examination, claim 22 has been interpreted as depending from claim 20, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is indefinite because claim 23 depends from claim 23 and a claim cannot depend from itself. Since it is unclear as from which claim the claim depends, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of claim 23. For purposes of examination, claim 23 has been interpreted as depending from claim 22, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 24, the use of the term “securely” as recited in line 2 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “securely” can be interpreted as requiring the anchor-pile to be attached to a wind-turbine in a fixed manner to prevent relative movement between the anchor-pile and the wind-turbine or it can be interpreted as providing a secure connection between the anchor-pile and the wind-turbine that allows one of the anchor-pile and the wind-turbine to move (i.e. bend) relative to the other of the anchor-pile and the wind-turbine while maintaining a connection therebetween.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3 - 9, 12 - 20, and 22 - 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,203,400. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the ‘400 patent recites all of the claim limitations recited in claims 1 and 12 of the present application except a concrete column “having an upper portion within the metal casing”. Claim 1 of the ‘400 patent recites “substantially filling the metal casing with a concrete mixture to create a stack of wet concrete”. Examiner takes the position that the stack of wet concrete is functionally equivalent to the upper portion of the concrete column within the metal casing as recited in claims 1 and 12 of the present application.
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 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.
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, 3, 4, 9, 12 - 16, 20,and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidow et al. (US 9,828,739) in view of Gusev et al. (US 4,230,425).
Regarding claim 1, Davidow discloses a method of forming a pile-anchor comprising the steps of providing a metal casing (202) having a central axis, a length, a top end, and a bottom end; driving the bottom end of the metal casing into a soil, such that the top end of the metal casing extends above surface (ground surface 118); substantially filling the metal casing with a concrete mixture (cementitious mixture 204) to create a stack of wet concrete: inserting an at least one attachment bar (reinforcing elements 216) into the metal casing, the at least one attachment bar having a top end protruding above the top end of the metal casing; and allowing the stack of wet concrete to solidify, thereby forming a concrete column having an upper portion within the metal casing (202) and a shaped lower portion (portion of concrete column located in bond zone 212) (Figs. 1 - 3; col. 5, line 38 - col. 6, line 53; col. 7, lines 33 - 40). Davidow fails to disclose lifting the metal casing by a predetermined height, thereby exposing a lower portion of the stack of wet concrete to a surrounding soil; generating an at least one local high-pressure spike in the lower portion of the stack of wet concrete to compress the surrounding soil and to allow the concrete mixture to fill in a resulting space, thereby causing the lower portion of the stack of wet concrete to have a zone with a cross-section that is greater than a cross- section of the stack of wet concrete within the metal casing; depositing an additional amount of the concrete mixture into the metal casing to compensate for a drop in a level of the stack of wet concrete following the at least one local high-pressure spike. Gusev teaches lifting the metal casing (casing pipe 1) by a predetermined height, thereby exposing a lower portion of the stack of wet concrete to a surrounding soil; generating an at least one local high-pressure spike (using pulse device 8 and electric pulse generator 9) in the lower portion of the stack of wet concrete to compress the surrounding soil and to allow the concrete mixture to fill in a resulting space (cavity 33), thereby causing the lower portion of the stack of wet concrete to have a zone with a cross-section that is greater than a cross- section of the stack of wet concrete within the metal casing; depositing an additional amount of the concrete mixture into the metal casing to compensate for a drop in a level of the stack of wet concrete following the at least one local high-pressure spike (Figs. 11a - 11e; col. 6, line 13 - col. 7, line 63; col. 9, lines 5 - 66). 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 by Davidow with the steps of lifting the metal casing by a predetermined height, thereby exposing a lower portion of the stack of wet concrete to a surrounding soil; generating an at least one local high-pressure spike in the lower portion of the stack of wet concrete to compress the surrounding soil and to allow the concrete mixture to fill in a resulting space, thereby causing the lower portion of the stack of wet concrete to have a zone with a cross-section that is greater than a cross- section of the stack of wet concrete within the metal casing; depositing an additional amount of the concrete mixture into the metal casing to compensate for a drop in a level of the stack of wet concrete following the at least one local high-pressure spike to increase the load bearing surface area.
Regarding claim 3, Davidow discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the at least one local high-pressure spike is created by an at least one high voltage discharge pulse from an at least one high voltage discharge device. Gusev teaches the at least one local high-pressure spike is created by an at least one high voltage discharge pulse from an at least one high voltage discharge device (8, 9) (Figs. 11a - 11e; col. 6, line 13 - col. 7, line 63; col. 9, lines 5 - 66). 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 by Davidow with the at least one local high-pressure spike is created by an at least one high voltage discharge pulse from an at least one high voltage discharge device as taught by Gusev to increase the load bearing surface area.
Regarding claim 4, Davidow fails to disclose inserting an at least one high voltage discharge device down the metal casing. Gusev teaches inserting an at least one high voltage discharge device (8, 9) down the metal casing (1) (Figs. 11a - 11e; col. 6, line 13 - col. 7, line 63; col. 9, lines 5 - 66). 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 by Davidow with the step of inserting an at least one high voltage discharge device down the metal casing as taught by Gusev to provide a means of creating a shaped lower portion having an enlarged cross-sectional area to increase the load bearing surface area.
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Davidow further discloses the concrete column is configured to support a wind turbine (windmill) securely (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 11 - 20).
Regarding claim 12, Davidow discloses a vertical pile-anchor including comprising a metal casing (202) having a central axis, a top end, and a bottom end, the bottom end located in a soil and the top end protruding above a soil surface (118); a concrete column comprising an upper portion (length 210) and a shaped lower portion (bond zone 212), the upper portion filling the metal casing and extending from approximately the top end of the metal casing down to the bottom end of the metal casing, and the shaped lower portion extending below the bottom end of the metal casing further down into the soil; and an at least one attachment bar (216) embedded at least into the upper portion of the concrete column, the at least one attachment bar having a top end protruding above the upper portion of the concrete column (Figs. 1 - 3; col. 5, line 38 - col. 6, line 53; col. 7, lines 33 - 40). Davidow fails to disclose the shaped lower portion having a cross-section that is greater than a cross-section of the upper portion. Gusev teaches a concrete column having a shaped lower section (33) having a cross-section that is greater than a cross-section of the upper portion (portion of column adjacent the ground surface) (Figs. 11a - 11e). 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 shaped lower portion having an increased cross-sectional area relative to the cross-sectional area of the upper portion as taught by Gusev to increase the load bearing surface area.
Regarding claim 13, Davidow further discloses the pile-anchor comprises a plurality of pile-anchors (piles 108(1), 108(2), 108(3), 108(n) positioned in a symmetrical configuration (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Davidow discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the shaped lower portion of the concrete column comprises a high voltage discharge device embedded therein, the high voltage discharge device having a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode is electrically coupled to a first conductor and the second electrode is electrically coupled to a second conductor, wherein the first conductor and the second conductor are electrically isolated from each other, and wherein the first conductor and the second conductor are coaxial. Gusev teaches the shaped lower portion of the concrete column (33) comprises a high voltage discharge device embedded therein, the high voltage discharge device having a first electrode (11) and a second electrode (12), wherein the first electrode is electrically coupled to a first conductor (casing pipe 1) and the second electrode (12) is electrically coupled to a second conductor (electrode holder 16), wherein the first conductor and the second conductor are electrically isolated from each other, and wherein the first conductor and the second conductor are coaxial (Figs. 1 - 3, 6, 9, and 10; col. 6, line 31 - col. 7, line 58). 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 high voltage discharge device as taught by Gusev to provide a means for forming the shaped lower portion having a cross-sectional area that is larger than the cross-sectional area of the upper portion, thereby increasing the load bearing surface area.
Regarding claim 15, Davidow discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the first and second conductors extend upward within the upper portion of the concrete column. Gusev teaches the first (11) and second (12) conductors extend upward within the upper portion of the concrete column (Figs. 1 - 3, 6, 9, 10, and 11a - 11e). 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 high voltage discharge device as taught by Gusev to provide a means for forming the shaped lower portion having a cross-sectional area that is larger than the cross-sectional area of the upper portion, thereby increasing the load bearing surface area.
Regarding claim 20, Davidow further discloses the at least one attachment bar (216) comprises a plurality of attachment bars (216) positioned symmetrically about the central axis of the metal casing (202), wherein the at least one attachment bar (216) comprises a first attachment bar extending down into the shaped lower portion (212) of the concrete column along the central axis of the metal casing (202), wherein the plurality of attachment bars (216) comprises a first attachment bar and a second attachment bar, each of the first and second attachment bars having a top end protruding above the upper portion (210) of the concrete column, and each of the first and second attachment bars extending down into the shaped lower portion (212) of the concrete column (Fig. 2).
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
10/15/2025