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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, as required by claim 1, the one driving head covering (a) the top end of the steel plates, (b) each flap, and (c) the distal end portions must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Specifically, the figures (e.g., Fig. 31) show the driving head positioned over the top end of the steel plates but not covering (i.e., concealing) them. No new matter should be entered.
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 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 1-20 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 The scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite by the recitation “each distal end of a steel plate connects to a distal end of a separate steel plate” because “a steel plate” and “a separate steel plate” have not been clearly related to the previously recited “four steel plates.”
Claims 2-20 are rejected as dependents from claim 1.
CLAIM 19 The claim contains the trademark/trade name Mobilram. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a telescopic leader rig and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
CLAIM 19 The claim recites the limitation "The method of installing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
CLAIM 20 The scope of the claimed invention is indefinite because no method steps are positively recited. For the purpose of prosecution on the merits, the examiner has considered the claim as drawn to the combination of the open end friction pile recited in claim 1 and a utility pole or lattice structure.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Köhler et al. (US 2,104,490 A) in view of Schwarzbeck (WO 02/18730 A1), Willison (US 7,942,612 B1), and Perko et al. (US 6,722,821 B1).
CLAIM 1 Köhler et al. ‘490 (“Köhler”) teaches an open end friction pile comprising:
four plates (b, c), wherein each distal end of one of the four plates (b) connects to a distal end of another of the four plates (c)1.
The drawings of Köhler indicate that the plates are formed of a metal (MPEP 608.02), but the reference fails to teach expressly steel. Schwarzbeck ‘730 (“Schwarzbeck”) discloses an open end pile (1) formed of rolled steel (p. 7, ll. 15-26). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the four plates (Köhler, b and c) of steel, as suggested by Schwarzbeck. The motivation for making the modification would have been to form the plates from a readily available, easily rolled (Köhler, p. 1, col. 2, ll. 9-10) high-strength material, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Köhler fails to teach four brackets, each provided with a flap. Willison ‘612 (“Willison”) shows two brackets (Fig. 3), each provided with a flap (130), wherein the brackets are configured for connection to the end of a post. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided each of the four steel plates (Köhler, b, c) with a bracket that includes a flap, as suggested by Willison. The motivation for making the modification would have been to reinforce the end of the pile with known means, readily adaptable to its cross-sectional profile, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Perko et al. ‘821 (“Perko”) shows a foundation system comprising an open end casing (20) covered with a driving head (18). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the friction pile of Köhler with the addition of one driving head, as suggested by Perko. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for supporting a driving implement and distributing forces across the end of the friction pile, with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the prior art combination, each steel plate (Köhler, b, c) has a first bend line from a distal end and a second bend line from a distal end; whereas the first and second bend lines are equidistant from the distal end creating a center portion.
CLAIM 9 In the prior art combination, each of the brackets with a flap (Willison, Fig. 3) connects to a steel plate (Köhler, b, c) along the first and second bend lines and the center portion.
CLAIM 15 In the prior art combination, the driving head (Perko, 18) is connected to and covers the flap portion (Willison, 130; Perko, 16).
CLAIM 17 In the prior art combination, the driving head (Perko, 18) covers the top open-end (Köhler).
CLAIM 18 In the prior art combination, the open end friction pile is hot-dipped galvanized steel (Schwarzbeck, p. 7, ll. 15-26).
CLAIM 19 None of the prior art references teaches a telescopic ram for installing the open end friction pile taught by the prior art combination. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a telescopic ram system to install the open end friction pile of claim 1, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the well-known use of telescopic ram systems for installing piles. The motivation for making the modification would have been to complete installation with known, readily accessible driving means.
CLAIM 20 None of the prior art references teaches the open end friction pile of claim 1 in combination with a seventy-five feet to four-hundred feet utility pole or lattice structure. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have connected the friction pile to a utility pole from 75 ft. to 400 ft., since the examiner takes Official Notice of the use of friction piles as foundation members for utility poles greater than or equal to 75 ft. The motivation for using the prior art friction pile in combination with a utility pole would have been to provide the same with a foundation suitable for use in soft and loose soils, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Köhler et al. (US 2,104,490 A) in view of Schwarzbeck (WO 02/18730 A1), Willison (US 7,942,612 B1), and Perko et al. (US 6,722,821 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reinert (US 2018/0080189 A1).
CLAIM 3 The prior art combination fails to teach tapered ends. Reinert ‘189 (“Reinert”) shows (Fig. 4) a friction pile foundation (100) comprising a metal plate with bend lines, wherein the distal end of the plate from a first bend line to a second bend line is tapered on the bottom (36, 38). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have tapered the bottoms of the distal ends from the first and second bend lines, as suggested by Reinert. The motivation for making the modification would have been to enhance the soil penetrability of the friction pile during installation, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 10-14 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Glass et al. (US 5,503,503 A) shows a bracket (22) with a flap. See Fig. 4.
Barefield (US 5,899,030 A) shows a post anchor (86) formed of interconnected metal plates that include a series of bend lines, flaps (196, 198, 200, 202), and tapered ends (Figs. 23, 26).
Tappe et al. (US 2016/0040386 A1) shows an open end friction pile (5) comprising four interconnected steel plates (1, ¶0025).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
05 January 2026
1 With respect to claim 1, the examiner interprets the “distal end” of a steel plate to mean simply an edge of the plate, since the claim lacks any recitation relating to the orientation of the steel plates.