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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “having” should be changed to “has” in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 is 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. The subject matter which was not described in the specification is that the second U-sheet pile of the first module is directly coupled to the first U-sheet pile of the second module in combination with the second U-sheet pile of the first module being coupled via a connecting element to the first U-sheet pile of the second module. The original specification described these connections (i.e. direct connection and connecting element connection) as separate and distinct embodiments. The original specification did not describe the combination of these connections. Examiner notes that these connections are contradictory and therefore the combination of these connections appears impossible.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The subject matter which was not described in the specification is that the second U-sheet pile of the first module is directly coupled to the first U-sheet pile of the second module in combination with the second U-sheet pile of the first module being coupled via a connecting element to the first U-sheet pile of the second module. The original specification described these connections (i.e. direct connection and connecting element connection) as separate and distinct embodiments. The original specification did not describe the combination of these connections. These connections are contradictory and therefore the combination of these connections appears impossible.
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 8, 9 and 21 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 8, it is unclear which first and second U-sheet piles are meant by “the first and second U-sheet piles” in line 2 because a plurality of first and second U-sheet piles are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the first and second U-sheet piles” to mean “the first and second U-sheet piles of the first module”.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear which first and second Z-sheet piles are meant by “the first and second Z-sheet piles” in line 2 because a plurality of first and second Z-sheet piles are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the first and second Z-sheet piles” to mean “the first and second Z-sheet piles of the first module”.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear how the second U-sheet pile of the first module is directly coupled to the first U-sheet pile of the second module as recited in claim 20 in combination with the second U-sheet pile of the first module being coupled via a connecting element to the first U-sheet pile of the second module. These connections are contradictory and therefore the combination of these connections appears impossible. Examiner notes that due to the level of indefiniteness of claim 21 based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections described above, it would be impossible to provide an art rejection for the claim because it is unclear what connection configuration would need to be found to anticipate the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 9, 13, 14, 17-19, 23 and 24 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte (DE 503356) alone.
Regarding claim 23, Nolte discloses a sheet pile wall (e.g. Fig. 2, claim 1) comprising: a first sheet pile module including: a first central U-sheet pile (e.g. leftmost a, Fig. 2) having a first coupling segment with a first coupling feature along a first longitudinal edge (e.g. leftmost ball joint of leftmost a, Fig. 2), a second coupling segment with a second coupling feature along a second longitudinal edge that is opposite and parallel to the first longitudinal edge (e.g. rightmost ball joint of leftmost a, Fig. 2), and an intermediate segment connected between the first coupling segment and the second coupling segment (e.g. portion between the ball joints of leftmost a, Fig. 2), a first Z-sheet pile connected to the first coupling feature (e.g. Z-sheet panel connected to leftmost ball joint of leftmost a, Fig. 2), and a second Z-sheet pile connected to the second coupling feature (e.g. Z-sheet panel connected to rightmost ball joint of leftmost a, Fig. 2); and a second sheet pile module including: a second central U-sheet pile (e.g. rightmost a, Fig. 2) having a first coupling segment with a first coupling feature along a first longitudinal edge (e.g. leftmost socket joint of rightmost a, Fig. 2), a second coupling segment with a second coupling feature along a second longitudinal edge that is opposite and parallel to the first longitudinal edge (e.g. rightmost socket joint of rightmost a, Fig. 2), and an intermediate segment connected between the first coupling segment and the second coupling segment (e.g. portion between the socket joints of rightmost a, Fig. 2), a first Z-sheet pile connected to the first coupling feature (e.g. Z-sheet panel connected to leftmost socket joint of rightmost a, Fig. 2), and a second Z-sheet pile connected to the second coupling feature (e.g. Z-sheet panel connected to rightmost socket joint of rightmost a, Fig. 2); wherein the second Z-sheet pile of the first module is coupled to the first Z-sheet pile of the second module to form a segment of the sheet pile wall (e.g. Fig. 2). Nolte further discloses that the U-sheet piles are either positioned between a single Z-sheet pile (e.g. claim 1, Fig. 1) or between groups of Z-sheet piles and shows an embodiment where the number of Z-sheet piles in each group is three (e.g. claim 1, Fig. 2). Nolte does not explicitly disclose that the second Z-sheet pile of the first module is directly coupled to the first Z-sheet pile of the second module. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use two Z-sheet piles in each group of Nolte because the optimization of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. Examiner notes that groups of two Z-sheet piles will result in the second Z-sheet pile of the first module being directly coupled to the first Z-sheet pile of the second module.
Regarding claim 9, Nolte further discloses that the first and second Z-sheet piles are mirror-symmetrical with respect to the central sheet pile (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Nolte further discloses that wherein at least one of the first and second Z-sheet piles of the first module has a coupling feature at an end thereof facing away from the central sheet pile and having a ball-and-socket type connecting element (e.g. both first and second Z-sheet piles have a ball joint, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Nolte further discloses that the connecting element of the ball-and-socket type is formed integrally with the corresponding first or second Z-sheet pile of the first module (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Nolte does not disclose that at least one of the first coupling feature and the second coupling feature of the first central U-sheet pile has a Larssen-type connecting element. The examiner takes official notice that Larssen-type connections are known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a Larssen-type connection for the coupling features of Nolte because such is a known connection that would provide the expected benefit of connecting with other commonly available sheets piles with Larssen-type connections.
Regarding claim 18, Nolte further discloses that inner sides of the first and second Z-sheet piles of the first module point in the same direction (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Nolte further discloses that for each of the first and second U-sheet piles, the intermediate segment is integrally formed with the first coupling segment and the second coupling segment (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Nolte further discloses that the first module consists only of the first central U-sheet pile, the first Z-sheet pile, and the second Z-sheet pile, and the second module consists only of the second central U-sheet pile, the first Z-sheet pile, and the second Z-sheet pile (e.g. similar to Fig. 2, as modified above).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte (DE 503356) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wendt (DE 102012214965).
Regarding claim 15, Nolte discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that the connecting element of the ball-and-socket type is a separate connecting element of the ball-and-socket type having either a ball end or a socket end extending away from the sheet pile to which it is connected. Wendt teaches a sheet pile wall comprising: a sheet pile (e.g. 11, Fig. 1, paragraph 0022); wherein the sheet pile has a coupling feature at an end thereof facing away from the sheet pile and having a ball-and-socket type connecting element (e.g. coupling feature 2 with ball 31, Fig. 1); wherein the connecting element of the ball-and-socket type is a separate connecting element of the ball-and-socket type having either a ball end or a socket end extending away from the sheet pile to which it is connected (e.g. Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a separate ball-and-socket type connecting element as taught by Wendt for the connecting element of Nolte because such is a known connecting element in the art that would provide the expected benefit of allowing profiles of different types to be connected and preventing the connecting element from slipping out of a sheet pile (e.g. Wendt, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nolte and Wendt further discloses that the connecting element of the ball-and-socket type has the ball end or the socket end extending away from the sheet pile to which it is connected (e.g. as explained above) and having a Larssen interlock facing the sheet pile to which it is connected (e.g. Wendt, 5, Fig. 1, claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10, 20 and 22 are allowed.
Claim 8 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights