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, the pile caps of claim 3 and the reinforced concrete jacketing of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: each element of the claim is not separated by a line indentation as required by 37 CFR 1,75(i). See MPEP 608.01 (m) for further information. 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 1-14 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 wording of “steel casing pipes provided in parallel and driven into the ground which is below the ground level by stacking sliding guide manner” in lines 2-3 is confusing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the ground” and “the ground level”. The limitation “which is below the ground level” is redundant because every ground is below a ground level. It is unclear what is meant by “stacking sliding guide manner”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “steel casing pipes provided in parallel and driven into the ground which is below the ground level by stacking sliding guide manner” to mean “steel casing pipes provided in parallel and driven into a ground by a stacking sliding system”. Further, the wording of “each continuous pile foundation-substructure column structure extending along the axis of the steel casing pipe and comprising pile penetrating through the underground surface into the ground and substructure column elongating from the pile” in lines 4-8 is confusing. It is unclear which steel casing pipe is meant by “the steel casing pipe” because plural steel casing pipes are previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the axis” and “the underground surface”. What is meant by “elongating from”? Does this mean “extending from”? The limitation “penetrating through” is redundant. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “each continuous pile foundation-substructure column structure extending along the axis of the steel casing pipe and comprising pile penetrating through the underground surface into the ground and substructure column elongating from the pile” to mean “each continuous pile foundation-substructure column structure extending along an axis of a respective one of the steel casing pipes and comprising pile penetrating an underground surface and substructure column extending from the pile”. Further, the wording of “constructed along the inside of the steel casing pipe by creating a borehole at a predefined depth extending along the axis of the steel casing pipe and filling the borehole and the steel casing pipe with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximate level of the ground level” in lines 8-13 is confusing. It is unclear which element is being referenced by “constructed” since the term occurs after a comma. It is unclear which steel casing pipe is meant by “the steel casing pipe” because plural steel casing pipes are previously recited. The limitation “to approximate level of the ground level” is redundant. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “constructed along the inside of the steel casing pipe by creating a borehole at a predefined depth extending along the axis of the steel casing pipe and filling the borehole and the steel casing pipe with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximate level of the ground level” to mean “each continuous pile foundation-substructure column structure constructed along an inside of the respective steel casing pipe by creating a borehole at a predefined depth extending along the axis of the respective steel casing pipe and filling the borehole and the respective steel casing pipe with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximately ground level”. Further, the wording of “wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside the steel casing pipe bonds with the steel casing pipe, to become a monolithic structure” in lines 13-15 is confusing. It is unclear which steel casing pipe is meant by “the steel casing pipe” because plural steel casing pipes are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside the steel casing pipe bonds with the steel casing pipe, to become a monolithic structure” to mean “wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside the respective steel casing pipe bonds with the respective steel casing pipe to become a monolithic structure”. Finally, the wording of “wherein the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are connected into a monolithic pile foundation-substructure column system by connecting the casing pipes” in lines 16-18 is confusing. It is unclear whether the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are required to be connected or simply capable of being connected into the monolithic pile foundation-substructure column system. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “wherein the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are connected into a monolithic pile foundation-substructure column system by connecting the casing pipes” to mean “wherein the casing pipes are connected together thereby connecting the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures into a monolithic pile foundation-substructure column system”. Claims 2-11 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the pile caps” and “the pile heads” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the wording of “the steel casing pipes are slide guided with use of male-female slide rail system provided on the steel casing pipes” in lines 1-3 is confusing. This appears to be a method step in an apparatus claim. It is unclear whether the male-female slide rail system is positively claimed. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the steel casing pipes are slide guided with use of male-female slide rail system provided on the steel casing pipes” to mean “the steel casing pipes include a male-female slide rail system provided on the steel casing pipes for guiding the steel casing pipes during driving”.
Regarding claim 6, the wording of “the steel casing pipes are sliding guided by the intermediate slide rail system” in lines 1-3 is confusing. This appears to be a method step in an apparatus claim. It is unclear whether the intermediate slide rail system is positively claimed. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the intermediate slide rail system”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the steel casing pipes are sliding guided by the intermediate slide rail system” to mean “the steel casing pipes include an intermediate slide rail system for guiding the steel casing pipes during driving”.
Regarding claim 7, the wording of “the pile foundation-substructure column structure is bored, reinforced, cast-in-situ pile structure and binding with steel casing pipes by concrete” in lines 1-4 is confusing. It is unclear whether “bored, reinforced, cast-in-situ pile structure” is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “pile” and/or “substructure column” in claim 1. It is unclear whether “steel casing pipes” are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “steel casing pipes” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “steel casing pipes”. It is unclear whether “concrete” is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a homogeneous material” in claim 1. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the pile foundation-substructure column structure is bored, reinforced, cast-in-situ pile structure and binding with steel casing pipes by concrete” to mean “the homogeneous material is concrete and the pile foundation-substructure column structures are reinforced, cast-in-situ structures”.
Regarding claim 8, the wording of “the pile foundation-substructure column structure is precast structure such as steel shape or precast concrete, bound with steel casing pipes” in lines 1-3 is confusing. The phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear how a “steel shape” can be a material since a shape is not a material. It is unclear how a “steel shape” can be a precast structure since steel is not precast. It is unclear whether “steel casing pipes” are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “steel casing pipes” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “steel casing pipes”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the pile foundation-substructure column structure is precast structure such as steel shape or precast concrete, bound with steel casing pipes” to mean “the pile foundation-substructure column structure is a precast structure”.
Regarding claim 10, the wording of “the pile foundation-substructure column structures are constructed by bored, cast-in-situ pile structures, or precast structures” in lines 1-3 is confusing. It is unclear how structures can construct the pile foundation-substructure column structures. The term “bored” is redundant with claim 1. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the pile foundation-substructure column structures are constructed by bored, cast-in-situ pile structures, or precast structures” to mean “the pile foundation-substructure column structures are cast-in-situ pile structures, or precast structures”.
Regarding claim 11, the wording of “the casing pipes are provided to form basic shapes such as triangle, letters I, L, T or cross shape in top-down view” in lines 1-3 is confusing. It is unclear what is meant by “basic shapes”. The phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear how any shape other than a line can be formed since the casing pipes are recited as being provided in parallel in claim 1. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the casing pipes are provided to form basic shapes such as triangle, letters I, L, T or cross shape in top-down view” to mean “the casing pipes form a shape in top-down view”.
Regarding claim 12, the wording of “A method for producing the pile foundation-substructure column system comprising” in lines 1-2 is confusing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pile foundation-substructure column system”. It is unclear whether the term “comprising” is related to the method or the pile foundation-substructure column system since the claim is drawn to a method but the term occurs after the pile foundation-substructure column system. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “A method for producing the pile foundation-substructure column system comprising” to mean “A method for producing a pile foundation-substructure column system, the method comprising”. Further, the wording of “driving steel casing pipes into the ground which is below the ground level in parallel by such methods as vibrating, pressing or hammering, in stacking sliding guide manner” in lines 3-5 is confusing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the ground” and “the ground level”. The limitation “which is below the ground level” is redundant because every ground is below a ground level. It is unclear what is in parallel because the limitation “in parallel” occurs after “the ground level”. The phrase “such [methods] as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear what is meant by “stacking sliding guide manner”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “driving steel casing pipes into the ground which is below the ground level in parallel by such methods as vibrating, pressing or hammering, in stacking sliding guide manner” to mean “driving steel casing pipes into a ground and in parallel with a stacking and sliding guide system”. Further, the wording of “creating a borehole by drilling to take out the soil inside the steel casing pipes, with predefined depth” in lines 6-7 is confusing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the soil”. What has predefined depth? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “creating a borehole by drilling to take out the soil inside the steel casing pipes, with predefined depth” to mean “creating a borehole with predefined depth by drilling and removing soil inside the steel casing pipes”. Further, the wording of “filling up the borehole and the steel casing pipe with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximate level of the ground level, wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside the steel casing pipe binds with the steel casing pipe” in lines 8-11 is confusing. It is unclear which steel casing pipe is meant by “the steel casing pipe” because plural steel casing pipes are previously recited. The limitation “to approximate level of the ground level” is redundant. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “filling up the borehole and the steel casing pipe with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximate level of the ground level, wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside the steel casing pipe binds with the steel casing pipe” to mean “filling up the borehole and the steel casing pipes with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximately ground level, wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside each of the steel casing pipes binds with the respective steel casing pipe”. Finally, claim 12 recites the limitation “the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 13, the wording of “the pile foundation-substructure column structure is cast-in-situ in one shot only” in lines 1-2 is confusing. It is unclear which pile foundation-substructure column structure is meant by “the pile foundation-substructure column structure” because plural pile foundation-substructure column structures are previously recited. It is unclear what is meant by “one shot only”. One shot of what? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the pile foundation-substructure column structure is cast-in-situ in one shot only” to mean “each of the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures is cast-in-situ in one pour of the homogeneous material”.
Regarding claim 14, the wording of “the pile foundation-substructure column structures are precast concrete or steel shaped piles, or combination of cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete” in lines 1-3 is confusing. It is unclear what is meant by “steel shaped piles” because steel is a material and not a shape. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the pile foundation-substructure column structures are precast concrete or steel shaped piles, or combination of cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete” to mean “the pile foundation-substructure column structures are precast concrete, or a combination of cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10 and 11 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevens (US 2,101,285).
Regarding claim 1, Stevens discloses a pile foundation-substructure column system (e.g. claim 2, Fig. 5) comprising: steel casing pipes provided in parallel (e.g. 13, Fig. 5, page 1, col. 1, lines 8-11) and driven into the ground which is below the ground level (e.g. page 2, col. 1, lines 19-23); continuous pile foundation-substructure column structures (e.g. 23, Fig. 5), each continuous pile foundation-substructure column structure extending along the axis of the steel casing pipe and comprising pile penetrating through the underground surface into the ground and substructure column elongating from the pile (e.g. Fig. 5 wherein an upper portion of each 23 is considered the pile and a lower portion of each 23 is considered the substructure column), constructed along the inside of the steel casing pipe by creating a borehole at a predefined depth extending along the axis of the steel casing pipe and filling the borehole and the steel casing pipe with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximate level of the ground level (e.g. Fig. 5, page 2, col. 1, lines 6-10, wherein a borehole is required to allow space for material 23), wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside the steel casing pipe bonds with the steel casing pipe, to become a monolithic structure (e.g. page 2, col. 1, lines 6-10, wherein concrete bonds to steel); wherein the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are connected into a monolithic pile foundation-substructure column system by connecting the casing pipes (e.g. Fig. 5, page 2, col. 1, lines 10-14). Stevens does not specifically disclose that the steel casing pipes are driven by stacking sliding guide manner, however this is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Therefore, the steel casing pipes driven by stacking sliding guide manner are not considered patentable over the steel casing pipes of Stevens because the end product is the same.
Regarding claim 5, Stevens further discloses that the steel casing pipes are slide guided with use of male-female slide rail system provided on the steel casing pipes (e.g. 14, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Stevens further discloses that the steel casing pipes are sliding guided by the intermediate slide rail system (e.g. 14, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Stevens further discloses that the pile foundation-substructure column structures are constructed by bored, cast-in-situ pile structures, or precast structures (e.g. page 2, col. 1, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 11, Stevens further discloses that the casing pipes are provided to form basic shapes such as triangle, letters I, L, T or cross shape in top-down view (e.g. Fig. 5).
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 1, 4-7 and 9-13 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 6,427,402) alone.
Regarding claim 1, White discloses a pile foundation-substructure column system (e.g. 620, Fig.’s 25-27, col. 12, lines 23-26) comprising: casing pipes provided in parallel and driven into the ground which is below the ground level by stacking sliding guide manner (e.g. 622, Fig.’s 25-27, similar to Fig. 21, col. 12, lines 34-37); continuous pile foundation-substructure column structures (e.g. 334, Fig. 17, col. 12, lines 52-57), each continuous pile foundation-substructure column structure extending along the axis of the casing pipe and comprising pile penetrating through the underground surface into the ground and substructure column elongating from the pile (e.g. Fig. 17 wherein an upper portion of 334 is considered the pile and a lower portion of 334 is considered the substructure column), constructed along the inside of the casing pipe by creating a borehole at a predefined depth extending along the axis of the casing pipe and filling the borehole and the casing pipe with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximate level of the ground level (e.g. col. 12, lines 62-67, wherein a borehole is required to allow space for material 334), wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside the casing pipe bonds with the casing pipe, to become a monolithic structure (e.g. col. 9, lines 45-48, and col. 12, lines 62-67, wherein concrete bonds to the casing pipe); wherein the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are connected into a monolithic pile foundation-substructure column system by connecting the casing pipes (e.g. Fig.’s 17 and 25-27, col. 12, lines 34-37). White further discloses that steel is a known material for casing pipes in the art (e.g. col. 1, lines 15-20) but does not explicitly disclose that the casing pipes are steel casing pipes. 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 steel for the casing pipes of White because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, and steel is the most commonly manufactured material of hollow cylinder piles (e.g. col. 1, lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 4, White further discloses that the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are connected by reinforced concrete jacketing the pile foundation-substructure column structures (e.g. 558, Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 5, White further discloses that the steel casing pipes are slide guided with use of male-female slide rail system provided on the steel casing pipes (e.g. 626/628, Fig.’s 25-27).
Regarding claim 6, White further discloses that the steel casing pipes are sliding guided by the intermediate slide rail system (e.g. 626/628, Fig.’s 25-27).
Regarding claim 7, White further discloses that the pile foundation-substructure column structure is bored, reinforced, cast-in-situ pile structure and binding with steel casing pipes by concrete (e.g. col. 9, lines 45-48, and col. 12, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 9, White further discloses that the pile foundation-substructure column structure binds with the steel casing pipe by welding, bolting or adhesives (e.g. col. 9, lines 45-48 wherein concrete includes cement which is an adhesive).
Regarding claim 10, White further discloses that the pile foundation-substructure column structures are constructed by bored, cast-in-situ pile structures, or precast structures (e.g. col. 12, lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 11, White further discloses that the casing pipes are provided to form basic shapes such as triangle, letters I, L, T or cross shape in top-down view (e.g. Fig. 26, similar to Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 12, White discloses a method for producing the pile foundation-substructure column system (e.g. 12a, Fig. 2) comprising: driving casing pipes (e.g. 10a and 10b, Fig. 2) into the ground which is below the ground level (e.g. 112, Fig. 6) in parallel (e.g. Fig. 2) by such methods as vibrating, pressing or hammering (e.g. Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 24-29), in stacking sliding guide manner (e.g. Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 47-51 and col. 6, lines 24-56, similar to col. 12, lines 34-37); creating a borehole (e.g. driving of the casing pipe forms a borehole inside at least some of the casing pipe, similar to Fig. 6); filling up the borehole and the casing pipe with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximate level of the ground level (e.g. 334, col. 9, lines 45-48, similar to Fig.’s 17 and 21), wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside the casing pipe binds with the casing pipe (e.g. col. 9, lines 45-48, wherein concrete bonds to the casing pipe); connecting the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures into a monolithic pile foundation-substructure column system by connecting the casing pipes (e.g. Fig.’s 2 and 17, col. 10, lines 6-17). White further discloses that steel is a known material for casing pipes in the art (e.g. col. 1, lines 15-20) but does not explicitly disclose that the casing pipes are steel casing pipes. 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 steel for the casing pipes of White because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, and steel is the most commonly manufactured material of hollow cylinder piles (e.g. col. 1, lines 17-20). White also further discloses that soil remains inside the casing pipes during driving (e.g. Fig. 6) but does not explicitly disclose drilling to take out the soil inside the casing pipes. The examiner takes official notice that drilling is notoriously well 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 drilling to remove the soil from inside the casing pipes of White for the expected benefit of providing the required space for the concrete material to enter the entire length of the casing pipe, thereby reinforcing the entire casing pipe (e.g. col. 9, lines 62-66).
Regarding claim 13, White further discloses that the pile foundation-substructure column structure is cast-in-situ (e.g. col. 9, lines 60-62) but does not explicitly disclose that the casting is in one shot only. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to cast the pile foundation-substructure column structure of White in a single shot for the expected benefit of avoiding cold joints within the concrete material.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 9-11 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlueter (US 910,421) alone.
Regarding claim 1, Schlueter discloses a pile foundation-substructure column system (e.g. claim 7, Fig. 1) comprising: casing pipes provided in parallel and driven into the ground which is below the ground level by stacking sliding guide manner (e.g. 5, Fig.’s 1 and 2, page 2, lines 35-45); continuous pile foundation-substructure column structures (e.g. 18, Fig. 4), each continuous pile foundation-substructure column structure extending along the axis of the casing pipe and comprising pile penetrating through the underground surface into the ground and substructure column elongating from the pile (e.g. Fig. 4 wherein an upper portion of 18 is considered the pile and a lower portion of 18 is considered the substructure column), constructed along the inside of the casing pipe by creating a borehole at a predefined depth extending along the axis of the casing pipe and filling the borehole and the casing pipe with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximate level of the ground level (e.g. Fig. 4, page 2, lines 51-54, wherein a borehole is required to allow space for material 18), wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside the casing pipe bonds with the casing pipe, to become a monolithic structure (e.g. Fig. 4, page 2, lines 51-54, wherein concrete bonds to the casing pipe); wherein the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are connected into a monolithic pile foundation-substructure column system by connecting the casing pipes (e.g. Fig. 3, page 2, lines 35-45). Schlueter further discloses that the casing pipes are metal (e.g. page 1, lines 41-44) but does not explicitly disclose that the casing pipes are steel casing pipes. The examiner takes official notice that steel is a notoriously well known material 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 steel for the metal casing pipes of Schlueter because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, and steel provides the expected benefit of strength and durability.
Regarding claim 3, Schlueter further discloses that the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are connected by the pile caps provided on the pile heads (e.g. 26, Fig. 4, page 2, lines 109-119).
Regarding claim 5, Schlueter further discloses that the steel casing pipes are slide guided with use of male-female slide rail system provided on the steel casing pipes (e.g. 15/16, Fig. 3, page 2, lines 35-45).
Regarding claim 6, Schlueter further discloses that the steel casing pipes are sliding guided by the intermediate slide rail system (e.g. 15/16, Fig. 3, page 2, lines 35-45).
Regarding claim 7, Schlueter further discloses that the pile foundation-substructure column structure is bored, reinforced, cast-in-situ pile structure and binding with steel casing pipes by concrete (e.g. Fig. 3, col. 2, lines 51-62).
Regarding claim 9, Schlueter further discloses that the pile foundation-substructure column structure binds with the steel casing pipe by welding, bolting or adhesives (e.g. col. 2, lines 51-62 wherein cement is an adhesive).
Regarding claim 10, Schlueter further discloses that the pile foundation-substructure column structures are constructed by bored, cast-in-situ pile structures, or precast structures (e.g. Fig. 3, col. 2, lines 51-62).
Regarding claim 11, Schlueter further discloses that the casing pipes are provided to form basic shapes such as triangle, letters I, L, T or cross shape in top-down view (e.g. Fig. 2).
Claim 2 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 2,101,285) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Breaux (US 5,106,233).
Regarding claim 2, Stevens discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are connected by binding the steel casing pipes together by welding or bolting. Breaux teaches a pile foundation-substructure column system (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising: casing pipes provided in parallel and driven into the ground which is below the ground level by stacking sliding guide manner (e.g. 3, Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 62-64); continuous pile foundation-substructure column structures extending along the axis of the casing pipe (e.g. 8, Fig. 1), wherein the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are connected into a monolithic pile foundation-substructure column system by connecting the casing pipes (e.g. 1/4, Fig. 1), and wherein the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures are connected by binding the steel casing pipes together by welding or bolting (e.g. 28, Fig. 11, col. 10, lines 57-65). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a weld as taught by Breaux between the casing piles of Stevens because such is a known connection in the art that would provide the expected benefit of tightening the bond between the casing piles and increasing the structural integrity of the system (e.g. Breaux, col. 10, lines 61-65).
Claim 8 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 2,101,285) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al (CN 111172971).
Regarding claim 8, Stevens discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that the pile foundation-substructure column structure is precast structure such as steel shape or precast concrete, bound with steel casing pipes. Zhou teaches a pile foundation-substructure column system (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising: a continuous pile foundation-substructure column structure (e.g. 1, Fig. 2), the continuous pile foundation-substructure column structure constructed by creating a borehole and filling the borehole with a homogeneous material (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0038), wherein the pile foundation-substructure column structure is precast structure such as steel shape or precast concrete (e.g. paragraph 0018). 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 precast concrete as taught by Zhou for the homogeneous material of Stevens for the expected benefit of improving pile end bearing capacity and reinforcing the soil thereby improving pile side resistance (e.g. Zhou, paragraph 0025).
Claim 12 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 2,101,285) alone.
Regarding claim 12, Stevens discloses a method for producing the pile foundation-substructure column system (e.g. claim 2, Fig. 5) comprising: driving steel casing pipes into the ground which is below the ground level in parallel by such methods as vibrating, pressing or hammering (e.g. 13, Fig. 5, page 1, col. 1, lines 8-11 and 53-55); creating a borehole (e.g. driving of the casing pipe forms a borehole inside at least some of the casing pipe to allow space for material 23, Fig. 5, page 2, col. 1, lines 6-10); filling up the borehole and the steel casing pipe with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximate level of the ground level (e.g. 23, Fig. 5, page 2, col. 1, lines 6-10), wherein the part of the homogeneous material inside the steel casing pipe binds with the steel casing pipe (e.g. page 2, col. 1, lines 6-10, wherein concrete bonds to steel); connecting the individual pile foundation-substructure column structures into a monolithic pile foundation-substructure column system by connecting the casing pipes (e.g. Fig. 5, page 2, col. 1, lines 10-14). Stevens does not specifically disclose that the steel casing pipes are driven by stacking sliding guide manner. 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 stacking sliding guide manner during driving of the casing pipes of Stevens for the expected benefit of installing the casing pipes in their correct positions with the casing connectors (e.g. 14) engaged properly. Stevens also does not disclose creating the borehole by drilling to take out the soil inside the steel casing pipes, with predefined depth. The examiner takes official notice that drilling is notoriously well 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 drilling to remove the soil from inside the casing pipes of Stevens for the expected benefit of providing the required space for the concrete material to enter the entire length of the casing pipe, thereby increasing the strength of the casing pipe (e.g. page 2, col. 1, lines 14-16).
Claim 14 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 2,101,285) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhou et al (CN 111172971).
Regarding claim 14, Stevens discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that the pile foundation-substructure column structures are precast concrete or steel shaped piles, or combination of cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete. Zhou teaches a method for producing the pile foundation-substructure column system (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising: creating a borehole by drilling to take out soil, with predefined depth (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0036); filling up the borehole with a homogeneous material from the bottom of the borehole to approximate level of the ground level (e.g. 1/3, Fig.’s 1 and 2, paragraph 0038); wherein the pile foundation-substructure column structure is precast concrete or steel shaped piles, or combination of cast-in-situ concrete and precast concrete (e.g. paragraph 0038). 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 combination of precast and cast-in-situ concrete as taught by Zhou for the homogeneous material of Stevens for the expected benefit of improving pile end bearing capacity and reinforcing the soil thereby improving pile side resistance (e.g. Zhou, paragraph 0025).
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