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 column set in the soil mortar in such a way that the upper support column section with the sheathing element extends along the upper support wall section must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. The specification discloses that the sheathing is attached to an upper support beam section 22 of the support beam 20 before it is set into the still soft soil mortar, and figs. 1-3 just show the sheathing apparently completely surrounded by the soil mortar, although it is difficult to positively conclude this because what the dotted line in all the figures represents is unclear. If the purpose of the sheathing is to protect the wall, then it would not do so if it was encased in soil mortar as apparently shown with the botted line representing the wall 10. Also, drilling at least one borehole in the ground to form the ground opening must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. The drawings only show a cut foundation, page 8. 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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 is confusing because there is no traditional claim transition such as, for example, “comprising”, no clear method steps are recited, the limitation “beams” at line 3 should apparently be –columns--, no antecedent basis for “both sides”, and numerous grammatical errors are included in the claims.
The claim is best understood to recite:
A method of forming a support wall, the method comprising:
mixing soil material and a cement suspension in a ground opening to form a soil mortar,
setting vertically oriented steel support columns in a ground opening prior to curing of the soil mortar,
removing soil material along an upper support wall section on at least one side of the cured support wall to expose the upper support wall section, a lower support wall section remaining surrounded by ground on two sides,
attaching a concrete sheathing board to an upper section of at least one of the support columns, the sheathing board extending along the upper support wall section.
Claim 2 is confusing because the steel support column is apparently formed of steel, not concrete (“formed from concrete material”). It is assumed the claim recites the method of forming the support wall according to claim 1, wherein a lower support beam section is arranged within the lower support wall section.
Claim 3 is confusing because “the lower support beam section” is placed onto a soil bed is confusing, at least because there is no antecedent basis for a lower support column section, and the lower support column portion is apparently in the ground trench soil mortar, not soil. It is assumed the claim recites the method of forming a support wall according to claim 1, wherein a lower support beam section is in the soil mortar.
Claim 4 is confusing because the limitation “preferably” is indefinite. It is assumed the claim recites the method of forming a support wall according to claim 1, wherein the sheathing element thickness is between 1 and 10 cm.
Claim 5 is confusing because it is unclear what is meant by “a free side” of the upper support wall section on which soil material is removed, as soil is apparently removed from all sides of the upper support wall section. It is assumed the claim recites the method of forming a support wall according to claim 1, wherein the sheathing element is of plate-shaped design.
Claim 6 is confusing because it is unclear whether the “at least two opposing plate-shaped sheathing elements” are the same as the previously recited “thin-walled sheathing elements”. It is assumed the claim recites the method of forming a support wall according to claim 1, wherein one of the concrete sheathing boards is attached on opposite sides of the support column, the boards oriented parallel to each other.
Claim 7 is confusing because the limitation “in particular” is indefinite. It is assumed the claim recites the method of forming a support wall according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support column is an H, T, C or I profile column.
Claim 8 is confusing because it is unclear whether the cutting trench formed is the portion “made in the ground” for the soil mortar of claim 1. It is a assumed the claim recites the method of forming a support wall according to claim 1, the method further comprising cutting a trench in the ground to form the ground opening, wherein removed soil material in the cutting trench is processed into the soil mortar by feeding of and mixing with the cement suspension.
Claim 9 is confusing because it is unclear whether the borehole formed is the portion “made in the ground” for the soil mortar of claim 1. It is a assumed the claim recites the method of forming a support wall according to claim 1, the method further comprising drilling at least one borehole in the ground to form the ground opening, wherein removed soil material in the cutting trench is processed into the soil mortar by feeding of and mixing with the cement suspension.
Claim 10 is confusing because the boreholes are already recited as being formed by drilling. It is assumed the claim recites the method of forming a support wall according to claim 9, wherein the at least one borehole includes a plurality of boreholes formed next to one another.
Claims 11-14 are confusing because while the claims do not read so, the intent appears to be claims directed to a support wall made by the method of claim 1.
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, 5-12 and 14 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuo Asano (JP H02266015 A) in view of Cardin (2013/0256025).
Claim 1 Mitsuo Asano teaches, as best understood, a method of forming a support wall, the method comprising:
mixing soil material and a cement suspension in a ground opening (the boreholes) to form a soil mortar 4,
setting vertically oriented steel support columns 3 in the ground opening prior to curing of the soil mortar, abstract,
removing soil material along an upper support wall section on at least one side of the cured support wall to expose the upper support wall section, a lower support wall section remaining surrounded by ground on two sides, “excavating the foundation”, page 3, fig. 3.
Mitsuo does not expressly teach, again as best understood, attaching a concrete sheathing board to an upper section of at least one of the support columns, the sheathing board extending along the upper support wall section. Cardin teaches it is old in the art to attach a concrete sheathing board (” cement board”) to an upper section of a concrete support wall, the sheathing board extending along an upper support wall section, para. 22, fig. 1B. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach sheathing to the upper support wall section for a finished appearance, the sheathing board attached to the Mitsuo support column as claimed at least indirectly through attachment to the surrounding soil mortar.
Claim 2. Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin teaches the method of forming the support wall according to claim 1, Mitsuo Asano further teaching, as best understood, a lower support beam section is arranged within the lower support wall section, fis. 1 and 3.
Claim 3. Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin teaches the method of forming the support wall according to claim 1, Mitsuo Asano further teaching, as best understood, a lower support beam section is in the soil mortar (beam 2 is in soil cement 4, fig. 3).
Claim 5. Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin teaches the method of forming the support wall according to claim 1, Cardin further teaching, as best understood, the sheathing element is of plate-shaped design, fig. 2.
Claim 6. Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin does not teaches, as best understood, one of the concrete sheathing boards is attached on opposite sides of the support column, the boards oriented parallel to each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of the concrete sheathing boards to be attached on opposite sides of the support column, the boards oriented parallel to each other to protect both wall faces.
Claim 7. Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin teaches the method of forming the support wall according to claim 1, Cardin further teaching, as best understood, the at least one support column is an I profile column, fig. 2.
Claim 8. Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin teaches the method of forming the support wall according to claim 1, Mitsuo Asano further teaching drilling at least one borehole in the ground to form the ground opening, wherein removed soil material in the cutting trench is processed into the soil mortar by feeding of and mixing with the cement suspension. Mitsuo does not teach cutting in the ground. Applicant admits cutting is old in the art, page 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cut the ground for efficiency.
Claim 9. Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin teaches the method of forming the support wall according to claim 1, Mitsuo Asano further teaching drilling at least one borehole 9 in the ground to form the ground opening, wherein removed soil material in the cutting trench is processed into the soil mortar by feeding of and mixing with the cement suspension.
Claim 10. Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin teaches the method of forming the support wall according to claim 9, Mitsuo Asano further teaching the at least one borehole includes a plurality of boreholes formed next to one another, fig. 2.
Claims 11-12 and 14 – Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin teaches, as best understood, a support wall formed by the method of claims 1-3 and 5-10, as performance of the method steps results in the claimed support wall, the wall taught by Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin.
Claims 4 and 13 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin and in further view of Ren (9,382,156).
Claim 4. Cardin does not expressly teach, as best understood, the sheathing element thickness is between 1 and 10 cm. Claim 4. Ren teaches a fiber cement sheathing element thickness is between 1 and 10 cm, col. 3, lines 42-46. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sheathing element thickness to be between 1 and 10 cm for strength.
Claim 13 – Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin and in further view of Ren teaches, as best understood, a support wall formed by the method of claim 4, as performance of the method step results in the claimed support wall, the wall taught by Mitsuo Asano in view of Cardin and in further view of Ren.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights