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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein” should be added to the beginning of line 5. 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 1-10 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 “each of the vertical support piles comprises a pile body vertically disposed in a pile hole defined before excavating a foundation pit; the pile body of each vertical support pile is composed of a reinforcement cage and concrete which are located in the pile hole” in lines 5-9 and “the upper pile body, the expansion section, and the lower pile body of each pile body are coaxially arranged from top to bottom in that order in the pile hole and formed in one body” in lines 15-17 is confusing. The limitations describe the pile bodies as being disposed in a pile hole which is only present before excavating a foundation pit, however the claim as a whole is drawn to a space frame structure with horizontal components connected to the vertical support piles such that the excavation of the foundation pit must be completed and the pile holes no longer fully present. Said another way, the piles cannot be “disposed in a pile hole” as claimed when the horizontal components are connected to the piles when claimed. It appears that Applicant is attempting to use product-by-process limitations. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “each of the vertical support piles comprises a pile body vertically disposed in a pile hole defined before excavating a foundation pit; the pile body of each vertical support pile is composed of a reinforcement cage and concrete which are located in the pile hole” to mean “each of the vertical support piles comprises a pile body vertically disposed by inserting the pile body into a pile hole before excavating a foundation pit; the pile body of each vertical support pile is composed of a reinforcement cage and concrete”, and interprets “the upper pile body, the expansion section, and the lower pile body of each pile body are coaxially arranged from top to bottom in that order in the pile hole and formed in one body” to mean “the upper pile body, the expansion section, and the lower pile body of each pile body are coaxially arranged from top to bottom in that order and formed in one body”. Further, the wording of “the multi-layer horizontal components are configured to be constructed to connect a side of the upper pile body of each vertical support pile layer by layer from top to bottom during excavating the foundation pit” in the last paragraph is confusing. How can the horizontal components be “configured to be constructed to connect” to the piles when the horizontal components are previously recited in line 2 as being “connected to” the piles? This appears to be another attempt at a product-by-process limitation. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the multi-layer horizontal components are configured to be constructed to connect a side of the upper pile body of each vertical support pile layer by layer from top to bottom during excavating the foundation pit” to mean “the multi-layer horizontal components are connected to the vertical support piles by connecting the horizontal components to a side of the upper pile body of each vertical support pile layer by layer from top to bottom during excavating the foundation pit”. Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 2, the wording of “the upper pile body of each pile body is disposed on the top surface of the waterproof board” in lines 7-8 is confusing. How can the upper pile body be disposed on the top surface of the waterproof board when the upper pile body is continuous with the expansion section and lower pile body that are disposed below the top surface of the waterproof board? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the upper pile body of each pile body is disposed on the top surface of the waterproof board” to mean “the upper pile body of each pile body is disposed above the top surface of the waterproof board”.
Regarding claim 9, the term “densely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “densely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the wording of “the upper pile body is disposed on the top surface of the waterproof board” in lines 5-6 of step 5 is confusing. How can the upper pile body be disposed on the top surface of the waterproof board when the upper pile body is continuous with the expansion section and lower pile body that are disposed below the top surface of the waterproof board? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the upper pile body is disposed on the top surface of the waterproof board” to mean “the upper pile body is disposed above the top surface of the waterproof board”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the prior art, individually or in combination, discloses or teaches an underground space frame structure, comprising: vertical support piles and multi-layer horizontal components connected to the vertical support piles; wherein each of the vertical support piles is a reinforced concrete bored pile; each of the vertical support piles comprises a pile body comprising: an upper pile body, a lower pile body, and an expansion section located between the upper pile body and the lower pile body; the upper pile body of each pile body is a rectangular body, and the lower pile body of each pile body is a cylindrical body; a cross-sectional area of the expansion section is greater than a cross-sectional area of the upper pile body and a cross-sectional area of the lower pile body in each pile body; and the upper pile body, the expansion section, and the lower pile body of each pile body are coaxially arranged from top to bottom in that order and formed in one body.
Kanazawa et al (JPH 10-317374) discloses an underground space frame structure (e.g. Fig. 3, claim 1), comprising: vertical support piles (e.g. 5) and multi-layer horizontal components connected to the vertical support piles (e.g. 16, Fig. 3); wherein each of the vertical support piles is a reinforced concrete bored pile (e.g. claim 1); each of the vertical support piles comprises a pile body comprising: an upper pile body (e.g. portion of 5 above 17, Fig. 3) and a lower pile body (e.g. portion of 5 below 17, Fig. 3); the upper pile body of each pile body is a rectangular body (e.g. Fig. 5), and the lower pile body of each pile body is a cylindrical body (e.g. Fig. 4); and the upper pile body and the lower pile body of each pile body are coaxially arranged from top to bottom in that order and formed in one body (e.g. Fig. 3). Kanazawa et al does not disclose an expansion section located between and formed in one body with the upper pile body and the lower pile body, the expansion section having a cross-sectional area greater than a cross-sectional area of the upper pile body and a cross-sectional area of the lower pile body. There is no teaching for such a monolithic expansion section, and the casing (e.g. 1) of Kanazawa et al would prevent formation of such an expansion section.
Li et al (CN 105862900) discloses an underground space frame structure (e.g. Fig. 1, claim 1), comprising: vertical support piles (e.g. 5) and multi-layer horizontal components connected to the vertical support piles (e.g. 4, Fig. 1); wherein each of the vertical support piles is a reinforced concrete pile (e.g. claim 1); each of the vertical support piles comprises a pile body comprising: an upper pile body (e.g. portion of 5 above 13, Fig. 3), a lower pile body (e.g. portion of 5 below 13, Fig. 3), and an expansion section located between the upper pile body and the lower pile body (e.g. 1, Fig. 4); the upper pile body of each pile body is a rectangular body (e.g. Fig. 3); and a cross-sectional area of the expansion section is greater than a cross-sectional area of the upper pile body and a cross-sectional area of the lower pile body in each pile body (e.g. Fig. 4). Li et al does not disclose that the piles are bored piles or that the upper pile body, the expansion section, and the lower pile body of each pile body are coaxially arranged from top to bottom in that order and formed in one body. The purpose of the invention of Li et al is to overcome the shortcomings of cast-in-place frame elements by using precast frame elements (e.g. paragraph 0004), therefore a modification to use a bored pile and/or to cast the upper pile body, the expansion section, and the lower pile body in one body would go against the purpose of Li et al.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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