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: the semicolon in line 5 should be changed to a colon, and “the-vertical drill hole holes” in line 17 should be changed to “the vertical drill holes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “drillhole” in line 2 should be changed to “drill hole”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “respective” should be inserted before “pipe” in line 4, and “and” should be added before “in” in 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 1-16 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 “pipe piles each equipped with interlocks and including a long interlocking member having a first length and a short interlocking member having a second length” in lines 3-5 is unclear. The limitation requires that the pipe piles be equipped with interlocks and that the pipe piles include an additional long interlocking member and short interlocking member. The drawings and specification, however, describe that the long and short interlocking members are part of the interlocks. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “pipe piles each equipped with interlocks and including a long interlocking member having a first length and a short interlocking member having a second length” to mean “pipe piles each equipped with interlocks including a long interlocking member having a first length and a short interlocking member having a second length”. Further, the wording of “the reamer has a diameter greater than an outer diameter of the pipe pile but limited such that the long interlocking member extends beyond the diameter of the reamer” in lines 6-8 is confusing. It is unclear which pipe pile is meant by “the pipe pile” because plural pipe piles are previously recited. It is unclear which long interlocking member is meant by “the long interlocking member” because plural long interlocking members are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the reamer has a diameter greater than an outer diameter of the pipe pile but limited such that the long interlocking member extends beyond the diameter of the reamer” to mean “the reamer has a diameter greater than an outer diameter of at least one of the pipe piles but limited such that the long interlocking member of the at least one of the pipe piles extends beyond the diameter of the reamer”. Claims 2-16 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear whether “pipe piles” in line 2 are part of or different than, and in addition to, “pipe piles” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “pipe piles”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “pipe piles” to mean “the pipe piles”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the using of reinforcements” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that installing reinforcements is previously recited, but not using reinforcements.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear which pipe pile is meant by “the pipe pile” in line 2 because plural pipe piles are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the pipe pile” to mean “at least one of the pipe piles”.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear which concrete pile is meant by “the concrete pile” in line 5 because plural concrete piles are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the concrete pile” to mean “the concrete piles”.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear which pipe pile is meant by “the pipe pile” in line 1 because plural pipe piles are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the pipe pile” to mean “at least one of the pipe piles”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,065,799. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US 12,065,799 include all of the limitations of the instant application with the exception of the diameter of the reamer being greater than an outer diameter of the pipe pile. 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 reamer with a diameter greater than an outer diameter of the pipe pile because the diameter of the reamer is considered an obvious design choice and a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
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 1-6, 9 and 11 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfley (US 910,252) in view of Kato (US 3,499,293) and Valisalo (WO 00/26576).
Regarding claim 1, Wolfley discloses a method for forming a unified watertight pile wall in ground (e.g. claim 1, Fig.’s 1 and 2) using a device and flushing with a medium to remove waste (e.g. B, Fig. 1, page 1, lines 66-80), and non-rotating pipe piles (e.g. A1-A4, Fig. 1) each equipped with interlocks and including a long interlocking member having a first length (e.g. F, Fig. 3) and a short interlocking member having a second length shorter than the first length (e.g. E, Fig. 3, wherein E fits within F and therefore must have a shorter length in a direction transverse to the pile wall), the method comprising steps of: forming a first vertical hole in the ground using the device (e.g. Fig. 1), and simultaneously using the device to lower a first one of the non-rotating pipe piles into the first vertical hole (e.g. A1, Fig. 1, page 1, lines 77-80); forming at least one subsequent vertical hole in the ground adjacent the first vertical hole using the device while simultaneously using the device to lower a subsequent one of the non-rotating pipe piles into the at least one subsequent vertical hole (e.g. A, Fig. 1, page 1, lines 77-80), wherein the long interlocking member of the subsequent pipe pile interlocks with the short interlocking member of the first pipe pile to guide the subsequent pipe pile into the at least one subsequent vertical hole (e.g. Fig. 3, page 2, lines 76-86); casting concrete into each of the pipe piles installed in a respective one of the vertical holes to form respective concrete piles (e.g. Fig. 1, page 1, lines 80-83); and lifting the pipe piles at least partly out of some of the adjacent vertical holes after the concrete has been cast, but before a transition of the concrete from a fluid concrete paste to a rigid concrete to expand the concrete of each concrete pile laterally to adjacent vertical holes to form the unified watertight pile wall (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 2, page 53-67). Wolfley does not disclose installing reinforcements in each of the vertical hole holes. Kato teaches a method for forming a unified watertight pile wall in ground (e.g. claim 1, Fig. 8a) using a drilling device (e.g. 2) with a reamer (e.g. 2’’’, Fig. 2) and flushing with a medium to remove drilling waste during drilling (e.g. col. 4, lines 37-41), and non-rotating pipe piles (e.g. 1, 1’, Fig. 8a) each equipped with interlocks and including a long interlocking member having a first length (e.g. 1b, Fig. 8b) and a short interlocking member having a second length shorter than the first length (e.g. 1c, Fig. 8b), the method comprising steps of: drilling a first vertical drill hole in the ground using the drilling device and simultaneously using the drilling device to pull or push a first one of the non-rotating pipe piles into the first vertical drill hole (e.g. 1’, 8a, col. 4, lines 33-37); drilling at least one subsequent vertical drill hole in the ground adjacent the first vertical drill hole using the drilling device while simultaneously using the drilling device to pull or push a subsequent one of the non-rotating pipe piles into the at least one subsequent vertical drill hole (e.g. 1, Fig. 8a, col. 7, lines 13-15), wherein the long interlocking member of the subsequent pipe pile interlocks with the short interlocking member of the first pipe pile to guide the subsequent pipe pile into the at least one subsequent vertical drill hole (e.g. Fig. 8b, col. 7, lines 13-15); installing reinforcements in each of the vertical drill hole holes (e.g. 3, Fig. 8a, col. 7, lines 11-13); casting concrete into each of the pipe piles installed in a respective one of the vertical drill holes to form respective concrete piles (e.g. Fig. 8a, col. 7, lines 11-19); and lifting the pipe piles at least partly out of some of the adjacent vertical drill holes after the concrete has been cast, but before a transition of the concrete from a fluid concrete paste to a rigid concrete to expand the concrete of each concrete pile laterally to adjacent vertical drill holes to form the unified watertight pile wall (e.g. Fig. 8a, col. 7, lines 15-19 and col. 6, lines 63-69). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install reinforcements as taught by Kato in the vertical holes of Wolfley because such is a known step in the art that would provide the expected benefit of reinforcing the concrete, thereby increasing strength and reducing the probability of cracking. Wolfley further discloses that the pipe piles are sunk in any suitable way (e.g. page 1, lines 59-64) but does not disclose using a drilling device with a reamer to drill the vertical holes. Valisalo teaches a method for forming a vertical drill hole (e.g. H) in ground (e.g. D) using a drilling device (e.g. 1/7) with a reamer (e.g. 5) and flushing with a medium (e.g. M) to remove drilling waste (e.g. W) during drilling (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 2, claim 1), and non-rotating pipe piles (e.g. 2, Fig.’s 1 and 2), the method comprising steps of: drilling a first vertical drill hole in the ground using the drilling device in which the reamer has a diameter greater than an outer diameter of the pipe pile (e.g. H, Fig. 2, page 5, lines 8-12), and simultaneously using the drilling device to pull or push a first one of the non-rotating pipe piles into the first vertical drill hole (e.g. Fig. 2, page 5, lines 8-25). 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 drilling device with a reamer having a diameter greater than an outer diameter of the pipe pile as taught by Valisalo to drill the vertical holes of Wolfley because such is a known device for forming holes and sinking pipe piles in the art that would provide the expected benefit of favorable properties for drilling and environmental safety (e.g. page 2, lines 26-27), and improved discharge (e.g. page 3, lines 7-12). Examiner notes that such a reamer would have a diameter that does not extend beyond the long interlocking member to avoid interference with the adjacent pipe piles.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo further discloses that the flushing includes flushing the pipe piles using water as a medium to lead drilling water out of the respective vertical drillhole on an outside of the pipe pile (e.g. Wolfley, page 1, lines 66-80 and Valisalo, Fig. 2, page 2, lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo does not explicitly disclose that the drilling includes drilling at least some of the vertical drill holes in non-cohesive soil, bedrock, or a stable layer of ground, to anchor the pile wall in place. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to drill the vertical drill holes of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo in a stable layer of ground for the expected benefit of providing stable support to the wall and any structure supported by the wall as required for structural integrity.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo further discloses forming the pile wall with 2 - 100 pipe piles in a casting sequence, before the lifting of the pipe piles (e.g. Wolfley, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo further discloses including attaching brackets to each pipe pile at an end travelling first into the vertical drill hole before placing the pipe pile into the ground, the attaching including attaching the brackets to the pipe pile on a side of the pipe pile facing an intersection with the adjacent vertical drill hole, so that each bracket attached on one side of the respective pipe pile aids to support and hold the pipe pile straight in the vertical drill hole during drilling (e.g. Wolfley, Fig. 5, wherein upper H is considered the long interlocking member, upper G is considered the short interlocking member, and lower G and lower H are considered brackets). Wolfley does not disclose that the brackets are welded to the pipe piles. Kato further teaches welding brackets to pipe piles (e.g. Fig. 8b, col. 3, lines 65-68). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to weld the brackets of Wolfley to the pipe piles as taught by Kato because such is a known attachment method in the art that would provide the expected benefit of a rigid securement (e.g. Kato, col. 3, lines 65-68).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo further discloses that one of the long interlocking member and the short interlocking member of one of the pipe piles is a male interlocking member (e.g. Wolfley, E, Fig. 3) and an adjacent pipe pile to the one pipe pile has the other of the long interlocking member and the short interlocking member that has a female groove positioned and dimensioned to receive the male interlocking member of the one pipe pile (e.g. Wolfley, F, Fig. 3). The combination of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo does not explicitly disclose that the female groove is dimensioned to be partly loose relative to the male interlocking member to leave an open space in the female groove of the adjacent pipe pile for injecting concrete into the vertical drill hole simultaneously as each pipe pile is lifted with vibration out of the vertical drill hole. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dimension the female groove of the combination of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo to be partly loose relative to the male interlocking member because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art and such a change would provide the expected benefit of ensuring that the male and female interlocking parts are able to relatively slide smoothly, thereby avoiding frictional resistance during driving.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo further discloses attaching at least one plough protrusion next to one of the interlocks at an end of the pipe pile travelling first into the vertical drill hole, before the pipe pile is drilled into the ground, wherein the at least one plough protrusion is on a continuous sector of the pipe pile and protrudes from the pipe pile by at most a same extent as the reamer for displacing ground when lifting the pipe pile, to assist in joining the concrete piles (e.g. Wolfley, Fig. 5, wherein upper H is considered the long interlocking member, upper G is considered the short interlocking member, and lower G is considered a plough protrusion). Wolfley does not disclose that the plough protrusion is welded to the pipe piles. Kato further teaches welding plough protrusions to pipe piles (e.g. Fig. 8b, col. 3, lines 65-68). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to weld the plough protrusion of Wolfley to the pipe piles as taught by Kato because such is a known attachment method in the art that would provide the expected benefit of a rigid securement (e.g. Kato, col. 3, lines 65-68).
Regarding claim 11, Wolfley does not disclose that the lifting includes lifting the pipe piles out of the drill holes by vibration while simultaneously compacting the concrete of the concrete piles. Kato further teaches that the lifting includes lifting the pipe piles out of the drill holes by vibration while simultaneously compacting the concrete of the concrete piles (e.g. col. 5, lines 15-19 wherein vibration aids in lifting of the pipe piles and also compacts the concrete). 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 vibration as taught by Kato while lifting the pipe piles of Wolfley out of the drill holes because such is a known method that would provide the expected benefit of ensuring that the concrete fills all empty spaces.
Claims 7 and 12 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfley (US 910,252), Kato (US 3,499,293) and Valisalo (WO 00/26576) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (KR 2017-0035741).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose installing a transverse support structure between the concrete piles. Park teaches a method for forming a unified watertight pile wall in ground (e.g. Fig. 5), the method having steps of: drilling a first vertical drill hole in the ground using a drilling device (e.g. 10, Fig. 2); drilling at least one subsequent vertical drill hole in the ground adjacent the first vertical drill hole using the drilling device (e.g. 10, Fig. 2); installing reinforcements in each of the vertical drill holes (e.g. 20, Fig. 2); casting concrete into each of the vertical drill holes to form respective concrete piles (e.g. paragraph 0036 of translation); and installing a transverse support structure between the concrete piles to reinforce the pile wall (e.g. 35/50, Fig. 3). 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 transverse support structure as taught by Park to the concrete piles of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo for the expected benefit of strengthening the bond between piles and improving watertightness (e.g. paragraph 0046 of translation).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose forming a transverse support beam on the pile wall which is exposed on a construction side of the pile wall. Park teaches a method for forming a unified watertight pile wall in ground (e.g. Fig. 5), the method having steps of: drilling a first vertical drill hole in the ground using a drilling device (e.g. 10, Fig. 2); drilling at least one subsequent vertical drill hole in the ground adjacent the first vertical drill hole using the drilling device (e.g. 10, Fig. 2); installing reinforcements in each of the vertical drill holes (e.g. 20, Fig. 2); casting concrete into each of the vertical drill holes to form respective concrete piles (e.g. paragraph 0036 of translation); and forming a transverse support beam on the pile wall which is exposed on a construction side of the pile wall (e.g. 35/50, Fig. 3). 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 transverse support structure as taught by Park to the concrete piles of Wolfley, Kato and Valisalo for the expected benefit of strengthening the bond between piles and improving watertightness (e.g. paragraph 0046 of translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10 and 13-16 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
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