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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see paragraphs 1-3 on page 9, filed May 29, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7, 15 and 18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an obvious modification of Anderson and a secondary reference.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, a comma should be added after “loop”.
In claim 9, line 9, a comma should be added after “loop”.
In claim 18, line 8, “embed” should be added after “steel”.
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 3 and 9-17 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 3, the wording of “the second end having a steel bolt and nut that is threaded thereon” in lines 3-4 is confusing. How can the second end of the steel bolt have a steel bolt? The second end of the steel bolt is a portion of the steel bolt, therefore it cannot have a steel bolt. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the second end having a steel bolt and nut that is threaded thereon” to mean “the second end having a nut that is threaded thereon”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the backside” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that this limitation is repeated in claim 14. Further, the wording of “system for connecting a concrete panel associated with a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall with a steel reinforcement rod that extends into backfill soil” in lines 1-3 and “a steel reinforcement rod, the rod having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends, the first end residing within backfill soil” in lines 7-8 is confusing. How can the system function to connect the concrete panel to the steel reinforcement rod when the system includes the steel reinforcement rod? Said another way, the steel reinforcement rod cannot be used to connect to itself. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “system for connecting a concrete panel associated with a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall with a steel reinforcement rod that extends into backfill soil” to mean “system for connecting a concrete panel associated with a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall with backfill soil” and interprets “a steel reinforcement rod, the rod having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends, the first end residing within backfill soil” to mean “a steel reinforcement rod, the rod having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends, the first end residing within the backfill soil”. Claims 10-17 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 11, the wording of “the second end having a steel bolt and nut that is threaded thereon” in lines 3-4 is confusing. How can the second end of the steel bolt have a steel bolt? The second end of the steel bolt is a portion of the steel bolt, therefore it cannot have a steel bolt. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the second end having a steel bolt and nut that is threaded thereon” to mean “the second end having a nut that is threaded thereon”.
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 1-20 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US 5,807,030) in view of Hilfiker (US 4,324,508).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall (e.g. claim 1, col. 1, lines 39-43), the wall comprising: a concrete panel (e.g. 416, Fig. 47, col. 18, lines 48-49), the panel having a generally planar body with a frontside, a backside, and a surrounding peripheral edge (e.g. Fig. 47 with the frontside facing left in the figure and the backside facing right in the figure, wherein the peripheral edge is not shown but must be present because no concrete panel is endless); an embed having first and second parts (e.g. 418, Fig. 47), the first part residing and secured within the concrete panel (e.g. Fig. 47), the second part extending outwardly from the backside (e.g. 420/422, Fig. 47), the second part having an embed aperture (e.g. 424/426, Fig. 47, col. 18, lines 63-67); a steel reinforcement rod, the rod having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends, the first end residing within backfill soil (e.g. 402 or 404, Fig. 47, col. 13, lines 45-51 and col. 18, lines 49-52), the second end having a rod loop (e.g. 410 or 412, Fig. 47, col. 18, lines 56-58); and a fastener extending through the embed aperture and the rod loop to thereby secure together the reinforcement rod and the embed (e.g. 428, Fig. 47). Anderson further discloses that steel is a known and recommended material in the retaining wall (e.g. col. 13, lines 45-58) but does not explicitly disclose that the embed and fastener are made of steel. 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 embed and fastener of Anderson 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 would provide the expected benefit of strength and ductility. Anderson also does not disclose the elongated body of the reinforcing rod extending continuously in a linear manner from the rod loop to the first end. Hilfiker teaches a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall (e.g. Fig. 11), the wall comprising: a concrete panel, the panel having a generally planar body with a frontside, a backside, and a surrounding peripheral edge (e.g. 14C, Fig.’s 11 and 13); a steel embed having first and second parts (e.g. 40, Fig.’s 11-13), the first part residing and secured within the concrete panel (e.g. Fig. 12), the second part extending outwardly from the backside (e.g. Fig. 12), the second part having an embed aperture (e.g. Fig. 12, wherein the loop forms an aperture therein); and a reinforcement rod (e.g. l1 of 10C, Fig.’s 11-13), the rod having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends (e.g. Fig. 13, similar to Fig. 1), the first end residing within backfill soil (e.g. L, Fig. 11), the second end having a rod loop (e.g. shown but not labeled securing l1 to 40, Fig. 13), the elongated body extending continuously in a linear manner from the rod loop to the first end (e.g. Fig.’s 11-13, similar to Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the elongated body of the reinforcement rod of Anderson extending continuously in a linear manner as taught by Hilfiker because such is a known shape and configuration of reinforcement rods in the art, and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. Further, the linear reinforcement rod as taught by Hilfiker (in combination with the transverse rods C as shown in Fig. 1) would provide the expected benefit of tying all of the reinforcement together, thereby better distributing the applied loads throughout the entire system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the rod loop is formed from a reshaped end part of the reinforcement rod (e.g. Anderson, Fig.’s 47 and 48, col. 18, lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the rod loop is generally circular (e.g. Anderson, Fig.’s 47 and 48) and wherein the fastener is a steel threaded bolt having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47, col. 19, lines 2-4), the first end having a bolt head (e.g. Anderson, lower end of 428 in Fig. 47), the second end having a steel bolt and nut that is threaded thereon (e.g. Anderson, 430, Fig. 47, col. 19, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the steel reinforcement rod comprises a plurality of raised ribs along its elongated body (e.g. Anderson, col. 18, lines 49-52 and col. 19, lines 17-19, wherein rebar includes raised ribs).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the steel reinforcement rod is rebar (e.g. Anderson, col. 18, lines 49-52 and col. 19, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the embed aperture has a central axis that extends generally parallel to the backside of the panel (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the first part of the embed is a steel loop (e.g. Anderson, 418, Fig. 47) and the second part comprises first and second stems secured to and extending in a linear manner outwardly from the steel loop (e.g. Anderson, 420 and 422, Fig. 47), each of the stems having opposing first and second generally flat sides extending between first and second edges and having first and second apertures (e.g. Anderson, 424 and 426, Fig. 47), the first side of the first stem being parallel with the second side of the second stem (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47), the first and second apertures being substantially aligned to create the embed aperture (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47). The combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that a washer “may be positioned” separating the first side of the first stem from the second side of the second stem (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47, col. 19, lines 4-8), but does not explicitly disclose that the first side of the first stem is contiguous with the second side of the second stem. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to omit the washer between the stems thereby forming the first and second stems with contiguous sides for the expected benefit of reducing cost by cutting elements which are not required.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the embed loop is generally triangular (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses a system for connecting a concrete panel (e.g. 416, Fig. 47, col. 18, lines 48-49) associated with a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall (e.g. claim 1, col. 1, lines 39-43) with a steel reinforcement rod that extends into backfill soil (e.g. 402 or 404, Fig. 47, col. 13, lines 45-51 and col. 18, lines 49-52), the system comprising: an embed having first and second parts (e.g. 418, Fig. 47), the first part residing and secured within the concrete panel (e.g. Fig. 47), the second part extending outwardly from the backside (e.g. 420/422, Fig. 47), the second part having an embed aperture (e.g. 424/426, Fig. 47, col. 18, lines 63-67); a steel reinforcement rod, the rod having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends, the first end residing within backfill soil (e.g. 402 or 404, Fig. 47, col. 13, lines 45-51 and col. 18, lines 49-52), the second end having a rod loop (e.g. 410 or 412, Fig. 47, col. 18, lines 56-58); and a fastener extending through the embed aperture and the rod loop to thereby secure together the rod loop and the embed (e.g. 428, Fig. 47). Anderson further discloses that steel is a known and recommended material in the retaining wall (e.g. col. 13, lines 45-58) but does not explicitly disclose that the embed and fastener are made of steel. 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 embed and fastener of Anderson 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 would provide the expected benefit of strength and ductility. Anderson also does not disclose the elongated body of the reinforcing rod extending continuously in a linear manner from the rod loop to the first end. Hilfiker teaches a system for connecting a concrete panel (e.g. 14C, Fig.’s 11 and 13) associated with a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall (e.g. Fig. 11) with a reinforcement rod that extends into backfill soil (e.g. l1 of 10C, Fig.’s 11-13), the system comprising: a steel embed having first and second parts (e.g. 40, Fig.’s 11-13), the first part residing and secured within the concrete panel (e.g. Fig. 12), the second part extending outwardly from the backside (e.g. Fig. 12), the second part having an embed aperture (e.g. Fig. 12, wherein the loop forms an aperture therein); and a reinforcement rod (e.g. l1 of 10C, Fig.’s 11-13), the rod having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends (e.g. Fig. 13, similar to Fig. 1), the first end residing within backfill soil (e.g. L, Fig. 11), the second end having a rod loop (e.g. shown but not labeled securing l1 to 40, Fig. 13), the elongated body extending continuously in a linear manner from the rod loop to the first end (e.g. Fig.’s 11-13, similar to Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the elongated body of the reinforcement rod of Anderson extending continuously in a linear manner as taught by Hilfiker because such is a known shape and configuration of reinforcement rods in the art, and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. Further, the linear reinforcement rod as taught by Hilfiker (in combination with the transverse rods C as shown in Fig. 1) would provide the expected benefit of tying all of the reinforcement together, thereby better distributing the applied loads throughout the entire system.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the rod loop is formed from a reshaped end part of the reinforcement rod (e.g. Anderson, Fig.’s 47 and 48, col. 18, lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the rod loop is generally circular (e.g. Anderson, Fig.’s 47 and 48) and wherein the fastener is a steel threaded bolt having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47, col. 19, lines 2-4), the first end having a bolt head (e.g. Anderson, lower end of 428 in Fig. 47), the second end having a steel bolt and nut that is threaded thereon (e.g. Anderson, 430, Fig. 47, col. 19, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the steel reinforcement rod comprises a plurality of raised ribs along its elongated body (e.g. Anderson, col. 18, lines 49-52 and col. 19, lines 17-19, wherein rebar includes raised ribs).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the steel reinforcement rod is rebar (e.g. Anderson, col. 18, lines 49-52 and col. 19, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the embed aperture has a central axis that extends generally parallel to the backside of the panel (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the first part of the embed is a steel loop (e.g. Anderson, 418, Fig. 47) and the second part comprises first and second stems secured to and extending in a linear manner outwardly from the steel loop (e.g. Anderson, 420 and 422, Fig. 47), each of the stems having opposing first and second generally flat sides extending between first and second edges and having first and second apertures (e.g. Anderson, 424 and 426, Fig. 47), the first side of the first stem being parallel with the second side of the second stem (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47), the first and second apertures being substantially aligned to create the embed aperture (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47). The combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that a washer “may be positioned” separating the first side of the first stem from the second side of the second stem (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47, col. 19, lines 4-8), but does not explicitly disclose that the first side of the first stem is contiguous with the second side of the second stem. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to omit the washer between the stems thereby forming the first and second stems with contiguous sides for the expected benefit of reducing cost by cutting elements which are not required.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the embed loop is triangular (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker discloses a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall comprising the system of claim 9 (e.g. Anderson, claim 1, col. 1, lines 39-43, as explained and modified above).
Regarding claim 18, Anderson discloses a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall (e.g. claim 1, col. 1, lines 39-43), the wall comprising: a concrete panel (e.g. 416, Fig. 47, col. 18, lines 48-49), the panel having a generally planar body with a frontside, a backside, and a surrounding peripheral edge (e.g. Fig. 47 with the frontside facing left in the figure and the backside facing right in the figure, wherein the peripheral edge is not shown but must be present because no concrete panel is endless); an embed having first and second parts (e.g. 418, Fig. 47), the first part residing and secured within the concrete panel (e.g. Fig. 47), the second part extending outwardly from the backside (e.g. 420/422, Fig. 47), the first part of the embed being an embed loop (e.g. 418, Fig. 47), the second part comprising first and second stems secured to and extending in a linear manner outwardly from the loop (e.g. 420 and 422, Fig. 47), each of the stems having opposing first and second generally flat sides extending between first and second edges and having first and second apertures (e.g. 424 and 426, Fig. 47), the first side of the first stem being parallel with the second side of the second stem (e.g. Fig. 47), the first and second apertures being substantially aligned (e.g. Fig. 47); a steel reinforcement rebar rod, the rebar rod having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends, the first end residing within backfill soil (e.g. 402 or 404, Fig. 47, col. 13, lines 45-51, col. 18, lines 49-52 and col. 19, lines 17-19), the second end having a rod loop (e.g. 410 or 412, Fig. 47, col. 18, lines 56-58); and a bolt extending through the embed first and second apertures and the rod loop (e.g. 428, Fig. 47), the bolt secured by a nut (e.g. 430, Fig. 47), the bolt and the nut securing together the rebar rod and the embed (e.g. Fig. 47). Anderson further discloses that steel is a known and recommended material in the retaining wall (e.g. col. 13, lines 45-58) but does not explicitly disclose that the embed and bolt are made of steel. 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 embed and bolt of Anderson 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 would provide the expected benefit of strength and ductility. Anderson further discloses that a washer “may be positioned” separating the first side of the first stem from the second side of the second stem (e.g. Fig. 47, col. 19, lines 4-8), but does not explicitly disclose that the first side of the first stem is contiguous with the second side of the second stem. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to omit the washer between the stems thereby forming the first and second stems with contiguous sides for the expected benefit of reducing cost by cutting elements which are not required. Anderson also does not disclose the elongated body of the reinforcement rod extending continuously in a linear manner from the rod loop to the first end. Hilfiker teaches a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall (e.g. Fig. 11), the wall comprising: a concrete panel, the panel having a generally planar body with a frontside, a backside, and a surrounding peripheral edge (e.g. 14C, Fig.’s 11 and 13); a steel embed having first and second parts (e.g. 40, Fig.’s 11-13), the first part residing and secured within the concrete panel (e.g. Fig. 12), the second part extending outwardly from the backside (e.g. Fig. 12), the second part having an embed aperture (e.g. Fig. 12, wherein the loop forms an aperture therein); and a reinforcement rod (e.g. l1 of 10C, Fig.’s 11-13), the rod having a generally cylindrical elongated body with first and second ends (e.g. Fig. 13, similar to Fig. 1), the first end residing within backfill soil (e.g. L, Fig. 11), the second end having a rod loop (e.g. shown but not labeled securing l1 to 40, Fig. 13), the elongated body extending continuously in a linear manner from the rod loop to the first end (e.g. Fig.’s 11-13, similar to Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the elongated body of the reinforcement rod of Anderson extending continuously in a linear manner as taught by Hilfiker because such is a known shape and configuration of reinforcement rods in the art, and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. Further, the linear reinforcement rod as taught by Hilfiker (in combination with the transverse rods C as shown in Fig. 1) would provide the expected benefit of tying all of the reinforcement together, thereby better distributing the applied loads throughout the entire system.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the rod loop is formed from a reshaped end part of the reinforcement rebar rod (e.g. Anderson, Fig.’s 47 and 48, col. 18, lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Anderson and Hilfiker further discloses that the first part of the embed is triangular in shape (e.g. Anderson, Fig. 47).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights