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 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 1-9,12,16,17,18,26,27 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 line 13, “the adjacent portions” lack clear antecedent basis.
Claim 1 is indefinite because at line 15 one cannot determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “sufficient”.
Claim 1 is indefinite because at line 16 one cannot determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “suitable load”.
Claim 4 is indefinite because at line 3 one cannot determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “essentially”.
Claim 4 line 4, “the portion” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is indefinite because at line 3 one cannot determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “essentially”.
Claim 8 line 5, “the first conical portion” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 8 line 6, “the tubular section” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 8 line 7, “the second conical portion” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim limitation “fixing means” in claim 12 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses the word “means” or a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure or material that is ambiguous regarding whether that structure or material is sufficient for performing the claimed function;
The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 16 is indefinite because at line 2 one cannot determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “essentially”.
Claims 17,18 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from a multiple dependent claim 16. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 17,18 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 26 is indefinite because at line 2 one cannot determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “essentially”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,22,29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Japanese document (JP 57051332)
Japanese document ‘332 discloses an anchoring system comprising:
- an anchor pile (see Fig. 5) configured to be received within a borehole (2) drilled in a ground surface, the anchor pile comprising an elongate main body, the elongate main body (see Fig. 5) having a longitudinal axis (L) and comprising an upper end and a lower end, wherein the upper end is configured in use to be fully received within the borehole; and one or more portions located on the elongate main body of the anchor pile, the one or more portions (6) each having a cross section greater than the cross section of the elongate main body (7), and in which the cross section of the one or more portions increases along a portion of the longitudinal axis (L) in the direction from the upper end to the lower end defining at least one bearing surface such that in use an annular gap for receiving locking media (3) is defined between the at least one bearing surface and the adjacent portions of the borehole (2), and in which the anchor pile (7) is locked in position within the borehole (2) on receipt of locking media within the annular gap as a result of sufficient frictional resistance arising from the abutment of the locking media with the bearing surface and suitable load bearing soil layers of the borehole (2).
Re claim 2, in which the bearing surface (6) comprises at least one tapered section.
Re claim 3, wherein the elongate main body (7) comprises at least one protruding section (6) projecting outwardly from the elongate main body (7) and/or at least one angled face sloping down outwardly from the elongate main body (7).
Re claim 5, wherein the elongate main body (7) comprises:
a first conical portion (see Fig. 5) coaxial with the longitudinal axis (L) of the elongate main body (7), wherein along the first conical portion the cross section of the elongate body increases in the direction from the upper end to the lower; - a second conical portion (see Fig. 5) coaxial with the longitudinal axis (L) of the elongate main body (7), wherein along the second conical portion the cross section of the main body decreases in the direction from the upper end to the lower end; and a tubular portion (6) coaxial with the longitudinal axis (L) of the elongate main body, extending between the first conical portion and the second conical portion.
With regards to claims 22,29, the recited method steps are considered to be taught by the installation of anchor pile of Japanese document ‘332.
Claim(s) 1-3,16,22,23,25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mueller (US 2924948)
Mueller discloses an anchoring system comprising:
- an anchor pile (col. 1,2, see Fig. 8) configured to be received within a borehole (Fig. 1) drilled in a ground surface, the anchor pile comprising an elongate main body, the elongate main body (see Fig. 8) having a longitudinal axis (L) and comprising an upper end and a lower end, wherein the upper end is configured in use to be fully received within the borehole; and one or more portions located on the elongate main body of the anchor pile, the one or more portions (12) each having a cross section greater than the cross section of the elongate main body (Fig. 8), and in which the cross section of the one or more portions increases along a portion of the longitudinal axis (L) in the direction from the upper end to the lower end defining at least one bearing surface such that in use an annular gap for receiving locking media (col. 1 and 2) is defined between the at least one bearing surface and the adjacent portions of the borehole (col. 1 and 2), and in which the anchor pile (Fig. 8) is locked in position within the borehole (col. 4) on receipt of locking media within the annular gap as a result of sufficient frictional resistance arising from the abutment of the locking media with the bearing surface and suitable load bearing soil layers of the borehole (col. 1,2,4).
Re claim 2, in which the bearing surface (12) comprises at least one tapered section.
Re claim 3, wherein the elongate main body (see Fig. 8) comprises at least one protruding section (12) projecting outwardly from the elongate main body and/or at least one angled face sloping down outwardly from the elongate main body (Fig. 8).
Re claim 4, wherein the elongate main body comprises at least one conduit (12, col. 4 Fig. 8) arranged essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis (L), such that the conduit extends along the portion of the longitudinal axis (L) of the elongate main body along which the cross section of the elongate main body increases, the at least one conduit defining a channel (12, col. 4 and Fig. 8) between an upper section and a lower section of the elongate main body thereby.
Re claim 16, wherein the elongate main body of the anchor pile is shaped as an essentially tubular hollow body comprising a plurality of ports arranged over at least a portion of its length, the ports being configured for establishing a fluidic communication between an inner volume of the elongate main body and the annular gap defined between the elongate main body and the borehole (see Fig. 8, col. 4).
With regards to claims 22,23, the recited method steps are considered to be taught by the installation of anchor pile of Mueller ‘948
Re claim 25, wherein in the locking media is provided in a fluid medium directly into the annular gap from an upper section of the borehole (via Z2, Fig. 8 col. 4,5).
Re claim 26, wherein the elongate main body of the anchor pile is shaped as an essentially tubular hollow body, wherein the locking media is provided as fluid and/or slurry pumped through the hollow tubular main body and into the annular gap (via Z1, Fig. 8, col. 4,5) between the elongate main body and the borehole.
Re claim 27, wherein the elongate main body comprises a plurality of ports (z1,z2, co. 4,5 Fig. 8) arranged over at least a portion of its length, the ports being configured for establishing a fluidic communication between an inner volume of the elongate main body and the annular gap and wherein the locking media is provided in a fluid medium through the upper end of the hollow elongate main body, the fluid being pumped through the inner volume of the elongate main body through the ports to provide the locking media in a fluid medium into the annular gap.
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese document 332 in view of Japanese document (JP 56163318).
Japanese document ‘332 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Japanese document is silent about introducing the lower end of the elongate main body through a guide channel of a guide collar, into the borehole; and removing the guide collar from the anchor pile. Japanese document ‘318 teaches introducing the lower end of the elongate main body through a guide channel of a guide collar, into the borehole; and removing the guide collar from the anchor pile (see Figs. 4-6). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Japanese document ‘332 to introduce the lower end of the elongate main body through a guide channel of a guide collar, into the borehole; and removing the guide collar from the anchor pile as taught by Japanese document ‘318 since such a modification protects the mouth of the borehole and aid in the guiding of the pile into the borehole.
Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese document 332 in view of Gebhart (US 4142336)
Japanese document ‘332 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Japanese document ‘332 is silent wherein the taper angle of the first conical portion is smaller than the taper angle of the second conical portion and wherein the first conical portion extends along a greater length of the elongate main body than the second conical portion. Gebhart teaches wherein the taper angle of a first lower conical portion (34,34b) is smaller than the taper angle of the second upper conical portion (32b,32) and wherein the first conical portion extends along a greater length of the elongate main body than the second conical portion. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Japanese document ‘332 have the taper angles and length as taught by Gebhart since such a modification would be based on desired adhesive surface.
Further, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the taper angle and length of the first and second conical portion since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Such a modification would facilitate the compaction of the locking media.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller ‘948 in view of Japanese document (JP 55052426).
Mueller discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Mueller is silent about the conduit extending along at least a portion of the first conical portion, the tubular section; and -at least a portion of the second conical portion. Japanese document ‘426 teaches conduit extending along at least a portion of the first conical portion, the tubular section; and -at least a portion of the second conical portion (5, Fig. 1). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mueller to have the conduit extending along at least a portion of the first conical portion, the tubular section; and -at least a portion of the second conical portion as taught by Japanese document ‘426 since such a modification enhances the bounding with the locking media.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller ‘948 in view of Kono et al. (US 5378085)
Mueller discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Mueller is silent about including a cohesive high friction coating configured to increase friction between the elongate main body and locking media received within the annular gap.
Kono et al. teaches a cohesive high friction coating configured to increase friction (see abstract). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mueller to include a cohesive high friction coating as taught by Kono et al. since such a modification facilitates the bonding between the pile and the locking media.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller ‘948 in view of Sun et al. (US 20170175354).
Mueller discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Mueller is silent wherein at least a section of the elongate main body comprises fixing means configured for being driven outwardly from the elongate main body for penetrating the borehole wall, such that a fixed connection is established thereby.
Sun et al. teaches wherein at least a section of the elongate main body comprises fixing means (see Fig 1), configured for being driven outwardly from the elongate main body for penetrating the borehole wall, such that a fixed connection is established thereby. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mueller to include a
fixing means as taught by Sun et al. since such a modification facilitates anchoring of the pile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
5/30/2025
Prosecution Insights