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 § 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) 1-7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vidal (US 4,440,527).
As to claim 1, Vidal discloses a mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall system, comprising: a precast base segment (generally at 30) including an upright wall 30 extending continuously from a footer 36; and a precast segment 24 securable to a top end of the precast base segment,
wherein the footer 36 is configured to be disposed on a grade surface and self-support the
precast base segment in an upright position when securing the precast segment to the precast base segment.
As to claim 2, Vidal discloses wherein the precast base segment has a generally T-shaped cross-section (see figure 1) having the upright wall 30 substantially perpendicular to the footer 36.
As to claim 3, Vidal discloses wherein the precast base segment is secured to the precast segment with at least one or more dowel rods 49.
As to claim 4, Vidal discloses wherein the precast base segment (generally at 30) is securable to another precast base segment (i.e. any desired number of precast base segment maybe secured to create a wall with a desired length).
As to claim 5, Vidal discloses wherein at least a second precast segment 24 is securable to a top end of the precast segment 24.
As to claim 6, Vidal discloses wherein at least one wall strap 44 is anchored to the precast base segment or the precast segment.
As to claim 7, Vidal discloses implicitly discloses wherein the precast base segment and the precast segment include a textured surface.
As to claim 10, Vidal discloses a mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall system, comprising:
a plurality of precast base segments (generally at 30) secured to one another, each of the precast base segments including an upright wall 30 extending continuously from a footer 36; and
a plurality of precast segments 24, wherein a portion of the plurality of the precast segments are secured to the precast base segments, and a portion of the plurality of the precast segments 24 are secured to one another, and
wherein the footer 36 of each precast base segment is configured to be disposed on a grade surface and self-support the precast base segment in an upright position when securing a precast segment to a precast base segment.
As to claim 11, Vidal discloses wherein the precast base segment 24 is secured to the precast segment 24 with at least one or more dowel rods 49.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor et al (US 5,975,809).
As to claim 13, Taylor et al discloses (see figure 4) a mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall system, comprising:
a first MSE wall system (i.e. left side of figure 4) including a plurality of precast base segments F and a plurality of precast segments secured 10 to one another, each of the precast base segments including an upright wall extending continuously from a footer F; and
a second MSE wall system (i.e. right side of figure 4) securable to the first MSE wall system,
wherein the footer F of each of the precast base segments of the first MSE wall system is configured to be disposed on a grade surface and self-support the precast base segment in an upright position when securing additional precast segments to construct the first MSE wall system.
As to claim 14, Taylor et al discloses (see figure 4) wherein the first MSE wall system and the second MSE wall system are positioned substantially parallel to one another.
As to claim 17, Taylor et al discloses wherein a void (i.e. space between outer left and right wall) is provided between the first MSE wall system and the second MSE wall system and configured to receive backfilling material B therein.
As to claim 19, Taylor et al wherein each of the precast base segments generally has a T-shaped cross-section having the upright wall 10 substantially perpendicular to the footer F.
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) 7, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidal (US 4,440,527).
As to claim 7, Vidal implicitly discloses a textured surface; however, does not disclose wherein the textured surface includes form lines to generate a panel pattern. The provision of lines would have considered an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since providing lines is considered a mere aesthetic design change.
As to claims 9 and 12, Vidal discloses all that is claimed except wherein the precast base segment and the precast segment are greater than 25 square feet in size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a precast segment greater than 25 square feet in size because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al (US 5,975,809).
As to claim 20, Taylor et al discloses all that is claimed except wherein the precast base segment and the precast segment are greater than 25 square feet in size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a precast segment greater than 25 square feet in size because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 15, the prior art of record fails to show suggest wherein the second MSE wall system is securable to an existing wall opposite the first MSE wall system.
As to claim 16, the prior art of record fails to show suggest wherein the first MSE wall system is secured to the second MSE wall system and the second MSE wall system is securable to an existing wall, opposite the first MSE wall system, with at least dowel rods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm.
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.
/FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights