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 7,8, 12-13 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 7 is confusing because it appears that the “clocking feature” includes “a plurality of notches” and are not two separate elements (see para 0016).
Claim 8 is solely rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 12 is confusing because it appears that the first leg and second leg comprise threads and a tip. The tip is part of the foundation system and separate from the legs.
Claim 13 is solely rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 1-3,5,12,14,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO document (WO 2013113652).
WO document t ‘652 discloses a foundation system for supporting a structure, comprising: a main post (101, Fig. 8) including an upper section and a lower section below the upper section;
a racking post (3,4,5, Fig. 8) telescopically connected to the upper section of the main post;
a first leg (left portion of member 109 in Fig. 8) and a second leg (right portion of member 109 of Fig. 8) connected to the lower section of the main post; and
a first leg bit (left portion of member 200 of Fig., 8)) and a second leg bit (right portion of member 200 of Fig. 8), wherein the first leg bit and the second leg bit are
configured to connect to the first leg and the second leg by an attachment device(111,112).
Re claim 2, wherein the upper section includes a plurality of recesses (where members 112 are positioned).
Re claim 3, wherein the lower section includes a swedged area configured to reduce a diameter of the lower section (where member 6 is pointing in Figs. 1-5).
Re claim 5, further including an attachment ring (108) for securing the racking post (3,4,5) to the upper section of the main post.
Re claim 12, wherein the first leg bit and the second leg bit include a plurality of threads and a tip, wherein the tip is configured to detachably couple to the first leg bit and the second leg bit (see Fig. 8).
Re claim 14, wherein the attachment device of the first leg bit and the second leg bit is configured to interlock with a preformed hole (where members 112 attach).
Re claim 20, a kit for a foundation system (see discussion of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wright (US 5275512).
Wright discloses a method of installing a pile (52) for supporting a structure, comprising:
driving a pile into a pre-drilled hole (see Fig. 4), the pile including an upper section and a lower section; and pouring a predetermined amount of an expanding substrate into a hole of the pile (see Fig. 6), wherein the hole includes a conduit for delivering the substrate to the lower section, and wherein as the expanding substrate cures, the lower section moves from an unexpanded state to an expanded state thereby forming a wedge shape at the lower section.
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) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document (WO 2013113652).
WO document ‘652 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘652 is silent wherein the diameter of the lower section is 2.2 inches.
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 WO document ‘652 to
have the diameter of the lower section to be 2.2 inches since such a modification would be based on the desired design parameters (amount of load to be withstand by the foundation structure).
Re claim 13, WO document ‘652 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘652 is silent wherein each thread of the
plurality of threads forms an angle with a longitudinal axis of the first leg bit and the second leg bit, and wherein the angle is about 45 degrees.
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 WO document ‘652 to
have the thread angle about 45 degrees since such a modification facilitates insertion.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document (WO 2013113652) in view of Novak (US 5301481).
WO document ‘652 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘652 is silent wherein the first leg and the second leg are separated by a notch, wherein the notch includes a hinge point, wherein the hinge point is
configured as a cutout.
Novak teaches the first leg and the second leg are separated by a notch, wherein the notch includes a hinge point, wherein the hinge point is configured as a cutout (see Figs. 1,3).
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 WO document ‘652 to wherein the first leg and the second leg are separated by a notch, wherein the notch includes a hinge point, wherein the hinge point is configured as a cutout as taught by Novak since such a modification facilitates the anchoring of the foundation structure.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright ‘512 in view of the Examiner Taking Official Notice.
Wright discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Wright is silent about further comprising placing a predetermined amount of aggregate into the pre-drilled hole before driving the pile into the pre-drilled hole. 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 Wright to further comprise placing a predetermined amount of aggregate into the pre-drilled hole before driving the pile into the pre-drilled hole as is well known since such a modification facilitates anchoring of the bolt/pile while requiring less expanding substrate.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright ‘512 in view of Examiner Taking Official Notice as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of WO document ‘652.
Wright discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Wright is silent about including an attachment ring to the upper section of the pile for securing a racking post therein. WO document '652 teaches including an attachment ring (108, Fig. 8) to the upper section of a pile for securing a racking post (3,4,5, Fig. 8) therein. 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 Wright to include an attachment ring to the upper section of the pile for securing a racking post therein as taught by WO document '652 since such a modification allows for vertically adjustable poles to be anchored securely.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Claims 7,8 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 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
2/21/2026