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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 1, reference character “101” has been used to designate both “upper reamed body” and “core pile”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 - 20 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 use of the term “that” as recited in lines 2 and 4 renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which structural element(s) or limitation(s) the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a prestressed concrete thin-walled pipe pile” as recited in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because the term “thin” does not clearly define a thickness. Claims 12, 13, and 17 contain similar errors.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear how many piles are being claimed. Claim 6 recites “a T-shaped reamed pile” which indicates a single pile and also recites “soil between piles” which indicates a plurality of piles. Assuming that the claim requires a plurality of piles, it is unclear whether the “T-shaped pile” is one of the plurality of piles or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 10, the use of the term “when” as recited in line 1 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “when” indicates that the respective limitation is not required. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 1, line 2: “the outside”
Claim 9, line 8: “the curing”
Claim 15, line 1: “the diameter”
Claim 15, lines 1 - 2: “the upper reamed body”
Claim 15, line 2: “the core pile”
Claim 16, line 1: “the length” and “the upper reamed body”
Claim 17, line 1: “the reamed body”
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.
Claims 1 - 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 111364454).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a T-shaped reamed pile, wherein the T-shaped reamed pile is composed of a core pile (concrete prefabricated pile 7), and a reamed body (variable section pile body 8) surrounding the outside of the core pile; a depth of the core pile is not lower than that of the reamed body, and the reamed body comprises an upper reamed body (enlarged head portion pile body 5), and a lower reamed body (lower pile body 4); and a diameter of the upper reamed body is larger than that of the lower reamed body (Figs. 1(a) - 1(g); abstract; pages 3 - 5 of the attached translation including the description of Fig. 1 and Example 2).
Regarding claim 2, Liu further discloses the core pile (7) is a precast pile (precast concrete pile; abstract), and the reamed body (8) is a cast-in-place reamed body (Figs. 1(a) - 1(g); abstract; pages 3 - 4).
Regarding claim 3, Liu further discloses the diameter of the upper reamed body (750mm) is 1.5-2.5 times an outer diameter of the core pile (500mm), and a length of the upper reamed body (3m) is 5-10 times the outer diameter of the core pile (Figs. 1(a) - 1(g); abstract; pages 3 - 5 of the attached translation including the description of Fig. 1 and Example 2).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Liu further discloses the length of the upper reamed body (5) is not less than 2m (3m) (page 5; see Example 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. in view of Yu et al. (CN 112796313). Liu fails to disclose a material of the reamed body is selected from fine aggregate concrete, a cement-soil mixture, or a cement-bentonite slurry; and the core pile is selected from a prestressed concrete thin-walled pipe pile, a prestressed concrete square pile, a hollow square pile, or a prestressed concrete variable diameter pipe pile. Yu teaches a material of the reamed body is a cement-soil mixture (abstract; description of Embodiment 4); and the core pile is a pre-stressed concrete thin-walled pipe pile (description of Embodiment 4). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the cement-soil mixture as taught by Yu for the cement pile as disclosed by Liu as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the pre-stressed concrete thin-walled pipe pile as taught by Yu for the solid concrete core pile as disclosed by Liu to reduce the cost of materials required for the construction of the core pile.
Claims 6 and 14 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Liu et al.
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses a composite foundation, wherein the composite foundation is composed of an outer pile (cement-soil mixing pile 3), soil between piles (each pile comprising cement-soil mixing pile 3 and prefabricated pile 4; Although the soil is not shown between the piles, there would obviously be soil between adjacent piles.), and a cushion layer (2) (Figs. 1 and 2; abstract; pages 2 - 5, especially the description of Embodiment 1). Yu fails to disclose the cement-soil mixing pile is a T-shaped reamed pile according to claim 1. Liu teaches the outer pile is a T-shaped reamed pile according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the T-shaped reamed pile as taught by Liu for the cement-mixing pile 3 as disclosed by Yu to improve the pile body bearing force while reducing the cost of materials.
Regarding claim 14, Yu further discloses the core pile (4) is a precast pile (prefabricated pre-stress concrete pile) and the outer body is a cast-in-place body (cement-soil mixing pile 3) (pages 2 - 5, especially the description of Embodiment 1). Additionally, Liu explicitly teaches the core pile (7) is a precast pile (precast concrete pile; abstract), and the reamed body (8) is a cast-in-place reamed body (Figs. 1(a) - 1(g); abstract; pages 3 - 4). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the T-shaped reamed pile as taught by Liu for the cement-mixing pile 3 as disclosed by Yu to improve the pile body bearing force while reducing the cost of materials.
Regarding claim 15, Yu fails to disclose the diameter of the upper reamed body is 1.5-2.5 times an outer diameter of the core pile, and a length of the upper reamed body is 5-10 times the outer diameter of the core pile. Liu teaches the diameter of the upper reamed body (750mm) is 1.5-2.5 times an outer diameter of the core pile (500mm), and a length of the upper reamed body (3m) is 5-10 times the outer diameter of the core pile (Figs. 1(a) - 1(g); abstract; pages 3 - 5 of the attached translation including the description of Fig. 1 and Example 2). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the T-shaped reamed pile as taught by Liu for the cement-mixing pile 3 as disclosed by Yu to improve the pile body bearing force while reducing the cost of materials.
Regarding claim 16, Yu fails to disclose the length of the upper reamed body is not less than 2 m. Liu teaches the length of the upper reamed body (5) is not less than 2m (3m) (page 5; see Example 2). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the T-shaped reamed pile as taught by Liu for the cement-mixing pile 3 as disclosed by Yu to improve the pile body bearing force while reducing the cost of materials.
Regarding claim 17, Yu fails to disclose the T-shaped reamed pile of claim 1. Liu teaches the T-shaped reamed pile of claim 1, but fails to teach a material of the reamed body is selected from fine aggregate concrete, a cement-soil mixture, or a cement-bentonite slurry; and the core pile is selected from a prestressed concrete thin-walled pipe pile, a prestressed concrete square pile, a hollow square pile, or a prestressed concrete variable diameter pipe pile. Yu teaches a material of the reamed body is a cement-soil mixture (abstract; description of Embodiment 4); and the core pile is a pre-stressed concrete thin-walled pipe pile (description of Embodiment 4). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the cement-soil mixture as taught by Yu for the cement pile as disclosed by Liu as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the pre-stressed concrete thin-walled pipe pile as taught by Yu for the solid concrete core pile as disclosed by Liu to reduce the cost of materials required for the construction of the core pile.
Claims 7, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Liu et al. as applied to claims 6 and 14 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (CN 109113058).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Yu in view of Liu discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cushion layer is a sand-gravel cushion layer, or a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer, and the cushion layer has a thickness of 300-500 mm. Sun teaches the cushion layer is a sand-gravel cushion layer (14) (paragraphs 0007, 0008, 0018, 0027, and 0030) to form a drainage channel to drain excess pore water from the foundation soil. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the cushion layer as disclosed above with the sand-gravel material as taught by Sun to form a drainage channel to drain excess pore water from the foundation soil.
Regarding claim 8, since Examiner has interpreted the cushion layer of claim 7, from which claim 8 depends, as being a sand-gravel cushion layer as taught by Sun, and since all of the limitations recited in claim 8 are directed to a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer, claim 8 fails to further limit claim 7.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Liu et al., Phares et al. (US 3,200,599), and Sun et al.
Regarding claim 9, Yu in view of Liu discloses the composite foundation according to claim 6 as discussed above. Yu discloses a construction method comprising forming a pile hole, pouring a material into the pile hole, driving a core pile to a designed depth in the pile hole; and constructing a cushion layer (Figs. 1 and 2; abstract; pages 2 - 5, especially the description of Embodiment 1). Yu fails to explicitly disclose the steps of drawing out soil at a pile location by a drill bit with an aperture opening function and a long spiral drill pipe to form a hole, thus forming a T-shaped pile hole; pouring a material of a reamed body into the T-shaped pile hole; after the pouring of the material of the reamed body is completed, driving a core pile to a designed depth of the T-shaped pile hole; and after the curing of the material of the reamed body is completed, constructing a cushion layer, wherein the cushion layer is a sand-gravel cushion layer, or a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer. Given the apparatus as disclosed by Yu, the step of constructing a cushion layer after the curing of the material of the reamed body is completed would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Liu teaches the steps of drawing out soil at a pile location, thus forming a T-shaped pile hole; pouring a material of a reamed body into the T-shaped pile hole; and after the pouring of the material of the reamed body is completed, driving a core pile to a designed depth of the T-shaped pile hole (Figs. 1(a) - 1(g); abstract; pages 3 - 5 of the attached translation including the description of Fig. 1 and Example 2). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed by Yu to include the steps of drawing out soil at a pile location, thus forming a T-shaped pile hole; pouring a material of a reamed body into the T-shaped pile hole; and after the pouring of the material of the reamed body is completed, driving a core pile to a designed depth of the T-shaped pile hole as taught by Liu to improve the pile body bearing force while reducing the cost of materials. Liu fails to teach drawing soil out using a drill bit with an aperture opening function and a long spiral drill pipe to form a hole; and the cushion layer is a sand-gravel cushion layer, or a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer. Phares teaches drawing soil out using a drill bit (cutter head 148) with an aperture opening function (grout valve 137) and a long spiral drill pipe (auger 21) to form a hole (Figs. 7, 13, and 14; col. 12, lines 42 - 70). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the drill bit and aperture opening function as taught by Phares to provide a means for controlling the rate at which the cement flows out of the drill bit and fills the borehole. Phares fails to teach the cushion layer is a sand-gravel cushion layer, or a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer. Sun teaches the cushion layer is a sand-gravel cushion layer (14) (paragraphs 0007, 0008, 0018, 0027, and 0030) to form a drainage channel to drain excess pore water from the foundation soil. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the cushion layer as disclosed above with the sand-gravel material as taught by Sun to form a drainage channel to drain excess pore water from the foundation soil.
Regarding claim 10, since Examiner has interpreted the cushion layer of claim 9, from which claim 10 depends, as being a sand-gravel cushion layer as taught by Sun, and since all of the limitations recited in claim 10 are directed to a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer, claim 10 fails to further limit claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, Yu in view of Liu, Phares, and Sun et al. discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cushion layer has a thickness of 300-500mm. Examiner takes the position that the thickness of the cushion layer lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based on the properties of the soil in which the foundation is positioned.
Regarding claim 20, since Examiner has interpreted the cushion layer of claim 9, from which claim 20 depends, as being a sand-gravel cushion layer as taught by Sun, and the limitations directed to the cushion layer as recited in claim 20 which are directed to a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer, the cushion layer recited in claim 20 fails to further limit the cushion layer of claim 9. Yu further discloses a protective layer (bearing platform 1) (Figs. 1 and 2; pages 2 - 5, especially the description of Embodiment 1). Yu fails to disclose the protective layer is not less than 80mm. Examiner takes the position that the thickness of the protective layer lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the size of the structure that is placed thereon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
3/12/2026