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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites “the cushion layer is a sand-gravel cushion layer, or a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer”. However, claim 6, from which claim 18 depends, recites “the cushion layer is a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer”. The specification fails to describe a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer made of sand and gravel. As described in the specification, the cushion layer is either a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer or a sand-gravel cushion layer.
Claim 19 recites “the cushion layer is a sand-gravel cushion layer, or a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer”. However, claim 6, from which claim 18 depends, recites “the cushion layer is a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer”. The specification fails to describe a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer made of sand and gravel. As described in the specification, the cushion layer is either a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer or a sand-gravel cushion layer.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All of the limitations recited in claim 20 are recited in claim 6, from which claim 20 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 6 and 14 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 112796313) in view of Liu et al. (CN 111364454), Yin et al. (CN 106884433), and Lan et al. (CN 114481734).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, 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 each of the T-shaped reamed piles is composed of a core pile, and a reamed body surrounding an outside of the core pile; a depth of the core pile is not lower than a depth of the reamed body, and the reamed body comprises an upper reamed body, and a lower reamed body; and a diameter of the upper reamed body is larger than a diameter of the lower reamed body; wherein the cushion layer is a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer, and the cushion layer has a thickness of 300-500 mm; a reinforced material of the cushion layer is a double-layer steel plate mesh structure, and a thickness of a protective layer is not less than 80 mm. Liu teaches 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 a depth 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 a diameter 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). 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. Liu fails to teach the cushion layer is a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer, and the cushion layer has a thickness of 300-500 mm; a reinforced material of the cushion layer is a double-layer steel plate mesh structure, and a thickness of a protective layer is not less than 80 mm. Yin teaches the cushion layer is a reinforced cement-soil cushion layer (Figs. 1 and 3; abstract; paragraphs 0013, 0044, and 0045). 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 cushion layer as taught by Yin to increase the bearing capacity of the foundation. Yin fails to teach the cushion layer has a thickness of 300-500 mm; a reinforced material of the cushion layer is a double-layer steel plate mesh structure, and a thickness of a protective layer is not less than 80 mm. Lan teaches a reinforced material of a concrete cushion layer (21) is a double-layer steel plate mesh (upper reinforcing steel bar net 13; lower reinforcing steel bar net 10) (Fig. 1; paragraphs n0031, n0038, and n0039). 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 reinforced material comprising a double-layer steel plate mesh as taught by Lan to increase the bearing capacity of the composite foundation. Lan fails to teach the cushion layer has a thickness of 300-500 mm; and a thickness of a protective layer is not less than 80 mm. Examiner takes the position that the thickness of the cushion layer and the thickness of the protective layer lack criticality in the claims and are design considerations within the skill of the art to provide the required structural support for a structure that is to be placed on the composite foundation and the properties of the soil upon which the composite foundation is to be placed.
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 a length of the upper reamed body is not less than 2 m. Liu teaches a 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 teaches a material of the reamed body is a cement-soil mixture (abstract; description of Embodiment 4); and the core pile is a hollow pipe pile (description of Embodiment 4). Yu in view of Liu, Yin, and Lan fails to disclose the hollow pile is a square pile. 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 pipe pile as disclosed above to have a square shape as a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claims 9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Liu et al. (CN 111364454), Yin et al. (CN 106884433), Lan et al., and Phares et al. (US 3,200,599).
Regarding claim 9, Yu in view of Liu, Yin, and Lan 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 curing of the material of the reamed body is completed, constructing a 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. 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.
Regarding claim 19, Yu in view of Liu, Yin, Lan, and Phares 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, Yu in view of Liu, Yin, Lan, and Phares 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Liu et al., Yin et al., Lan et al., and Phares et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 108978636). Yu et al. in view of Liu, Yin, Lan, and Phares discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cement soil is constructed by a compaction method, and a compressive strength is not less than 3 MPa. Zhu teaches a pile foundation wherein the cement soil is constructed by a compaction method, and a compressive strength is not less than 3 MPa (15MPa - 25MPa) (paragraphs 0011, 0017, 0073, and 0086) to increase the bearing capacity of the foundation. 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 above with the compaction method and compressive strength as taught by Zhu to increase the bearing capacity of the foundation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6, 9, 10, and 14 - 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 09 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the cushion layer has a thickness of 300-500 mm and the protective layer is not less than 80 mm. Examiner replies that the thickness of the cushion layer and the thickness of the protective layer lack criticality in the claims and are design considerations within the skill of the art to provide the required structural support for a structure that is to be placed on the composite foundation and the properties of the soil upon which the composite foundation is to be placed. Examiner takes the position that Applicant has failed to provide evidence as to the criticality of the aforementioned claimed ranges.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights