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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2 and 9-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1, 2 and 9-13 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. The subject matter which was not described in the specification is that the swivel is rotatably attached to the driver coupling member and the pile coupling member is rotatably attached to the swivel as recited in claims 1 and 11. The original specification states that the swivel enables the pile coupling member to swivel/rotate with respect to the driver coupling member, however the original specification does not explicitly state that both the pile coupling member and the driver coupling member are rotatably attached to the swivel. It is possible for the swivel to enable the pile coupling member to swivel/rotate with respect to the driver coupling member as disclosed when the swivel is rotatably attached to only one of the pile coupling member and the driver coupling member, and rigidly attached to the other of the pile coupling member and the driver coupling member. Therefore, the original specification does not disclose or require that both the pile coupling member and the driver coupling member are rotatably attached to the swivel and it is not clear that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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 9 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. Claim 9 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends because claim 9 recites exactly the same limitation as claim 12 from which it 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
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillibrand (US 2019/0071836) in view of Atchley et al (US 2013/0189040).
Regarding claim 1, Gillibrand discloses a pile picking adapter (e.g. 10, Fig. 1) comprising: a driver coupling member to enable coupling of the pile picking adapter to a pile driving unit (e.g. 22/24, Fig. 1, paragraph 0012); a swivel rotatably attached to said driver coupling member (e.g. 30, Fig. 1, paragraph 0013); and a pile coupling member, rotatably attached to said swivel, configured to enable coupling of the pile picking adapter to a pile (e.g. 18/20, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0012 and 0013); said pile coupling member including a pile backing stop plate (e.g. 20, Fig. 1), and swivel engagement members attached to said pile backing stop plate (e.g. 18, Fig. 1). Gillibrand does not disclose that the pile coupling member also includes pile wings. Atchley teaches a pile picking adapter (e.g. 22, Fig. 2) comprising: a driver coupling member to enable coupling of the pile picking adapter to a pile driving unit (e.g. 25, Fig. 2); and a pile coupling member configured to enable coupling of the pile picking adapter to a pile (e.g. 21, Fig. 2); said pile coupling member including a pile backing stop plate (e.g. 31, Fig. 2), and pile wings attached to said pile backing stop plate (e.g. 42 and 44, Fig.’s 4 and 6); said pile wings including holes configured to enable direct bolting of said pile wings to the pile (e.g. 48 and 49, Fig.’s 4 and 6, paragraph 0054 wherein the openings are capable of receiving bolts). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add pile wings as taught by Atchley to the pile coupling member of Gillibrand for the expected benefit of facilitating alignment and insertion (e.g. paragraph 0051). Examiner notes that the pile of Gillibrand is attached to the pile coupling member on the side opposite the swivel engagement members, therefore the pile wings taught by Atchley would also be added to the pile coupling member on the side opposite the swivel engagement members.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gillibrand and Atchley further discloses that said swivel is configured to enable said pile coupling member to swivel with respect to said driver coupling member (e.g. Gillibrand, Fig. 3) but does not explicitly disclose that said swivel enables said pile coupling member to swivel 180° with respect to said driver coupling member. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the swivel of Gillibrand and Atchley to swivel in either direction to horizontal, thereby enabling said pile coupling member to swivel 180° with respect to said driver coupling member, for the expected benefit of allowing the pile picking adapter to swivel to either side to be secured to a pile more easily and quickly.
Regarding claim 11, Gillibrand discloses a pile picking adapter (e.g. 10, Fig. 1) comprising: a driver coupling member to enable coupling of the pile picking adapter to a pile driving unit (e.g. 22/24, Fig. 1, paragraph 0012); a swivel rotatably attached to said driver coupling member (e.g. 30, Fig. 1, paragraph 0013); and a pile coupling member, rotatably attached to said swivel, configured to enable coupling of the pile picking adapter to a pile (e.g. 18/20, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0012 and 0013); said pile coupling member including a pile backing stop plate (e.g. 20, Fig. 1), and swivel engagement members attached to said pile backing stop plate (e.g. 18, Fig. 1). Gillibrand does not disclose that the pile coupling member also includes pile wings. Atchley teaches a pile picking adapter (e.g. 22, Fig. 2) comprising: a driver coupling member to enable coupling of the pile picking adapter to a pile driving unit (e.g. 25, Fig. 2); and a pile coupling member configured to enable coupling of the pile picking adapter to a pile (e.g. 21, Fig. 2); said pile coupling member including a pile backing stop plate (e.g. 31, Fig. 2), and pile wings attached to said pile backing stop plate (e.g. 42 and 44, Fig.’s 4 and 6); said pile wings including holes configured to enable direct riveting of said pile wings to the pile (e.g. 48 and 49, Fig.’s 4 and 6, paragraph 0054 wherein the openings are capable of receiving rivets). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add pile wings as taught by Atchley to the pile coupling member of Gillibrand for the expected benefit of facilitating alignment and insertion (e.g. paragraph 0051). Examiner notes that the pile of Gillibrand is attached to the pile coupling member on the side opposite the swivel engagement members, therefore the pile wings taught by Atchley would also be added to the pile coupling member on the side opposite the swivel engagement members.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, the combination of Gillibrand and Atchley further discloses a pile adapter member, attached to said pile backing stop plate and said pile wings, configured to provide engagement and alignment when coupling the pile to the pile picking adapter (e.g. Atchley, 43, Fig. 5, paragraph 0051-0052).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, the combination of Gillibrand and Atchley further discloses that said pile adapter member is curved (e.g. Atchley, paragraph 0052 wherein the pile adapter member will be curved for a circular pile to form the circular socket).
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 STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
