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 filed May 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended subject matter that could not have been addressed in the previous office action. Please see the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “surfaceof” should be changed to “surface of” in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-8 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 6, the wording of “a C-shaped pile interface configured to conform to engage an exterior surfaceof said pile shaft” in lines 4-5 is confusing. The limitation “configured to conform to engage” suggests that the pile interface physically changes to engage with the pile shaft. This does not appear to be the intent of the limitation. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a C-shaped pile interface configured to conform to engage an exterior surfaceof said pile shaft” to mean “a C-shaped pile interface conforming to and configured to engage an exterior surface of said pile shaft”. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 6-8 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 10-2007-0009003).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses a pile for use with supporting excavation members (e.g. Fig. 1), the pile comprising: a pile shaft (e.g. 100, Fig. 1); and a C-shaped pile interface configured to conform to engage an exterior surface of said pile shaft (e.g. 104e, Fig.’s 1 and 2e, see sketch below wherein the lower leg of the pile interface “conforms” to the pile shaft when placed adjacent the pile shaft inasmuch as the linear portions of the pile interface of the instant application conform to the pile shaft); said C-shaped pile interface having vertical flanges (e.g. see sketch below); said vertical flanges including through-holes to enable attaching supporting excavation members thereto (e.g. see sketch below).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses that said C-shaped pile interface is welded to said pile shaft (e.g. 209, Fig. 2e, page 8 of specification translation, last sentence of middle paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further discloses that said C-shaped pile interface is welded to said pile shaft at a position to avoid interference with a driving unit driving said pile shaft (e.g. 209, Fig. 2e, page 8 of specification translation, last sentence of middle paragraph, wherein the driving unit is not positively recited, and wherein the pile interface is capable of avoiding interference with a driving unit that contacts the pile shaft in locations between the pile interfaces).
PNG
media_image1.png
389
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 6-8 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2007-0009003) alone.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses a pile for use with supporting excavation members (e.g. Fig. 1), the pile comprising: a pile shaft (e.g. 100, Fig. 1); and a pile interface configured to engage an exterior surface of said pile shaft (e.g. 208 of 104e, Fig.’s 1 and 2e); said pile interface having vertical flanges (e.g. 106 is considered a plurality of consecutive flanges, Fig. 2e); said vertical flanges including through-holes to enable attaching supporting excavation members thereto (e.g. 204, Fig. 2e). Lee does not explicitly disclose that the pile interface is C-shaped and conforms to the exterior surface of the pile shaft. In a separate embodiment, Lee discloses a C-shaped pile interface configured to conform to engage an exterior surface of said pile shaft (e.g. 601, Fig.’s 6a and 6b). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape of the pile interface of Lee to a C-shape that conforms to the exterior surface of the pile shaft because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art and the C-shape would provide the expected benefit of increasing the contact between the pile interface and the pile, thereby increasing the strength and stability of the connection.
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses that said C-shaped pile interface is welded to said pile shaft (e.g. 209, Fig. 2e, page 8 of specification translation, last sentence of middle paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further discloses that said C-shaped pile interface is welded to said pile shaft at a position to avoid interference with a driving unit driving said pile shaft (e.g. 209, Fig. 2e, page 8 of specification translation, last sentence of middle paragraph, wherein the driving unit is not positively recited, and wherein the pile interface is capable of avoiding interference with a driving unit that contacts the pile shaft in locations between the pile interfaces).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2007-205108 discloses at least all of the limitations of claim 6 (e.g. 14a, Fig.’s 1a and 3). KR 2016-0032624 also discloses at least all of the limitations of claim 6 (e.g. 12 and/or 14, Fig. 1b).
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
