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) 1-16 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 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 1-3, 8-10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 10-1731536).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a pound-driven pile (e.g. 10, Fig. 5) comprising: a pile shaft having a first diameter (e.g. 100, Fig. 5); a displacement head connected to said pile shaft and located at one end of said pile shaft (e.g. 200, Fig. 5); said displacement head including a head member for transferring a force from pounding the pile to a medium (e.g. lower conical portion of 200, Fig. 5) and a lateral compaction member, connected to said head member, for laterally compacting the medium to create an annulus having a second diameter, said second diameter being greater than said first diameter (e.g. upper cylindrical portion of 200, Fig. 5); and a fin, extending outwardly from said shaft, to cut a continuous groove into a wall of the annulus created by said lateral compaction member (e.g. 300, Fig. 5); said lateral compaction member being connected to said pile shaft (e.g. Fig. 5). Examiner notes that Lee does not explicitly disclose that the pile is pound-driven, the head member transfers a force from pounding the pile to a medium, the lateral compaction member laterally compacts the medium to create an annulus, or the fin cuts a continuous groove into a wall of the annulus. Since only a pile is claimed, limitations such as this are considered intended use limitations and are given little patentable weight. Therefore as long as the disclosed device is capable of performing the intended use it is considered to anticipate the claimed limitation. The pile of Lee is capable of performing all of these intended use limitations based on the structural configuration of the pile including the displacement head with the same shape as the displacement head of the instant application and the helical fin that will cause the pile to rotate when pounded and will cut a groove into the annulus wall because of its larger diameter. Examiner suggests clarifying the structural configuration of the fin such that a helical blade does not satisfy the limitation to overcome Lee and similar helical piles.
Regarding claim 2, Lee further discloses that said fin is configured to cause the pound-driven pile to rotate when driven into the medium from the pounding of the pound-driven pile (e.g. Fig. 5 wherein the helical blade is angled such that the downward force of the pounding will push against the helical blade and cause at least some rotation).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses that said displacement head includes an opening to allow grout to be pumped into the annulus (e.g. 210, Fig.’s 5 and 6, claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses a pound-driven pile (e.g. 10, Fig. 5) comprising: a pile shaft having a first diameter (e.g. 100, Fig. 5); a displacement head connected to said pile shaft and located at one end of said pile shaft (e.g. 200, Fig. 5); said displacement head including a head member for transferring a force from pounding the pile to a medium (e.g. lower conical portion of 200, Fig. 5) and a lateral compaction member, connected to said head member, for laterally compacting the medium to create an annulus having a second diameter, said second diameter being greater than said first diameter (e.g. upper cylindrical portion of 200, Fig. 5); and fins, extending outwardly from said shaft, to cut continuous grooves into a wall of the annulus created by said lateral compaction member (e.g. upper half of 300 and lower half of 300 are considered to be two fins which are connected together, Fig. 5); said lateral compaction member being connected to said pile shaft (e.g. Fig. 5). Examiner notes that Lee does not explicitly disclose that the pile is pound-driven, the head member transfers a force from pounding the pile to a medium, the lateral compaction member laterally compacts the medium to create an annulus, or the fins cut continuous grooves into a wall of the annulus. Since only a pile is claimed, limitations such as this are considered intended use limitations and are given little patentable weight. Therefore as long as the disclosed device is capable of performing the intended use it is considered to anticipate the claimed limitation. The pile of Lee is capable of performing all of these intended use limitations based on the structural configuration of the pile including the displacement head with the same shape as the displacement head of the instant application and the helical fins that will cause the pile to rotate when pounded and will cut grooves into the annulus wall because of their larger diameter. Examiner suggests clarifying the structural configuration of the fins such that a helical blade does not satisfy the limitation to overcome Lee and similar helical piles.
Regarding claim 9, Lee further discloses that said fins are configured to cause the pound-driven pile to rotate when driven into the medium from the pounding of the pound-driven pile (e.g. Fig. 5 wherein the helical blade is angled such that the downward force of the pounding will push against the helical blade and cause at least some rotation).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further discloses that said displacement head includes an opening to allow grout to be pumped into the annulus (e.g. 210, Fig.’s 5 and 6, claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Lee further discloses that said lateral compaction member has a third diameter, said third diameter being greater than said first diameter (e.g. Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Lee further discloses that said lateral compaction member has a third diameter, said third diameter being greater than said first diameter (e.g. Fig. 5).
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 4-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1731536) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Cerezo (WO 2018/076054).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Lee discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that said pile shaft includes threads to prevent shearing between said pile shaft and grout. Cerezo teaches a pile (e.g. 10a, Fig. 1) comprising: a pile shaft having a first diameter (e.g. 100a, Fig. 1); and a displacement head connected to said pile shaft and located at one end of said pile shaft (e.g. 200a, Fig. 1); wherein said pile shaft includes threads to prevent shearing between said pile shaft and grout (e.g. 112a, Fig. 1). 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 threads as taught by Cerezo to the pile shaft of Lee for the expected benefit of increased torsional strength, yield point and bending strength (e.g. paragraphs 00127, 00131 and 00133).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Lee discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that said pile shaft includes projections to prevent shearing between said pile shaft and grout. Cerezo teaches a pile (e.g. 10a, Fig. 1) comprising: a pile shaft having a first diameter (e.g. 100a, Fig. 1); and a displacement head connected to said pile shaft and located at one end of said pile shaft (e.g. 200a, Fig. 1); wherein said pile shaft includes projections to prevent shearing between said pile shaft and grout (e.g. portions between groove 112a form projections, Fig. 1). 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 projections as taught by Cerezo to the pile shaft of Lee for the expected benefit of increased torsional strength, yield point and bending strength (e.g. paragraphs 00127, 00131 and 00133).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Lee discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that said pile shaft includes indentations to prevent shearing between said pile shaft and grout. Cerezo teaches a pile (e.g. 10a, Fig. 1) comprising: a pile shaft having a first diameter (e.g. 100a, Fig. 1); and a displacement head connected to said pile shaft and located at one end of said pile shaft (e.g. 200a, Fig. 1); wherein said pile shaft includes indentations to prevent shearing between said pile shaft and grout (e.g. groove 112a forms indentations, Fig. 1). 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 indentations as taught by Cerezo to the pile shaft of Lee for the expected benefit of increased torsional strength, yield point and bending strength (e.g. paragraphs 00127, 00131 and 00133).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combination of Lee and Cerezo further discloses that said pile shaft includes indentations to prevent shearing between said pile shaft and grout (e.g. Cerezo, groove 112a forms indentations, Fig. 1).
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
