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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-8 and 11-15, drawn to a drainage anti-slide pipe pile and further election of species a, claims 1-8 and 10-15, without traverse, is acknowledged. Claims 9-10 and 16-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner. Claims 1-8 and 11-15 are pending and ready for examination.
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 2-3, 7-8 and 11-15 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.
The term “far away” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “far away” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instance, there is no way to determine what is considered “far” for the distance between the pile cover and the embedded section.
Claims 3 and 11-12 are rejected here as the claims all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 2.
Claims 7 and 11-15 recite “when arranged at a top of a channel slope”, and this language renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear if the recited limitations are dependent on the position of the pile. That is to say, are the automatic water pumping and drainage devices necessary or present when the pile is not arranged at the top of the channel slope?
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,309,072 B2 (Mei et al.).
As concerns claim 1, Mei et al. discloses a drainage anti-slide pipe pile suitable for an open channel project of expansive soil in cold and arid regions, comprising a pile body 1, wherein the pile body is provided with a dewatering section (upper) and an embedded section 12 arranged up and down, a wall of the dewatering section of the pile body is provided with a plurality of drainage channels 11 for consolidation drainage; and the embedded section of the pile body is embedded in a solid rock stratum to provide an anti-slide effect (figure 1).
As concerns claim 2, Mei et al. discloses the drainage anti-slide pipe pile according to claim 1, wherein a pile cover 4 is arranged on a side of the dewatering section of the pile body far away from the embedded section to prevent soil particles from entering an interior of the drainage anti-slide pipe pile (figure 1).
As concerns claim 5, Mei et al. discloses the drainage anti-slide pipe pile according to claim 1, wherein a water pumping channel 33 is arranged at an end of the dewatering section of the pile body adjacent to the embedded section.
As concerns claim 7, Mei et al. discloses the drainage anti-slide pipe pile according to claim 1, wherein when arranged at a top of a channel slope (this will be construed as an unconsolidated soil, as the term is not specifically defined in the specification), the drainage anti-slide pipe pile further comprises an automatic water pumping and drainage device (figure 1), the automatic water pumping and drainage device comprises a water pumping and drainage pipe 31 positioned in the pile body, a first end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to the embedded section 12, and a second end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to an outer side of the pile body and is connected to a water pump 32.
As concerns claim 11, Mei et al. discloses the drainage anti-slide pipe pile according to claim 2, wherein when arranged at a top of a channel slope, the drainage anti-slide pipe pile further comprises an automatic water pumping and drainage device (figure 1), the automatic water pumping and drainage device comprises a water pumping and drainage pipe 31 positioned in the pile body, a first end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to the embedded section 12, and a second end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to an outer side of the pile body and is connected to a water pump 32.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al. in view of US 2009/0050025 A1 (Wissa et al.).
As concerns claim 3, the combination lacks to expressly disclose the pipe pile being cast with steel slag concrete, nevertheless it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
As concerns claim 4, Mei et al. lacks to disclose a geomembrane attached to an inner wall of the pile body.
Wissa et al. discloses a construction method that uses a geomembrane to cover or encapsulate a construction fill to control damage to the structure and related deterioration due to infiltrating rainfall (such as the case of a road base on a pervious foundation). One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have considered it obvious to incorporate a geomembrane liner into the pile of Mei et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of helping to protect the structure from damage from encroachment of water or fluids into the structure.
As concerns claim 6, the combination discloses the drainage anti-slide pipe pile according to claim 1, but lacks to disclose wherein a ratio of a total area of the plurality of drainage channels to a side area of the pile body is less than 0.03; the plurality of drainage channels are arranged along a long direction of the pile body at a spacing of 0.5 m; and a diameter of each of the plurality of drainage channels is 1/10 of an outer diameter of the pile body.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the claimed ratios, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
As concerns claim 12, Mei et al. discloses the drainage anti-slide pipe pile according to claim 3, wherein when arranged at a top of a channel slope, the drainage anti-slide pipe pile further comprises an automatic water pumping and drainage device (figure 1), the automatic water pumping and drainage device comprises a water pumping and drainage pipe 31 positioned in the pile body, a first end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to the embedded section 12, and a second end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to an outer side of the pile body and is connected to a water pump 32.
As concerns claim 13, Mei et al. discloses the drainage anti-slide pipe pile according to claim 4, wherein when arranged at a top of a channel slope, the drainage anti-slide pipe pile further comprises an automatic water pumping and drainage device (figure 1), the automatic water pumping and drainage device comprises a water pumping and drainage pipe 31 positioned in the pile body, a first end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to the embedded section 12, and a second end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to an outer side of the pile body and is connected to a water pump 32.
As concerns claim 14, Mei et al. discloses the drainage anti-slide pipe pile according to claim 5, wherein when arranged at a top of a channel slope, the drainage anti-slide pipe pile further comprises an automatic water pumping and drainage device (figure 1), the automatic water pumping and drainage device comprises a water pumping and drainage pipe 31 positioned in the pile body, a first end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to the embedded section 12, and a second end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to an outer side of the pile body and is connected to a water pump 32.
As concerns claim 15, Mei et al. discloses the drainage anti-slide pipe pile according to claim 6, wherein when arranged at a top of a channel slope, the drainage anti-slide pipe pile further comprises an automatic water pumping and drainage device (figure 1), the automatic water pumping and drainage device comprises a water pumping and drainage pipe 31 positioned in the pile body, a first end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to the embedded section 12, and a second end of the water pumping and drainage pipe extends to an outer side of the pile body and is connected to a water pump 32.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al., as modified above, and further in view of US 5,059,064 (Justice).
As concerns claim 8, the combination discloses the drainage anti-slide pipe pile according to claim 7, but lacks to disclose wherein a plurality of water level sensors are arranged from top to bottom on an inner side wall of the dewatering section of the pile body, the plurality of water level sensors are electrically connected to a water level controller, and the water level controller is electrically connected to the water pump.
Justice discloses a horizontal dewatering system that uses water level sensors 122 to determine that a water level has fallen below a predetermined minimum and then actuates a pump 112 to draw water up through a recovery pipe 106 that helps to keep the surrounding grounds free of wet areas by controlling the water depth.
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have considered it obvious to incorporate the water level sensors into the pile of modified Mei et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of controlling the amount of water in the pile.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0229281 A1 (Alexander et al.) discloses devices used to drive large-diameter pipe piles in the subsurface and methods used to install artificial gravel packs in the annular space created between the device and the external wall of the pile. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to apparatus and methods for driving large-diameter pipe piles that have inlet and outlet screens (filter casings) in the subsurface, while installing an artificial gravel pack in the resulting annular space created between the internal wall of the drive device and the external wall of the filter casing to protect the screens and promote the flow of contaminated groundwater toward the filter casing for containment and treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-Friday.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. 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.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/JAMES G SAYRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights