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 .
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 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: How, and where, the centering sleeve is disposed on the pile and how/where that is in relation to the pile shoe (e.g. what, how and where everything is connected and interacts with the other respective components is critical to the understanding of the invention such that a skilled artisan could re-create it – and that is not the case for the independent claims).
Claims 1-40 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 1, it is unclear as to how the pile shoe, centering sleeve, and pile components are positioned and interact – as noted above. Please clarify.
Regarding claims 9-11, 18, 23, 27, 28, 33, 35, 37 and 38, the term “preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the following limitations are a required part of the claim – or not.
Regarding claims 25 and 27, the terms “in particular” and “particularly” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the following limitations are a required part of the claim – or not.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the radial extensions of the circumferential fins are different” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what this difference is (e.g. positioning, material, size, literally anything, etc.).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “wherein the sleeve section has the casing surface” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to what/how the sleeve section “has” it (e.g. is there some sort of physical connection, are they the same color, etc.).
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the ramming structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12, 19-21, 26, 29 and 32-38 are similarly rejected for being dependent upon an indefinite claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 17-19, 25-27, 30, 31, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Bald (US 1969251).
Regarding claims 1 and 39, Bald discloses a centering sleeve [20, 30] for a pile shoe [22-25] to be disposed on a driven pile [90], wherein the centering sleeve is configured to be elongated starting from an upper end of the centering sleeve along a longitudinal axis to a lower end of the centering sleeve, wherein the centering sleeve has an outer casing surface, wherein a centering device [32] projecting from the casing surface is disposed on the casing surface [Figures 1-5].
Regarding claims 2, 3, 30 and 39, Bald further discloses casing surface is rotationally symmetrical with respect to the longitudinal axis and the casing surface along the longitudinal axis has an outer diameter which is substantially constant with respect to the longitudinal axis [casing is a cylindrical tube]; and the pile shoe has a substantially flat support surface for setting up the pile shoe on a subsoil [41]; the driven pile is hollow-cylindrical at least in the region of the ramming end, wherein the centering sleeve is disposed inside the driven pile, wherein the centering device rests against an inner pile wall of the driven pile [Figures 1-5].
Regarding claims 17-19, Bald further discloses the centering sleeve has a sleeve section [20, 30 are tubular] along the longitudinal axis and an adjoining connection section, wherein the sleeve section has the casing surface [Figures 1-6], wherein the connection section comprises at least one connecting device [21] for connecting the centering sleeve to the pile shoe; the at least one connecting device is designed as a recess in the connection section, wherein preferably the at least one recess is designed to correspond to at least one connection device of the pile shoe [connecting device engages apertures between 30]; the connection section has at least one substantially conical outer surface, wherein an outer diameter of the at least one outer surface increases towards the longitudinal axis [bottom of centering device 32 has a conicular shape; Figures 1 & 2].
Regarding claims 31, Bald further discloses the pile shoe comprises a connection device [32] disposed on the ramming structure, wherein the connection device extends from the ramming structure against the ramming direction [lifting/dropping elements associated with ram 51], wherein the connection device comprises a connection section and an adjoining guide section against the ramming direction [Figures 1-5].
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.
Claim(s) 4, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bald (US 1969251) alone.
Regarding claims 4, 28 and 29, although Bald is silent as to the specific parameters and materials as recited in the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such values and materials depending on a number of variables including intended application of the invention, design loads, and material parameters as seen fit to minimize costs and maximize profits.
Claim(s) 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bald (US 1969251) in view of Lee (KR 20120089896 A).
Regarding claims 5-13, Bald fails to disclose the use of fins on the device.
Lee teaches an apparatus/method for increasing the pile point bearing capacity comprising a series of fins extending horizontally out from, and in an array circumferentially around, the base of a pile, and having a gap between each fin section [Figures 3-5].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Bald by adding the fins as described by Lee to increase bearing capacity for the pile such that it can support heavier loads, thereby increasing the versatility, applicability and subsequently profitability of the device.
Specifically regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the radial extensions of the circumferential fins are different [e.g. positioned at/extending from different locations].
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bald (US 1969251) in view of Coulon et al. (US 2015/0023739).
Regarding claims 14-16, Bald fails to disclose further details about the reinforcing for the support sleeve.
Coulon teaches a pile shoe comprising least one support structure [pocket formed from 12, and 13] for reinforcing the centering sleeve is disposed on an inner wall of the centering sleeve, wherein the support structure extends from an upper end of the centering sleeve along a portion of the elongated centering sleeve [Figures 1a, 1b], and the support structure comprises support struts [13], wherein the support struts extend substantially radially to the inner wall of the centering sleeve with respect to the longitudinal axis [Figures 1a, 1b].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Bald by adding the reinforcement to the sleeve as described by Coulon to increase the strength and rigidity of the device while subsequently reducing the weight such that it can support greater loads increasing profitability and be lighter and therefore cheaper to mobilize to project sites.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-24 and 32-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or suggest – either alone or in combination – centering sleeve for a pile shoe additionally having a connecting device and the functional details thereof; as explicitly recited in the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steinlechner (US 2017/037066) discloses a pile shoe having similar features to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights