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 Objections
Claim 23 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. 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 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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the plurality of driving teeth" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-12 and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornillie et al. (10,640,946) in view of Hudson et al. (10,697,490).
With regard to claim 1, Cornillie discloses a foundation component comprising an elongated open shaft (20); a driving coupler at a second end, opposite to the first end (col. 6, lines 18-45); and a cone (10) received by the first end and extending from the first end (figs. 1-3), the cone comprising a material having a lower elastic modulus (col. 7, lines 19-67 via cast iron) than the elongated open shaft (col. 5, lines 45-64, steel).
Cornillie discloses screwing the foundation component into the ground however fails to explicitly state an external thread form beginning at a first end and extending along the shaft.
Hudson discloses a foundation component with an external thread (21) form beginning at a first end and extending along the shaft (figs. 4A-4C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cornillie and utilize external threads as taught in Hudson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further aid the foundation component when anchoring in a rock bore.
With regard to claims 2 and 19, Cornillie further discloses the cone is consumable (via lower elastic modulus).
With regard to claims 3 and 20, Cornillie further discloses the elongated open shaft is configured to receive a drilling tool therewithin (col. 5, lines 45-64, hollow pile).
With regard to claims 4-5 and 21-22, Cornillie, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the driving coupler further comprises a ring comprising a plurality of driving teeth which are configured to engage with a chuck of a rotary driver.
Hudson further discloses a driving coupler further comprises a ring comprising a plurality of driving teeth (220) which are configured to engage with a chuck of a rotary driver (col. 5, lines 46-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cornillie and utilize driving teeth for connection with a chuck as taught in Hudson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to transfer torque from the rotary driver to the foundation element.
With regard to claims 6 and 23, Cornillie further discloses the cone further comprises a conical tip and a male insertion portion opposite the conical tip (fig. 5).
With regard to claim 7, Cornillie further discloses the male insertion portion is configured to be press fit into the elongated open shaft at the first end (fig. 5).
With regard to claim 8, Cornillie further discloses the cone has a modulus of elasticity substantially lower than that of the elongated open shaft (col. 7, lines 19-67, cast iron).
With regard to claim 9, Cornillie discloses a system comprising: a rotary driver (col. 6, lines 18-45); an open-ended screw anchor foundation component (20); a driving coupler at one end of the foundation component (col. 6, lines 18-45); and a consumable cone (10) received by and extending from an end of the open-ended foundation component (fig. 5), wherein the consumable cone (col. 7, lines 19-67 via cast iron) is a made from a material having a lower material strength than the screw anchor foundation component (col. 5, lines 45-64, steel).
Cornillie is silent regarding a drilling tool with an attached drilling rod extending through the rotary driver and into the foundation component.
Hudson discloses a system with a drilling tool (eg. 300/400) with an attached drilling rod extending through the rotary driver and into the foundation component (eg. fig. 7A/7B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cornillie and utilize a drilling rod as taught in Hudson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further apply downward pressure on the foundation component.
With regard to claim 10, Cornillie, as modified, further discloses the drilling tool includes an upper portion and a lower portion and a drilling head (Hudson; 310/410) on a distal end of the lower portion.
With regard to claim 11, Cornillie, as modified, further discloses the upper portion is configured to compress into the lower portion when the drilling head encounters resistance (Hudson, col. 8, lines 8-32).
With regard to claim 12, Cornillie, as modified, further discloses the drilling rod further comprises a center channel configured to guide pressurized air through the drilling head such that drilling spoils are urged upwardly around the open-ended screw anchor foundation component around the drilling head (Hudson, col. 8, lines 8-32).
With regard 18, the claimed limitations have been addressed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art, either alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the independent claim(s). Methos of embedding foundation components are known such as those taught by Cornillie et al. (10,640,946) and Hudson (10,697,490). However, the cited prior art lacks extending the drill rod and bit through the consumable cone and operating the drill rod and bit ahead of the first end while continuing to drive the foundation component.as required by the independent claim(s) and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prior art to achieve applicant’s invention without the benefit of hindsight and applicant’s own disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
07/21/2026
Prosecution Insights