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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim1-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,525,232; claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 10,844,569; claims 1-63 of U.S. Patent No. 9,863,114; claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 9,506,214; and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,231. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the support system comprising a first and second support components/shafts having at one the ends grooves, ribs, and/or rotational interlock feature.
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, 3-11 and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itagaki (JP 2011247056).
With regards to claim 1 and 21, Itagaki discloses A support system for a building foundation, the support system comprising: a first foundation support component (3) including a first end having a first pair of fastener holes (27) and a first rotational interlock feature (6) spaced from the first pair of fastener holes (figure 11-13); and a second foundation support component (2) including a second end having a second pair of fastener holes (25) and a second rotational interlock feature spaced (interior grooves) from the second pair of fastener holes; wherein the first end and the second end are configured to partly engage while the first and second rotational interlock features are misaligned, and are further configured to self-align and fully engage the first and second rotational interlock features via a rotation of one of the first and second ends about a longitudinal center axis relative to the other of the first and second ends; and wherein the first end and the second end are configured to automatically align the first pair of fastener holes with the second pair of fastener holes as the first and second rotational interlock features are self-aligned and fully engaged to simplify an insertion of a fastener through the aligned first and second pairs of fastener holes while avoiding a deformation of the first and second pairs of fastener holes when the first and second foundation support components are driven to a desired depth on a building site to support the building foundation (figures 1-14).
As to claim 3, Itagaki discloses wherein the first and second rotational interlock feature includes at least one torque transmitting edge extending from each of the first end and the second end (figures 12-13; interaction between edges of grooves and protrusions).
As to claim 4, Itagaki discloses wherein the at least one torque transmitting edge extends linearly (figures 1-14).
As to claim 5, Itagaki discloses wherein the at least one torque transmitting edge extends radially outwardly or radially inwardly from the first end or the second end (figures 1-14).
As to claim 6, Itagaki discloses wherein the at least one torque transmitting edge is defined by a projecting rib or a depending groove in the first end and the second end (figure 13).
As to claim 7, Itagaki discloses wherein the first end defines a smaller diameter inner coupler portion and wherein the second end defines a larger diameter outer coupler portion (figures 13).
As to claim 8-10, Itagaki discloses wherein the first foundation support component is a primary foundation support pile; and wherein the second foundation support component is an extension foundation support pile (pile 16); wherein the primary foundation support pile includes a helical auger (21) (figure 8).
With regards to claim 11, Itagaki discloses a method of installing a foundation support system on a building site, the method comprising: providing at the building site a first foundation support component (3) including a first end formed with a first pair of fastener holes (27) and a second foundation support component (2) including a second end having a second pair of fastener holes (25); after driving one of the first and second foundation support components partly below ground on the building site, partly engaging the first end and the second end in a misaligned orientation; and rotating one of the first and second ends about a longitudinal center axis relative to the other, causing the first and second ends to self-align and fully engage; whereby the first pair of fastener holes are automatically engaged with the second pair of fastener holes as the first end and second end are fully engaged (figures 1-14).
As to claim 22, Itagki discloses wherein the first interlock features (6) comprise at least two spaced apart outwardly projecting ribs (figure 13).
As to claim 23, Itagki discloses wherein the second interlock features comprise at least two spaced apart inwardly depending grooves (figure 13; e.g. groove between 22, 24).
As to claim 24, Itagki discloses wherein one of the first foundation support and the second foundation support is a primary pile (16) and wherein the other of the first foundation support and the second foundation support is an extension pile (figure 8).
As to claim 25, Itagaki discloses further comprising a drive tool coupler (figure 8 top coupler) including a third coupler portion (2) having a third pair of fastener holes and a third rotational interlock feature spaced from the third pair of fastener holes, wherein the third coupler portion is configured to automatically align the first pair of fastener holes with the third pair of fastener holes when the first and third rotational interlock features are aligned.
As to claim 26, Itagaki discloses wherein the first and second coupler portions are configured to self-align the first interlock feature and the second interlock feature when one of the first coupler portion and the second coupler portion is rotated about a longitudinal center axis relative to the other (figure 13).
As to claim 27, Itagaki discloses wherein the first and second foundation support components are uniformly round in cross section (figures 1-14).
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) 2 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki (JP 2011247056) in view of Ruiz et al. (US 6,183,167).
As to claim 2 and 12, Itgaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Itagaki is silent about wherein the fastener is a single bolt extending through and between the aligned first pair of fastener holes and the second pair of fastener holes. Ruiz et al. discloses a similar system including a first foundation support component (34) including a first end having a first pair of fastener holes (38) and a second foundation support component(34) including a second end having a second pair of fastener holes (14) and wherein the fastener is a single bolt (35) extending through and between the aligned first pair of fastener holes and the second pair of fastener holes (figures 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the holes and bolt as taught by Ruiz et al., since it would provide a more secure and stable connection of the pier system.
As to claim 13, Itagaki discloses wherein the first end and the second end are each formed with at least one torque transmitting edge, and wherein rotating one of the first and second ends about the longitudinal center axis relative to the other further causes the at least one torque transmitting edge to self-align and fully engage in the first end and the second end (figures 12-13; interaction between edges of grooves and protrusions).
As to claim 14, Itagaki discloses further comprising driving the first foundation support component and the second foundation support component below ground via engagement of the least one torque transmitting edge in each of the first end and the second end while the fastener is mechanically isolated from torque transmission (figures 1-14; abstract).
As to claim 15, Itagaki discloses wherein the at least one torque transmitting edge extends radially outwardly or radially inwardly from the first end or the second end (figures 1-14).
As to claim 16, Itagaki discloses wherein the at least one torque transmitting edge is defined by a projecting rib or a depending groove in the first end and the second end (figure 13).
As to claim 17, Itagaki discloses wherein the first end defines a smaller diameter inner coupler portion and wherein the second end defines a larger diameter outer coupler portion (figures 13).
As to claim 18-20, Itagaki discloses wherein the first foundation support component is a primary foundation support pile; and wherein the second foundation support component is an extension foundation support pile (pile 16); wherein the primary foundation support pile includes a helical auger (21) (figure 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights