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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cavity or extension including both a curved side edge and a linear end edge engagement surface as recited in claim 60 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 51 and 56 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 51, line 5, “openings” should be changed to “opening”.
In claim 51, line 7, “hollow support” should be added before “shaft”.
In claim 56, line 3, “support” should be added before “shaft”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 9, 10, 19-36, 40, 47, 49 and 57-60 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 4, the wording of “wherein the at least one extension and the at least one cavity are symmetrical” in lines 1-2 is confusing. How can the extension and cavity be symmetrical when they are inherently opposite? It is not possible for two symmetrical elements to self-align or interlock. It appears that Applicant intends to claim that the extension is symmetrical and the cavity is symmetrical, but not that the extension and the cavity are symmetrical relative each other. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “wherein the at least one extension and the at least one cavity are symmetrical” to mean “wherein the at least one extension and the at least one cavity are each symmetrical”.
Regarding claim 9, the wording of “a first fastener extending through the first pair of fastener openings and a second fastener extending through the second pair of fastener openings” in lines 1-3 is confusing. The first and second pairs of fastener openings are aligned. Thus, it does not appear possible for both a first and a second fastener to be inserted through the aligned fastener openings. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a first fastener extending through the first pair of fastener openings and a second fastener extending through the second pair of fastener openings” to mean “a first fastener extending through the first pair of fastener openings and a second fastener extending through the third pair of fastener openings”. Claim 10 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear whether “the first profiled distal end” in lines 4-5 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a first profiled distal end edge” in line 4 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the first profiled distal end” to mean “the first profiled distal end edge”. Similarly, it is unclear whether “the second profiled distal end” in line 9 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a second profiled distal end edge” in line 8 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the second profiled distal end” to mean “the second profiled distal end edge”. Finally, the wording of “the extension and the cavity respectively define an engagement surface extending non-perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft” in lines 12-14 is confusing. Based on the drawings and specification, the engagement surface extends “non-parallel” to the longitudinal axis of the support shaft based on the curved shape of the engagement surface. There is no disclosure regarding the engagement surface being chamfered or beveled, therefore the engagement surface does extend perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the support shaft in the thickness direction. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the extension and the cavity respectively define an engagement surface extending non-perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft” to mean “the extension and the cavity respectively define an engagement surface extending non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft”. Claims 20-29 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 23, it is unclear whether “a pair of fastener openings” in line 2 are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a first pair of fastener openings” in claim 19 because of the double positive recitation of “a pair of fastener openings”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a pair of fastener openings” to mean “the first pair of fastener openings”.
Regarding claim 24, the wording of “wherein the extension and the cavity are symmetrical” in lines 1-2 is confusing. How can the extension and cavity be symmetrical when they are inherently opposite? It is not possible for two symmetrical elements to self-align or interlock. It appears that Applicant intends to claim that the extension is symmetrical and the cavity is symmetrical, but not that the extension and the cavity are symmetrical relative each other. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “wherein the extension and the cavity are symmetrical” to mean “wherein the extension and the cavity are each symmetrical”.
Regarding claim 25, the wording of “the extension and the cavity have a non-uniform width measured perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft” in lines 1-3 is confusing. It is unclear whether “a longitudinal axis” is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a longitudinal axis” in claim 19 because of the double positive recitation of “a longitudinal axis”. Based on the drawings and specification, the thickness of the extension and the cavity are uniform. The thickness represents the dimension measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the support shafts. The width which is non-uniform is the dimension measured circumferentially. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the extension and the cavity have a non-uniform width measured perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft” to mean “the extension and the cavity have a non-uniform width measured circumferentially to the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft”.
Regarding claim 26, it is unclear whether “a longitudinal axis” in line 2 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a longitudinal axis” in claim 19 because of the double positive recitation of “a longitudinal axis”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a longitudinal axis” to mean “the longitudinal axis”.
Regarding claim 28, it is unclear whether “fastener holes” in line 2 are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “fastener openings” in claim 19 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “fastener holes” to mean “fastener openings”.
Regarding claim 30, the wording of “wherein the hollow sleeve is fixed to the first hollow support shaft or the second hollow support shaft the first engagement surface and the second engagement surface are engageable in a self-guided manner” in lines 1-3 of the last paragraph is confusing. There appears to be missing words or punctuation. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “wherein the hollow sleeve is fixed to the first hollow support shaft or the second hollow support shaft the first engagement surface and the second engagement surface are engageable in a self-guided manner” to mean “wherein the hollow sleeve is fixed to the first hollow support shaft or the second hollow support shaft, and the first engagement surface and the second engagement surface are engageable in a self-guided manner”. Claims 31-36 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 31, the wording of “wherein the extension and the cavity are symmetrical” in lines 1-2 is confusing. How can the extension and cavity be symmetrical when they are inherently opposite? It is not possible for two symmetrical elements to self-align or interlock. It appears that Applicant intends to claim that the extension is symmetrical and the cavity is symmetrical, but not that the extension and the cavity are symmetrical relative each other. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “wherein the extension and the cavity are symmetrical” to mean “wherein the extension and the cavity are each symmetrical”.
Regarding claim 35, the wording of “the extension and the cavity respectively define an engagement surface extending non-perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow shaft and the second hollow shaft” in lines 1-3 is confusing. It is unclear whether “the first hollow shaft and the second hollow shaft” are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a first hollow support shaft” and “a second hollow support shaft” in claim 30 because of the similar but different terminology. Based on the drawings and specification, the engagement surface extends “non-parallel” to the longitudinal axis of the support shaft based on the curved shape of the engagement surface. There is no disclosure regarding the engagement surface being chamfered or beveled, therefore the engagement surface does extend perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the support shaft in the thickness direction. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the extension and the cavity respectively define an engagement surface extending non-perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow shaft and the second hollow shaft” to mean “the extension and the cavity respectively define an engagement surface extending non- parallel to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft”.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the polygonal fastener opening” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that a fastener opening is previously recited, but not a polygonal fastener opening.
Regarding claim 47, it is unclear whether “the first opening” in lines 1-2 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a first fastener opening” in claim 44 because of the similar but different terminology. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the first opening” to mean “the first fastener opening”.
Claim 49 is incomplete because it depends from itself. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 49 to depend from claim 44.
Claim 57 recites the limitation “the first profiled distal end edge and the second profiled distal end edge” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that first and second distal end edges are previously recited, but not first and second profiled distal end edges. Claims 58-60 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,599. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations in the instant application are explicitly recited or obvious in view of US 12,338,599.
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 19, 20, 22 and 24 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stroyer (US 2018/0030681).
Regarding claim 19, Stroyer discloses a foundation support system (e.g. 2200, Fig. 19) comprising: a coupled shaft assembly (e.g. 2200, Fig. 19) comprising: a first hollow support shaft having a first axial length and a first distal end (e.g. 2202, Fig.’s 18 and 19), the first distal end including a first profiled distal end edge (e.g. 2210, Fig.’s 18 and 19) formed with an extension (e.g. extended portions between 2211, Fig.’s 18 and 19), and the first profiled distal end including the extension being formed with a first uniform sidewall thickness (e.g. Fig. 20, paragraph 0058); a second hollow support shaft having a second axial length and a second distal end (e.g. 2214, Fig.’s 18 and 19), the second distal end including a second profiled distal end edge (e.g. 2212, Fig.’s 18 and 19) formed with a cavity (e.g. recessed portions between 2213, Fig.’s 18 and 19), and the second profiled distal end being formed with a second uniform sidewall thickness (e.g. Fig. 20, paragraph 0058); wherein at least one of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft include a first pair of fastener openings (e.g. 2216, Fig.’s 18 and 19) and wherein the extension and the cavity respectively define an engagement surface extending non-perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft (e.g. horizontal mating surface of 2213 and 2211, Fig.’s 18 and 19, paragraph 0058); and a hollow sleeve having a third axial length and a third uniform sidewall thickness (e.g. 2300, Fig. 19), the hollow sleeve further including a second pair of fastener openings (e.g. 2302, Fig. 19), wherein the hollow sleeve is fixed to the first hollow support shaft or the second hollow support shaft and slidably engageable with the other of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft until the first and second profiled distal end edges are directly abutted (e.g. Fig.’s 19 and 21, paragraph 0060); wherein when one of the first and second profiled distal end edges is rotated upon the other of the first and second profiled distal end edges, the cavity and the extension and the first and second pair of fastener openings are self-guided into alignment with one another (e.g. Fig.’s 19 and 21, paragraphs 0058 and 0060).
Regarding claim 20, Stroyer further discloses that the first uniform sidewall thickness is equal to the second uniform sidewall thickness (e.g. Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 22, Stroyer further discloses that the hollow sleeve surrounds the first and second distal ends (e.g. Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 24, Stroyer further discloses that the extension and the cavity are symmetrical (e.g. Fig. 18).
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 21 and 23 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroyer (US 2018/0030681) alone.
Regarding claim 21, Stroyer discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose that the third uniform sidewall thickness is different from the first and second uniform sidewall thickness. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to size the sleeve thickness different than the support shaft thickness because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art and the elements are subjected to different loads and therefore require different thicknesses.
Regarding claim 23, Stroyer discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the first hollow support shaft includes a pair of fastener openings for attachment of the hollow sleeve to the first hollow support shaft (e.g. 2216, Fig.’s 18 and 19) but does not explicitly disclose that the second hollow support shaft also includes a pair of fastener openings for attachment of the hollow sleeve to the second hollow support shaft. Stroyer further discloses that alternate forms of securement can be utilized to secure the sleeve to the hollow support shaft (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0060) and that the sleeve can be attached to the pile shaft using fasteners (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0069) and that bolts inserted through aligned sets of through-holes are known fasteners (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0060). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a bolt and pairs of holes in the second support shaft and the sleeve as taught by Stroyer in lieu of weld 2304 of Stroyer to connect the second support shaft to the sleeve because inasmuch as Stroyer discloses these elements as art recognized equivalents, the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious.
Claims 1, 2, 4-18, 25-28 and 57-60 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroyer (US 2018/0030681) in view of Obrecht (US 4,512,596).
Regarding claim 1, Stroyer discloses a foundation support system (e.g. 2200, Fig. 19) comprising: a coupled shaft assembly (e.g. 2200, Fig. 19) comprising: a first hollow support shaft formed with a first axial length (e.g. 2202, Fig.’s 18 and 19), a first pair of fastener openings (e.g. 2216, Fig.’s 18 and 19), and a first profiled distal end edge (e.g. 2210, Fig.’s 18 and 19) defining at least one cavity with a first side edge engagement surface (e.g. 2211, Fig.’s 18 and 19); a second hollow support shaft formed with a second axial length (e.g. 2214, Fig.’s 18 and 19) and a second profiled distal end edge (e.g. 2212, Fig.’s 18 and 19) defining at least one extension with a second side edge engagement surface (e.g. 2213, Fig.’s 18 and 19); and a hollow sleeve (e.g. 2300, Fig. 19) formed with a second pair of fastener openings (e.g. 2302, Fig. 19), the hollow sleeve configured to establish and maintain a direct end-to-end engagement of the first and second profiled distal end edges (e.g. Fig. 19, paragraph 0060); wherein the at least one cavity and the at least one extension are self-aligning via a relative rotation of one of the first and second hollow support shafts with respect to the other until the at least one extension is fully received in the at least one cavity in an interlocking relationship (e.g. Fig. 19, paragraph 0058); and wherein when the at least one extension is fully received in the at least one cavity the first pair of fastener openings and the second pair of fastener openings are automatically aligned (e.g. Fig. 19, paragraph 0060). Stroyer further discloses that the first and second profiled distal end edges can have various shapes as needed (e.g. paragraph 0058) but Stroyer does not explicitly disclose that the first and second side edge engagement surfaces are curved. Obrecht teaches a system comprising: a coupled shaft assembly (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising: a first hollow shaft formed with a first axial length (e.g. 3, Fig. 3), and a first profiled distal end edge (e.g. 5/51, Fig. 3) defining at least one cavity with a first side edge engagement surface (e.g. cavity formed between 51, Fig. 3); a second hollow shaft formed with a second axial length (e.g. 2, Fig. 3) and a second profiled distal end edge (e.g. 6/61 and/or 4/43, Fig.’s 2 and 3) defining at least one extension with a second side edge engagement surface (e.g. 61 and/or 43, Fig.’s 2 and 3); and a hollow sleeve (e.g. 7, Fig. 1); wherein the first and second side edge engagement surfaces are curved (e.g. Fig. 8, col. 5, lines 36-38). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the first and second profiled distal end edges of Stroyer with curved side edge engagement surfaces as taught by Obrecht because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art, and inasmuch as Obrecht discloses these elements as art recognized equivalents, the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses a fastener extending through the first pair of fastener openings and the second pair of fastener openings (e.g. Stroyer, fastener not shown but described in paragraph 0060 for insertion in bolt holes 2216 and 2302, Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the at least one extension and the at least one cavity are symmetrical (e.g. Stroyer, Fig. 19, and Obrecht, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the at least one extension and the at least one cavity are arch-shaped (e.g. Obrecht, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the hollow sleeve is fixed to one of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft (e.g. Stroyer, weld 2304, paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the first and second profiled distal end edges are identically shaped to one another (e.g. Obrecht, Fig.’s 2 and 8).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses the second pair of fastener openings for connecting the hollow sleeve to the first hollow support shaft (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0060) and that alternate forms of securement can be utilized to secure the sleeve to the hollow support shaft (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0060) and that the sleeve can be attached to the pile shaft using fasteners (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0069) and that bolts inserted through aligned sets of through-holes are known fasteners (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0060) but the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht does not explicitly disclose the hollow sleeve further comprising a third pair of fastener openings for connecting the hollow sleeve to the second hollow support shaft. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a bolt and pairs of holes in the second support shaft and the sleeve as taught by Stroyer in lieu of weld 2304 of Stroyer to connect the second support shaft to the sleeve because inasmuch as Stroyer discloses these elements as art recognized equivalents, the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses a first fastener extending through the first pair of fastener openings and a second fastener extending through the second pair of fastener openings (e.g. Stroyer, fastener not shown but described in paragraph 0060 for insertion in bolt holes, Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht does not explicitly disclose that the first fastener and the second fastener extend in a substantially perpendicular orientation relative to one another. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to orient the first and second fasteners substantially perpendicular relative to one another because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, and a perpendicular orientation would provide the expected benefit of aligning the fastener openings with the projections where there is additional material to compensate for the fastener openings.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the hollow sleeve is slidably movable relative to the first hollow support shaft after the first hollow support shaft is driven to a first depth in an installation of the foundation support system (e.g. Stroyer, Fig. 19, paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht does not explicitly disclose that the second hollow support shaft is slidably movable relative to the hollow sleeve after the first hollow support shaft is driven to a first depth in an installation of the foundation support system. The combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that alternate forms of securement can be utilized to secure the sleeve to the hollow support shaft (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0060) and that the sleeve can be attached to the pile shaft using fasteners (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0069) and that bolts inserted through aligned sets of through-holes are known fasteners (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0060). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a bolt and pairs of holes in the second support shaft and the sleeve as taught by Stroyer in lieu of weld 2304 of Stroyer to connect the second support shaft to the sleeve because inasmuch as Stroyer discloses these elements as art recognized equivalents, the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious. Examiner notes that a bolted connection would result in the second hollow support shaft being slidably movable relative to the hollow sleeve after the first hollow support shaft is driven to a first depth in an installation of the foundation support system.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht does not explicitly disclose a cap, a plate, or a lift bracket to support a building foundation in combination with the coupled shaft assembly. The examiner takes official notice that pile caps are notoriously well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a pile cap at the top of the coupled shaft assembly of the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht for the expected benefit of closing off the top of the pile shaft and providing a larger support.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses a pile shaft in combination with a grout or cementitious material to enhance a structural strength and capacity of the pile shaft in the installed foundation support system (e.g. Stroyer, 802a/802b with grout 808, Fig. 8) but the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht does not explicitly disclose a grout or cementitious material in combination with the coupled shaft assembly. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use grout in combination with the coupled shaft assembly of the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht for the expected benefit of added support and corrosion prevention (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the first and second hollow support shafts are steel shafts (e.g. Stroyer, paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that one of the first and second hollow support shafts includes a helical auger (e.g. Stroyer, 2204, Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the at least one cavity and at least one extension includes a convex or concave portion (e.g. Stroyer, Fig.’s 18 and 19, and Obrecht, Fig.’s 3 and 8).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that each of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft have a circular outer diameter and a circular inner diameter (e.g. Stroyer, Fig.’s 19 and 20).
Regarding claim 25, Stroyer discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the extension and the cavity have a width measured perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft (e.g. Fig. 18) but Stroyer does not disclose that this width is non-uniform. Obrecht teaches a system comprising: a coupled shaft assembly (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising: a first hollow shaft having a first axial length and a first distal end (e.g. 3, Fig. 3), the first distal end including a first profiled distal end edge (e.g. 5/51, Fig. 3) formed with an extension (e.g. 51, Fig. 3); a second hollow shaft having a second axial length and a second distal end (e.g. 2, Fig. 3), the second distal end including a second profiled distal end edge (e.g. 6/61 and/or 4/43, Fig.’s 2 and 3) formed with a cavity (e.g. recessed portions between 61 and/or 43, Fig.’s 2 and 3); and a hollow sleeve (e.g. 7, Fig. 1); wherein the extension and the cavity respectively define an engagement surface extending non-perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow shaft and the second hollow shaft (e.g. Fig. 8, col. 5, lines 36-38); and wherein the extension and the cavity have a non-uniform width measured perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow support shaft and the second hollow support shaft (e.g. Fig. 8, col. 5, lines 36-38). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the first and second profiled distal end edges of Stroyer with curved extensions and cavities as taught by Obrecht because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art, and inasmuch as Obrecht discloses these elements as art recognized equivalents, the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious.
Regarding claim 26, Stroyer discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that no portion of the extension or the cavity extends parallel to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow support shaft or the second hollow support shaft. Obrecht teaches a system comprising: a coupled shaft assembly (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising: a first hollow shaft having a first axial length and a first distal end (e.g. 3, Fig. 3), the first distal end including a first profiled distal end edge (e.g. 5/51, Fig. 3) formed with an extension (e.g. 51, Fig. 3); a second hollow shaft having a second axial length and a second distal end (e.g. 2, Fig. 3), the second distal end including a second profiled distal end edge (e.g. 6/61 and/or 4/43, Fig.’s 2 and 3) formed with a cavity (e.g. recessed portions between 61 and/or 43, Fig.’s 2 and 3); and a hollow sleeve (e.g. 7, Fig. 1); wherein the extension and the cavity respectively define an engagement surface extending non-perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow shaft and the second hollow shaft (e.g. Fig. 8, col. 5, lines 36-38); and wherein no portion of the extension or the cavity extends parallel to a longitudinal axis of the first hollow shaft or the second hollow shaft (e.g. Fig. 8, col. 5, lines 36-38). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the first and second profiled distal end edges of Stroyer with curved extensions and cavities as taught by Obrecht because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art, and inasmuch as Obrecht discloses these elements as art recognized equivalents, the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the extension and the cavity is arch-shaped or triangular-shaped (e.g. Obrecht, Fig.’s 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses a fastener extending through the automatically aligned first and second pairs of fastener holes in order to secure the coupled shaft assembly and maintain a torque transmitting connection to drive the coupled shaft assembly to a desired depth in an installation of the foundation support system (e.g. Stroyer, fastener not shown but described in paragraph 0060 for insertion in bolt holes, Fig. 19, paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 57, Stroyer discloses a foundation support system (e.g. 2200, Fig. 19) comprising: a coupled shaft assembly (e.g. 2200, Fig. 19) comprising: a first hollow support shaft formed with a first axial length (e.g. 2202, Fig.’s 18 and 19), a first pair of fastener openings (e.g. 2216, Fig.’s 18 and 19), and a first distal end edge (e.g. 2210, Fig.’s 18 and 19); a second hollow support shaft formed with a second axial length (e.g. 2214, Fig.’s 18 and 19) and a second distal end edge (e.g. 2212, Fig.’s 18 and 19); wherein each of the first profiled distal end edge and the second profiled distal end edge respectively include a cavity or an extension, the cavity and extension being complementary in shape to one another and each including a side edge (e.g. 2211 and 2213, Fig.’s 18 and 19, paragraph 0058); a hollow coupler sleeve attached to the second shaft (e.g. 2300, Fig. 19, paragraph 0060), the hollow coupler sleeve formed with a second pair of fastener openings (e.g. 2302, Fig. 19), the hollow coupler sleeve configured to receive the first distal end edge (e.g. Fig. 19, paragraph 0060); and a fastener extending through the first pair of fastener openings and also extending through the second pair of fastener openings and maintaining an engagement of the cavity and the extension within the hollow coupler sleeve (e.g. fastener not shown but described in paragraph 0060 for insertion in bolt holes 2216 and 2302, Fig. 19). Stroyer further discloses that the first and second profiled distal end edges can have various shapes as needed (e.g. paragraph 0058) but Stroyer does not explicitly disclose that the side edge is curved. Obrecht teaches a system comprising: a coupled shaft assembly (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising: a first hollow shaft formed with a first axial length (e.g. 3, Fig. 3), and a first distal end edge (e.g. 5/51, Fig. 3); a second hollow shaft formed with a second axial length (e.g. 2, Fig. 3) and a second distal end edge (e.g. 6/61 and/or 4/43, Fig.’s 2 and 3); wherein each of the first profiled distal end edge and the second profiled distal end edge respectively include a cavity or an extension (e.g. 51 and 61 and/or 43, Fig.’s 2 and 3), the cavity and extension being complementary in shape to one another and each including a curved side edge that is not flat (e.g. Fig. 8, col. 5, lines 36-38); and a hollow coupler sleeve configured to receive the first distal end edge (e.g. 7, 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 form the first and second distal end edges of Stroyer with curved side edges as taught by Obrecht because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art, and inasmuch as Obrecht discloses these elements as art recognized equivalents, the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another is considered obvious.
Regarding claim 58, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the first pair of fastener openings and the second pair of fastener openings are automatically aligned when the cavity and the extension are fully engaged (e.g. Stroyer, Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 59, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the cavity or extension is symmetrical (e.g. Stroyer, Fig. 19, and Obrecht, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 60, the combination of Stroyer and Obrecht further discloses that the cavity or extension further includes a linear end edge engagement surface (e.g. Stroyer, Fig. 19, and Obrecht, Fig. 8, wherein the side edges are curved and the end edge is linear based on the length of the cavity or extension as shown in Stroyer).
Claims 51-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroyer (US 2018/0030681) in view of Muller (US 4,028,900).
Regarding claim 51, Stroyer discloses a foundation support system (e.g. 2200, Fig. 19) comprising: a first hollow support shaft (e.g. 2214, Fig.’s 18 and 19); a coupler attached to the first hollow support shaft (e.g. 2300, Fig. 19, paragraph 0060), the coupler including a first fastener opening and a second fastener opening arranged as a first pair (e.g. 2302 on opposite sides of 2300, Fig. 19); and a second hollow support shaft (e.g. 2202, Fig.’s 18 and 19) including a third fastener opening and a fourth fastener opening arranged as a second pair (e.g. 2216 on opposite sides of 2202, Fig. 19), wherein the first and second pair are alignable to accept a fastener extending across the mated coupler and second shaft through the first and second pair (e.g. Fig. 19, fastener not shown but described in paragraph 0060 for insertion in bolt holes 2216 and 2302). Stroyer does not disclose that the first, second, third and fourth fastener openings include at least one fastener opening of a first size and at least one fastener opening of a second size different from the first size. Muller teaches a foundation support system (e.g. claim 1, Fig. 1) comprising: a coupler including a first fastener opening and a second fastener opening arranged as a first pair (e.g. 6, Fig.’s 1 and 5, with opposing first and second fastener openings for passage of fastener 13); and a support shaft including a third fastener opening (e.g. 1, Fig.’s 1 and 5, with fastener opening for passage of fastener 13), wherein the first, second and third fastener openings are alignable to accept a fastener extending across the mated coupler and support shaft through the first, second and third fastener openings (e.g. 13, Fig. 1); and wherein the first, second and third fastener openings include at least one fastener opening of a first size and at least one fastener opening of a second size different from the first size (e.g. Fig. 1, claim 2, wherein the countersunk first and second fastener openings are larger than the non-countersunk third fastener opening). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the first and second fastener openings of Stroyer as countersunk fastener openings as taught by Muller for the expected benefit of accommodating the fastener heads thereby making the fasteners flush with the outside surface of the coupler and avoiding additional resistance (e.g. Muller, claim 2, col. 3, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Stroyer and Muller further discloses in combination with a fastener having a head, the first size being larger than the head and the second size being smaller than the head (e.g. Muller, Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 53 and 54, the combination of Stroyer and Muller does not disclose that the opening of the first size has a polygonal or hexagonal shape. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a hexagonal shape for the openings of the combination of Stroyer and Muller because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Stroyer and Muller further discloses that the opening of the second size has a circular shape (e.g. Stroyer, Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Stroyer and Muller further discloses that the first and second pair are automatically aligned with one another when the coupler and the second hollow shaft are mated (e.g. Stroyer, Fig. 19, paragraph 0060).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome any rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Claims 30-50 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome any rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights