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 § 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
George et al. (US 7827747) in view of it is obvious to change the footing pad shape and either Kummer or McNamara (US 1791135 or US 5123623) and Korean document (KR 20110104629).
George et al. discloses a footing pad (see Figs. 1-5) for supporting a post or other upright structure comprising:
a base (20) having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite the upper surface, the upper surface comprising a center and an outer periphery (close to where members 21,25,26 are pointing);
a plurality of structural webs (30) extending perpendicularly to a uniform height from the
upper surface of the base, each structural web within the plurality of structural webs being generally circularly shaped and defining an area,
wherein the plurality of structural webs includes a first structural web and a second
structural web, with a diameter of the first structural web being greater than a diameter of the second structural web.
George et al. further discloses the footing pad may have different shapes although it has been describe as having a circular perimeter with concentric webs (see col. 6 line 29+). George et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, George et al. does not explicitly call for each structural web within the plurality of structural webs is rectangularly shaped and defining an area,
wherein the plurality of structural webs includes a first structural web and a second
structural web, with a length and width of the first structural web being greater than a length and width of the second structural web; and
an uplift feature rigidly coupled to the upper surface of the base, comprising a first wall
and a second wall spaced substantially parallel to the first wall, wherein the first wall and the second wall extend substantially perpendicular from the upper surface of the base and define a bore to receive a fastener to secure the post to the footing pad,
at least one positioning feature extending from the upper surface of the base wherein the positioning feature is rigidly coupled to the base at the outer periphery and comprises a bore for receiving a positioning tool.
It is well settled that changes in shape do not constitute a patentable difference. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify George et al. to have the footing pad have rectangular concentric webs since such a modification provide a structure that distributes the loads outwardly from the post. Furthermore, it is well settled that changes in shape do not constitute a patentable difference. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), wherein the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see col. 6 line 29+, wherein George et al. further discloses the footing pad may have different shapes although it has been describe as having a circular perimeter with concentric webs.
Kummer and McNamara both teach an uplift feature rigidly coupled to the upper surface of the base, wherein the uplift feature includes a first wall and a second wall spaced substantially parallel to the first wall, and wherein the first wall and the second wall extend substantially perpendicular from the upper surface of the base and define a bore configured to receive a fastener to secure the post (Figs. 1-4; Figs. 1-3 of Kummer and McNamara respectively).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify George et al. to include the uplift feature as taught by either Kummer or McNamara since such a modification facilitates the anchoring of a post.
Korean document ‘629 teaches at least one positioning feature (11) extending from the upper surface of the base wherein the positioning feature is rigidly coupled to the base at the outer periphery and comprises a bore for receiving a positioning tool.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify George et al. to have at least one positioning feature as taught by Korean document ‘629 since such a modification facilitates the placement of the footing in the borehole.
Re claim 2, further comprising one or more reinforcing walls (22, Figs. 1-5 of George et al.) protruding to the uniform height of the plurality of structural webs from the upper surface of the base, wherein the one or more reinforcing walls extends across the upper surface of the base from the outer periphery at a first point to the outer periphery at a second point, opposite the first point, intersecting the plurality of structural webs.
Re claim 3, further comprising a plurality of cleats extending from the lower surface of the base to a tapered distal end (Figs. 1-4; Figs. 1-3 of Kummer and McNamara respectively).
Re claim 4, wherein the base is circular or disk like (see Figs. 1-5 of George et al.).
Re claim 5, wherein the fastener is a pin or bolt (Figs. 1-4; Figs. 1-3 of Kummer and McNamara respectively).
Claim(s) 6,8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 7827747) in view of it is obvious to change the footing pad shape and either Kummer or McNamara (US 1791135 or US 5123623).
George et al. discloses a footing pad (see Figs. 1-5) for supporting a post or other upright structure comprising: a base (20) having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite the upper surface, the upper surface comprising a center and an outer periphery (near where members 21,25,26 are pointing);
a plurality of structural webs (30) extending perpendicularly to a uniform height from the
upper surface of the base, each structural web within the plurality of structural webs is
circularly shaped and defining an area,
wherein the plurality of structural webs includes a first structural web and a second
structural web, with a diameter of the first structural web being greater than a diameter of the second structural web.
George et al. further discloses the footing pad may have different shapes although it has been describe as having a circular perimeter with concentric webs (see col. 6 line 29+). George et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, George et al. does not explicitly call for each structural web within the plurality of structural webs is rectangularly shaped and defining an area,
wherein the plurality of structural webs includes a first structural web and a second
structural web, with a length and width of the first structural web being greater than a length and width of the second structural web; and
an uplift feature rigidly coupled to the upper surface of the base, comprising a first wall
and a second wall spaced substantially parallel to the first wall, wherein the first wall and the second wall extend substantially perpendicular from the upper surface of the base and include a bore for receiving a fastener to secure the post to the footing pad.
It is well settled that changes in shape do not constitute a patentable difference. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify George et al. to have the footing pad have rectangular concentric webs since such a modification provide a structure that distributes the loads outwardly from the post. Furthermore, it is well settled that changes in shape do not constitute a patentable difference. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), wherein the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see col. 6 line 29+, wherein George et al. further discloses the footing pad may have different shapes although it has been describe as having a circular perimeter with concentric webs.
Kummer and McNamara both teach an uplift feature rigidly coupled to the upper surface of the base, wherein the uplift feature includes a first wall and a second wall spaced substantially parallel to the first wall, and wherein the first wall and the second wall extend substantially perpendicular from the upper surface of the base and include a bore for receiving a fastener to secure the post (Figs. 1-4; Figs. 1-3 of Kummer and McNamara respectively).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify George et al. to include the uplift feature as taught by either Kummer or McNamara since such a modification facilitates the anchoring of a post.
Re claim 8, comprising a plurality of cleats extending from the lower surface of the base to a tapered distal end (Figs. 1-4; Figs. 1-3 of Kummer and McNamara respectively).
Re claim 9, wherein the base is circular or disk like (see Figs. 1-5 of George et al.).
Re claim 10, wherein the fastener is a pin or bolt (Figs. 1-4; Figs. 1-3 of Kummer and McNamara respectively).
Re claim 11, further comprising one or more reinforcing walls (22, Figs. 1-5 of George et al.) protruding to the uniform height from the upper surface of the base, wherein the one or more reinforcing walls extends across the upper surface of the base from the outer periphery at a first point to the outer periphery at a second point, opposite the first point, intersecting the plurality of structural webs.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 7827747) in view of it is obvious to change the footing pad shape and either Kummer or McNamara (US 1791135 or US 5123623) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Korean document (KR 20110104629).
George et al. (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, George et al. (as modified above) is silent about including at least one positioning feature coupled to the outer periphery of the base, with the positioning feature comprising a bore configured to receive a positioning tool.
Korean document ‘629 teaches at least one positioning feature (11) coupled to the outer periphery of the base, with the positioning feature comprising a bore configured to receive a positioning tool.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify George et al. (as modified above) to have at least one positioning feature as taught by Korean document ‘629 since such a modification facilitates the placement of the footing in the borehole.
Claim(s) 12,15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 7827747) in view of it is obvious to change the footing pad shape and Korean document (KR 20110104629).
George et al. discloses a footing pad (see Figs. 1-5) for supporting a post or other upright structure comprising: a base (20) having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite the upper surface, the upper surface comprising a center and an outer periphery (close to where 21,25,26, are pointing);
a plurality of structural webs (30) extending perpendicularly to a uniform height from the
upper surface of the base, each structural web within the plurality of structural webs is
circularly shaped and defining an area,
wherein the plurality of structural webs includes a first structural web and a second
structural web, with a diameter of the first structural web being greater than a diameter of the second structural web. George et al. further discloses the footing pad may have different shapes although it has been describe as having a circular perimeter with concentric webs (see col. 6 line 29+). George et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, George et al. does not explicitly call for each structural web within the plurality of structural webs is rectangularly shaped and defining an area,
wherein the plurality of structural webs includes a first structural web and a second
structural web, with a length and width of the first structural web being greater than a length and width of the second structural web; and
at least one positioning feature extending from the upper surface of the base wherein
the positioning feature is rigidly coupled to the base at the outer periphery and comprises a bore for receiving a positioning tool.
It is well settled that changes in shape do not constitute a patentable difference. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify George et al. to have the footing pad have rectangular concentric webs since such a modification provide a structure that distributes the loads outwardly from the post. Furthermore, it is well settled that changes in shape do not constitute a patentable difference. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), wherein the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see col. 6 line 29+, wherein George et al. further discloses the footing pad may have different shapes although it has been describe as having a circular perimeter with concentric webs.
Korean document ‘629 teaches at least one positioning feature (11) extending from the upper surface of the base wherein the positioning feature is rigidly coupled to the base at the outer periphery and comprises a bore for receiving a positioning tool.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify George et al. to have at least one positioning feature as taught by Korean document ‘629 since such a modification facilitates the placement of the footing in the borehole.
Re claim 15, further comprising one or more reinforcing walls (22) protruding to the uniform height from the upper surface of the base, wherein the one or more
reinforcing walls extends across the upper surface of the base from the outer periphery at a first point to the outer periphery at a second point, opposite the first point, intersecting the plurality of structural webs.
Re claim 16, wherein the base is circular or disk like (see Figs. 1-5 of George et al.).
Claim(s) 13,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 7827747) in view of it is obvious to change the footing pad shape and Korean document (KR 20110104629) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of either Kummer or McNamara (US 1791135 or US 5123623).
George et al. (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, George et al. (as modified above) is silent about including an uplift feature rigidly coupled to the upper surface of the base, wherein the uplift feature includes a first wall and a second wall spaced substantially parallel to the first wall, and wherein the first wall and the second wall extend substantially perpendicular from the upper surface of the base and include a bore for receiving a fastener to secure the post.
Kummer and McNamara both teach an uplift feature rigidly coupled to the upper surface of the base, wherein the uplift feature includes a first wall and a second wall spaced substantially parallel to the first wall, and wherein the first wall and the second wall extend substantially perpendicular from the upper surface of the base and include a bore for receiving a fastener to secure the post (Figs. 1-4; Figs. 1-3).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify George et al. (as modified above) to include the uplift feature as taught by either Kummer or McNamara since such a modification facilitates the anchoring of a post.
Re claim 14, wherein the lower surface of the base further comprises a plurality of cleats extending from the lower surface and tapered to a spear like point (see Figs. 1-4; Figs. 1-3 of Kummer and McNamara respectively).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights