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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 20 March 2025.
Claims 1 – 2, 4, 13, 16 – 17, 22 – 26, 34 – 35, 41 – 42, 48 – 49, 51, 53, and 61 are pending. Claims 5 – 12, 14 – 15, 18 – 21, 27 – 29, 36 – 37, 43 – 47, 50, 52, 54 – 60, and 62 are cancelled by Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 4, 13, 16 – 17, 22 – 26, 34 – 35, 41 – 42, 48 – 49, 51, 53, and 61 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, 37 CFR 1.75(i) states “[w]here a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”, wherein claim 1 uses both line indentations and lettering to separate the steps of the claim. The lettering should be removed because its use is redundant.
The examiner respectfully suggests the following for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 42 which removes the redundant lettering:
A method of pile driving comprising the steps of:
driving a helical tool into a soil mass, said helical tool including a central bore, an upper portion with a connector, and one or more flights on an exterior surface of the helical tool, wherein the upper portion of the helical tool remains accessible above or at a soil surface of said soil mass;
coupling a pile driver to the connector
driving a first pile through the central bore of the helical tool to a desired depth in the soil mass, wherein at least a portion of a first pile extends into the soil mass below the upper portion of the helical tool; and
removing the helical tool from the soil mass after the driving of the first pile through the central bore of the helical tool.
The method of claim 1 further comprising driving a second pile through the central bore of the helical tool during the driving of the first pile through the central bore of the helical tool to drive both the first pile and the second pile further downward into the soil mass to form a segmental piling having a desired segmental piling length.
The method of claim 41 wherein in the driving of the first pile through the central bore of the helical tool, the first pile is coupled to the first set of one or more piles to drive the first set of one or more piles further into the soil mass.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “the soil”, should read, “the soil mass”, in order to maintain consistent claim terminology through the claims.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation, “a longitudinal axis”, in lines 4 and 6 should read, “the longitudinal axis”, so that the limitations refer to its antecedent basis, “a longitudinal axis”, in claim 13, line 2.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation, “wherein there is more than one flight on the helical tool that are not the same size”, should read, “wherein more than one flight on the helical tool that is not the same size”.
Regarding claim 41, the limitation, “the bore”, should read, “the central bore”, in order to maintain consistent claim terminology through the claims.
Regarding claim 48, 37 CFR 1.75(i) states “[w]here a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”, wherein claim 48 uses both line indentations and lettering to separate the steps of the claim. The lettering should be removed because its use is redundant.
The examiner respectfully suggests the following for independent claim 48 which removes the redundant lettering:
A pile section comprising:
an outer wall having a wall interior surface, a wall exterior surface, and a wall bore;
a tube having a tube bore, a tube exterior surface, and a tube interior surface, and a plurality of notches at a first end, and wherein the tube is positioned within the wall bore;
a guide portion having a guide tube with a guide bore and having a plurality of plates extending laterally from the guide tube, the plurality of plates positioned within the notches of the tube and the guide tube positioned about centrally in the tube bore; and
a rod positioned through the guide bore;
wherein concrete or other structural material fills the wall bore between the wall interior surface and the tube exterior surface and partially casts the plurality of plates of the guide tube in the concrete or other structural material.
Regarding claim 51, the limitation, “concrete or other structural material”, should read, “the concrete or other structural material”, so that the limitation refers to its antecedent basis, “concrete or other structural material”, in claim 48, line X.
Regarding claim 61, 37 CFR 1.75(i) states “[w]here a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”, wherein claim 48 uses both line indentations and lettering to separate the steps of the claim. The lettering should be removed because its use is redundant.
The examiner respectfully suggests the following for independent claim 48 which removes the redundant lettering:
A method of pile driving comprising the following steps:
driving a helical tool having a bore into a soil mass;
driving a pile section of claim 53 through the bore of the helical tool while flowing pressurized water through the rod bore;
repeating the driving of the pile section of claim 53 through the bore of the helical tool while flowing the pressurized water through the rod bore until a desired piling chain length is reached; and
filling the tube bores with the concrete or other structural material after driving to the desired piling chain length.
Regarding claim 61, the limitation, “filing”, should read, “filling”.
Regarding claim 61, the limitation, “concrete or other structural material”, should read, “the concrete or other structural material”, so that the limitation refers to its antecedent basis, “concrete or other structural material”, in claim 48, line 12.
Regarding the claims, 37 CFR 1.75(f) states, “[i]f there are several claims, they shall be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals”, wherein the claims are not numbered consecutively. That is, claims 1 – 4, 13, 16 – 17, 22 – 26, 34 – 35, 41 – 42, 48 – 49, 51, 53, and 61 are pending and claims 5 – 12, 14 – 15, 18 – 21, 27 – 29, 36 – 37, 43 – 47, 50, 52, 54 – 60, and 62 are cancelled by the applicant wherein claims 30 – 33 and 38 – 40 are not listed as pending or cancelled. Thus, the claims are not numbered consecutively.
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.
Claims 17, 24 – 26, and 34 – 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation, “said additional piles”, is indefinite. Please note, claim 16, upon which claim 17 depends, recites “one or more additional piles” wherein the instant limitation is further limited to a plurality of additional piles. Thus, the limitation is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to previously recited “one or more additional piles” in claim 16, or the limitation refers to new additional piles not previously recited wherein these new additional piles lack any antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “said additional piles”, to mean “said one or more additional piles”.
If the applicant intends in claim 17 to further limit “one or more additional piles” to mean a plurality of additional piles, then the examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim 17 to read:
wherein the one or more additional piles is a plurality of additional piles and some of said additional piles have the second pile has a larger diameter or cross-sectional width than the first pile.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation, “said other piles”, is indefinite. Please note, claim 23, upon which claim 24 depends, recites “one or more piling segments” wherein the instant limitation is further limited to a plurality of other piles. Thus, the limitation is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to previously recited “one or more piling segments” in claim 23, or the limitation refers to new other piles not previously recited wherein these new other piles lack any antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “said other piles”, to mean “said one or more piling segments”. Additionally, since claims 25 – 26 depend upon claim 24, claims 25 – 26 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
If the applicant intends in claim 23 to further limit “one or more piling segments” to mean a plurality of piling segments, then the examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim 17 to read:
wherein the one or more piling segments is a plurality of piling segments and wherein the helical tool is driven to a depth within the soil mass that enables the helical tool to support the pile driver and provide the necessary static weight for the pile driver to drive the plurality of piling segments through the bore of the helical tool and further into the soil mass.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation, “wherein there is more than one flight on the helical tool that are not the same size”, is indefinite because in claim 23, upon which claim 34 depends, a previous limitation recites, “one or more helical flights”, wherein the instant limitation is ambiguous how more than one flight on the helical tool is not the same size in the case when the helical tool has only one flight. Additionally, since claim 35 depends upon claim 34, claim 35 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation, “the smallest”, is indefinite because the limitation is ambiguous as to what characteristic of the lowermost flight on the helical tool is the smallest (e.g., the size, the weight, etc…). Additionally, the limitation is ambiguous as to what element the lowermost flight is being compared.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4, 13, and 23 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzawa (GB2154630 A), in view of Kazuyoshi (JPH08246452 A).
[AltContent: textbox (Matsuzawa (GB 2 154 630 A) – Annotated figs. 1, 2)]
PNG
media_image5.png
422
172
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Kazuyoshi (JPH 08 246452 A) – fig. 1)]
Regarding claim 1, Matsuzawa discloses a method of pile driving comprising the steps of:
driving a helical tool (a casing 6 having a spiral rib 7 and cutter 10a, fig. 2) into a soil mass (a subsurface 14 and a bearing layer 15, figs. 4 – 8) (As shown in figs. 4 – 6), said helical tool including a central bore (a bore A within the casing 6, annotated fig. 2), and one or more flights (a spiral rib 7 and cutter 10, fig. 2. Figure 2 shows the casing 6 having a single spiral rib 7) on an exterior surface of the helical tool, wherein the upper portion of the helical tool remains accessible above or at a soil surface of said soil mass (Figures 4 – 6 shows the casing 6 driven into a bearing layer 15 wherein an upper portion of the casing 6 is shown to be above the soil surface);
coupling a pile driver (construction vehicle 1, fig. 1) to the helical tool (As shown in area B, annotated fig. 1);
driving a first pile (a pile 16, figs. 8 – 9. Pg. 2, ll. 68 – 70; “a precast pile”) through the central bore of the helical tool to a desired depth in the soil mass (As shown in fig. 8), wherein at least a portion of a first pile extends into the soil mass below the upper portion of the helical tool (Figure 8 shows at least a portion of the pile 16 extending into the subsurface 14/bearing layer 15 and below the upper portion of the casing 6 that is shown to be above the soil surface); and
removing the helical tool from the soil mass after completing the driving of the first pile through the central bore of the helical tool the driving of the first pile through the central bore of the helical tool (As shown in fig. 9. Pg. 2, ll. 70 – 74 describes the casing 6 being withdrawn).
Matsuzawa does not explicitly disclose the helical tool including an upper portion with a connector.
However, Kazuyoshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a tool (outer casing 29, fig. 1) including an upper portion with a connector (a disk-shaped base 26, fig. 1. [0019] describes an outer cylindrical body 24 having annular ridges with the disk-shaped base 26 fitted within these annular ridges wherein the disk-shaped base 26 is connected to a rotary device 13 of a pile driver 12) (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the incorporation of the teachings of Kazuyoshi with the invention of Matsuzawa the helical tool 6 of Matsuzawa would have the disk-shaped base 26 of Kazuyoshi which would connect the helical tool 6 to the construction vehicle 1 of Matsuzawa in the same way as the tool 29 of Kazuyoshi is connected to the pile driver 12).
Kazuyoshi is evidence that having the tool with the upper portion with a connector was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the helical tool of Matsuzawa with the upper portion of the helical tool having the connector as described by Kazuyoshi. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the helical tool of Matsuzawa with the upper portion of the helical tool having the connector in order to be able to attach and detach the helical tool from the pile driver as described by Kazuyoshi. Additionally, Matsuzawa is silent regarding the connection between the helical tool and the pile driver thus the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Kazuyoshi to construct such a connection.
Regarding claim 2, Matsuzawa, as modified Kazuyoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Matsuzawa discloses driving a single first pile (a pile 16, figs. 8 – 9. Pg. 2, ll. 68 – 70; “a precast pile”) through the central bore (a bore A within the casing 6, annotated fig. 2) of the helical tool (a casing 6 having a spiral rib 7, fig. 2) through the central bore of the helical tool downward into the soil mass (a subsurface 14 and a bearing layer 15, figs. 4 – 8) having a desired piling length (The examiner interprets the piling length of the pile 16 in figs. 8 – 9 as the claimed, “a desired piling length”).
Matsuzawa does not explicitly disclose driving a second pile through the central bore of the helical tool during the driving of the first pile through the central bore of the helical tool to drive both the first pile and the second pile further downward into the soil mass to form a segmental piling having a desired segmental piling length.
However, Kazuyoshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches welding a first pile and a second pile together and which is then inserted and placed in an outer casing within an excavation hole ([0037] and figs. 10 – 11 describes a pile 11 formed by welding two piles together which is then inserted and placed in an outer casing or outer 1 within an excavation hole) (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the incorporation of the teachings of Kazuyoshi with the invention of Matsuzawa, the pile 16 of Matsuzawa would be replaced by the two piles welded together. Thus, the driving a second pile, or in other words, one of the two piles of the welded piles, through the bore A of the casing 6 of Matsuzawa would be during the driving of the first pile, or in other words, the other of the two piles of the welded piles, through the bore A of the casing 6 of Matsuzawa to drive both the first pile and the second pile further downward into the subsurface14/bearing layer 15 to form a segmental piling or welded piling having a desired segmental piling length as shown in fig. 8 of Matsuzawa).
Kazuyoshi is evidence that welding a first pile and a second pile together and which is then inserted and placed in an outer casing within an excavation hole was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the pile of Matsuzawa with the welding the first pile and the second pile together as described by Kazuyoshi. Please note, both the pile of Matsuzawa and the welded two piles of Kazuyoshi are driven into the ground to serve as a foundation for a structure. Thus, the pile of Matsuzawa and the welded two piles of Kazuyoshi are structural equivalents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the pile of Matsuzawa for the welded two piles of Kazuyoshi to achieve the predicable result of being driven into the ground to serve as a foundation for a structure.
Regarding claim 4, Matsuzawa, as modified Kazuyoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Matsuzawa discloses the helical tool (the casing 6 having a spiral rib 7, fig. 2) is driven into the soil mass (the subsurface 14 and the bearing layer 15, figs. 4 – 8) to a depth at which the helical tool is operable to provide the necessary static weight and torque effect required by the pile driver, that is connected to the helical tool, to drive the first pile into the soil mass (The examiner interprets the limitation, “to provide the necessary static weight and torque effect required by the pile driver, that is connected to the helical tool, to drive the first pile into the soil mass” to mean the helical tool provides the necessary static weight and torque effect required by the pile driver to operably drive the first pile into the soil mass. Since Matsuzawa is a patented invention, there is a presumption that the apparatus of Matsuzawa is operable and thus provides the necessary static weight and torque effect required by the pile driver to operably drive the first pile into the soil mass as shown figure 8 of Matsuzawa).
Regarding claim 13, Matsuzawa, as modified Kazuyoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Matsuzawa discloses the first pile (Kazuyoshi – one of the two piles of the welded piles as described in [0037] and figs. 10 – 11) and the second pile (Kazuyoshi – the other of the two piles of the welded piles as described in [0037] and figs. 10 – 11) are connectable along a longitudinal axis (as shown in figs. 10 – 11) prior to driving the second pile into the soil mass ([0037] describes the pile 11 formed by welding two piles together which is then inserted and placed in an outer casing or outer 1 within an excavation hole).
Regarding claim 23, Matsuzawa discloses a pile driving system comprising:
a helical tool (a casing 6 having a spiral rib 7, fig. 2) having an exterior surface (an exterior surface C of the casing 6, annotated fig. 2), a central bore (a bore A within the casing 6, annotated fig. 2), and one or more helical flights (a spiral rib 7, fig. 2. Figure 2 shows the casing 6 having a single spiral rib 7 and cutter projections 10a) on the exterior surface of the helical tool;
a helical tool driver (a driver 4, fig. 1. Pg. 1, ll. 109 – 112 describes the drive means 4 connected to the casing 6 and pg. 2, ll. 7 – 10 and 27 – 29 describes the drive means 4 rotationally driven into a subsurface 14 and a bearing surface 15. Pg. 2, ll. 70 – 74 describes the casing 6 being withdrawn) operable to drive the helical tool into a soil mass and to remove the helical tool from the soil mass;
a pile driver (a construction vehicle 1, fig. 1) that is operable to drive one or more piling segments (a pile 16, figs. 8 – 9. Pg. 2, ll. 68 – 70 describes a precast pile erected in the space evacuated by a screw 8) into the soil mass;
wherein the pile driver is operable to drive the one or more piling segments through the central bore of the helical tool and into the soil mass so that at least a portion of the one or more piles is at a depth below the helical tool (Pg. 2, ll. 68 – 70 describes a precast pile erected in the space evacuated by a screw 8. Figure 8 shows this pile 16 driven through the central bore A of the casing 6 wherein at least a portion of the pile 16 below the upper portion of the casing 6 that is shown to be above the soil surface).
Matsuzawa does not explicitly disclose a coupler for coupling the pile driver to the helical tool after the helical tool is driven into the soil mass.
However, Kazuyoshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a coupler (a disk-shaped base 26, fig. 1. [0019] describes an outer cylindrical body 24 of an outer casing 29 having annular ridges with the disk-shaped base 26 fitted within these annular ridges wherein the disk-shaped base 26 is connected to a rotary device 13 of a pile driver 12. Please note, figure shows this coupling between the pile driver 12 and the outer casing 29 after the helical tool is driven into the soil mass) for coupling the pile driver to the helical tool after the helical tool is driven into the soil mass.
Kazuyoshi is evidence that having the coupler for coupling the pile driver to the helical tool after the helical tool is driven into the soil mass was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the helical tool of Matsuzawa with coupler for coupling the pile driver to the helical tool after the helical tool is driven into the soil mass as described by Kazuyoshi. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the helical tool of Matsuzawa with coupler for coupling the pile driver to the helical tool after the helical tool is driven into the soil mass as described by Kazuyoshi in order to be able to attach and detach the helical tool from the pile driver. Additionally, Matsuzawa is silent regarding the connection between the helical tool and the pile driver thus the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Kazuyoshi to construct such a connection.
Regarding claim 24, Matsuzawa, as modified Kazuyoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 23.
Matsuzawa discloses the helical tool (a casing 6 having a spiral rib 7, fig. 2) is driven to a depth within the soil mass (bearing layer 15, figs. 4 – 8) that enables the helical tool to support the pile driver (As shown in fig. 8) and provide the necessary static weight for the pile driver to drive the one or more piling segments through the bore of the helical tool and further into the soil mass (The examiner interprets the limitation, “to provide the necessary static weight and torque effect required by the pile driver, that is connected to the helical tool, to drive the first pile into the soil mass” to mean the helical tool provides the necessary static weight and torque effect required by the pile driver to operably drive the first pile into the soil mass. Since Matsuzawa is a patented invention, there is a presumption that the apparatus of Matsuzawa is operable and thus provides the necessary static weight and torque effect required by the pile driver to operably drive the first pile into the soil mass as shown figure 8 of Matsuzawa).
Regarding claim 25, Matsuzawa, as modified Kazuyoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 24.
Matsuzawa does not explicitly disclose more than one piling segment is driven through the central bore of the helical tool to form a segmental piling.
However, Kazuyoshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches welding a first pile and a second pile together and which driven in the central bore of the tool ([0037] and figs. 10 – 11 describes a pile 11 formed by welding two piles together which is then driven in the bore of an outer casing or outer 1) (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the incorporation of the teachings of Kazuyoshi with the invention of Matsuzawa, the pile 16 of Matsuzawa would be replaced by the two piles welded together. Thus, more than one piling segment would be driven through the bore A of the casing 6 of Matsuzawa to form a segmental piling).
Kazuyoshi is evidence that welding a first pile and a second pile together and which driven in the central bore of the tool was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the pile of Matsuzawa with the welding the first pile and the second pile together as described by Kazuyoshi. Please note, both the pile of Matsuzawa and the welded two piles of Kazuyoshi are driven into the ground to serve as a foundation for a structure. Thus, the pile of Matsuzawa and the welded two piles of Kazuyoshi are structural equivalents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the pile of Matsuzawa for the welded two piles of Kazuyoshi to achieve the predicable result of being driven into the ground to serve as a foundation for a structure.
Regarding claim 26, Matsuzawa, as modified Kazuyoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 25.
The modified Matsuzawa discloses the more than one piling segments are coupled together (Kazuyoshi – [0037] and figs. 10 – 11 describes a pile 11 formed by welding two piles together).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 22, 41 – 42, 48 – 51, 53, and 61 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 and 34 – 35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
15 November 2025