DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 01/06/2026 has been entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification as originally filed lacks disclosure of a minimum covered zone of at least 1.5 inches of concrete and a maximum covered zone that is at least 1.5 times the thickness of the minimum section. Therefore, applicant lacks possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-6 depend upon claim 1. As discussed below, claims 7-9 are assumed to be dependent upon claim 1.
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 1-9 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 begins with “the method” when a system has yet to be introduced. Claim 1 should begin with “A method”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the steel rebars" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the surrounding lower strength trench fill" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claims 2-7, it is unclear if the limitations after “can be” and “may” are intended to limit the claimed invention. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
With regard to claims 3-4, parent claim 1 states the modification of the rebar (encapsulated in concrete) is performed along the entire length of the bar. Claims 3-4 then states there are unmodified portions of the bar. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
With regard to claims 7-9, it is unclear if the claims are intended to be independent claims of depend upon claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner has assumed claims 7-9 to depend upon claim 1.
With regard to claim 8, it is unclear what applicant is intending to claim. It is unclear if applicant is intending to further define the concrete coated rebar. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeley (2022/0356663).
With regard to claim 1, Seeley, as best understood, discloses a method of ground stabilization) comprised of steel reinforced trenches (paras 0028-0029) where the steel rebars (1) are first modified by encasing the steel in cured concrete that has been given an undulating shape herein referred to as modified rebar (abstract; fig. 8), the undulating shape of the concrete along the alignment of the rebar varies from a minimum covered zone of concrete that transitions to a maximum covered zone which then transitions back to a minimum covered zone with said undulations repeating along the alignment of the rebar with the transition between the minimum and the maximum nodes sloped at an angle between 20 and 45 degrees as measured from the alignment of the steel rebar within the concrete (fig. 8), the modification of the rebar shall be made for the full length of each rebar (fig. 8) where modification of said rebar is required for the purpose of transferring load to and from the surrounding lower strength trench fill material (6/7; paras 0005, 0025) that is also placed in the trench (fig. 8), said lower strength material consists of granular soil ranging from cobble size material down to sand size fill material (paras 0005,0025) that is compatible with injected grout (13), which is injected through grouting pipes (11) that are included in the trench fill, this completes the steel reinforced trench that when properly located in a soil formation will improve the stability of the formation (fig. 8).
Seeley appears to suggest (fig. 8) however fails to explicitly state the minimum covered zone is of at least 1.5 inches of concrete and the maximum covered zone is at least 1.5 times the thickness of the minimum section.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the covered zones be any desired size to include 1.5 inches for the minimum and 1.5 times the minimum for the maximum based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant’s specification has not stated any criticality to these values and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 2, as best understood, Seeley further discloses the trench can take any shape in plan view the shape may look like an X, T, or L that will be compatible with the limitations or needs of any given site where the larger soil mass needs increased stability and the trenches can be located across potential failure surfaces so that the back section of the trench will function as a soil anchor (figs. 8-10; para 0028).
With regard to claim 3, as best understood, Seeley further discloses the steel reinforced trench can be used for the stabilization of new compacted fill soil and the trenches can be constructed at locations and intervals to function as tieback anchors for a wall face (paras 0027-0029) where unmodified portions of the rebar can be incorporated into the retaining wall (figs. 1,5).
With regard to claim 4, as best understood, Seeley further discloses the steel reinforced trench can be used for the stabilization of existing fill soil or naturally occurring soil deposit and could be used for stabilization of new or existing retaining walls by acting as a tie back or providing additional stability where needed (para 0028-0029).
With regard to claim 4, as best understood, Seeley further discloses the system can be used for the stabilization of existing fill soil or a naturally occurring soil deposit (10) and could be used for stabilization of new or existing retaining walls by becoming a tie back dead man for the retaining wall where unmodified portions of the rebar can be incorporated into the retaining wall (figs. 1, 5, 8).
With regard to claim 5, as best understood, Seeley further discloses the steel reinforced trench can be used for both long term and temporary improvement of the stability of any soil or rock formation (figs. 8-10).
With regard to claim 6, as best understood, Seeley further discloses the steel reinforced grouted trenches can be constructed in any shape desired to satisfy the needs for a given project provided that sufficient space is provided for both vertically and horizontally to prevent the blockage of ground water (figs. 1, 5, 8-10).
With regard to claim 7, as best understood, Seeley further discloses the steel reinforced trenches can be grouted using a manifold system to distribute the grout or a series of tubes may be installed for the length of the trench (figs. 3, 5, 8).
With regard to claim 8, as best understood, Seeley further discloses shapes and designs of the concrete cover over the steel rebar (figs. 8-10).
With regard to claim 9, as best understood, Seeley further discloses the shape of the concrete cover over the steel rebars can vary within a given project (figs. 8-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 with regard to Seeley (2022/0356663) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted in applicant’s arguments, the modified rebar in Seeley (2022/0356663) is the same modified rebar in the instant application. Applicant argues that using the rebar in various configurations to be patentable. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., across failure planes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the modified rebar “could be” utilized in various trench configurations known within the art. When the general features of the claim language are met by the prior art, it is not considered inventive to discover or determine optimum or workable details for specific applications simply through routine experimentation. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05 II.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
05/20/2026
Prosecution Insights