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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3-6,8,10,13,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by German document (DE 202019105845).
German document ‘845 discloses a ground pile (see Figs. 1-7) comprising:
an elongate hollow tube (1,2,3) extending longitudinally from a first end to a second end; a mount proximate (holes at top of 1, 2 or 3) the first end for attaching components;
one or more threaded longitudinal segments(1,2) of the hollow tube each having exterior helical segments (7,8) extending around the longitudinal segment and forming a screw thread; and one or more drivable longitudinal segments of the hollow tube having cross-sections with an internal surface shaped in a non-circular shape (4,5, Figs. 6,7).
Re claim 3, wherein the internal surface of the cross-sections of the one
or more drivable longitudinal segments is adapted to engage with a drive shaft that, when rotated, engages the internal surface and rotates the ground pile (see machine translation).
Re claim 4, wherein two of the one or more the threaded longitudinal segments are separated longitudinally by one or more of the drivable longitudinal segments (when 1,2,3 are connected via members 4,5).
Re claim 5, wherein the one or more drivable longitudinal segments do not overlap longitudinally with the one or more threaded longitudinal segments (this is the case when only member 1 is present with top of member 4).
Re claim 6, wherein the one or more drivable longitudinal segments overlap longitudinally with the one or more threaded longitudinal segments (this is the case when members 1,2,3 are joined via members 4,5).
Re claim 8, German document ‘845 discloses a ground pile comprising:
an elongate hollow tube (1,2,3) extending longitudinally from a first end to a second end; a mount proximate (holes at top of 1, 2 or 3) the first end for components; and
one or more threaded longitudinal segments (1,2) of the hollow tube each having exterior helical segments (7,8) extending around the longitudinal segment and forming a screw thread, the helical segments of the one or more threaded longitudinal segments being formed by a hydroforming process.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Re claim 10, wherein the first end is open (3), and the second end is closed (1), and
wherein a longitudinal segment of the hollow tube tapers inward towards the closed second end (see Figs. 1,2).
Re claim 13, wherein the mount includes a series of holes through the
hollow tube (see Figs. 1-7).
Re claim 14, wherein the helical segments of the one or more threaded
longitudinal segments are formed by a hydroforming process of a hollow tube.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Claim(s) 1-9,13,14,15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by EP document (EP 2003270).
EP document discloses a ground pile (see Figs. 1-12) comprising:
an elongate hollow tube (5,6,7 connected) extending longitudinally from a first end to a second end; a mount (holes near top of member 7) proximate the first end for attaching components;
one or more threaded longitudinal segments (5,6,7) of the hollow tube each having exterior helical segments (2) extending around the longitudinal segment and forming a screw thread; and one or more drivable longitudinal segments of the hollow tube having cross-sections with an internal surface shaped in a non-circular shape (see Figs. 1,2).
Re claim 2, , wherein the internal surface of the cross-sections of the one
or more drivable longitudinal segments is polygonal shaped (see Figs. 1,2).
Re claim 3, wherein the internal surface of the cross-sections of the one
or more drivable longitudinal segments is adapted to engage with a drive shaft that, when rotated, engages the internal surface and rotates the ground pile (see Figs. 8-12).
Re claim 4, wherein two of the one or more the threaded longitudinal segments are separated longitudinally by one or more of the drivable longitudinal segments (members 6,5,7 separated via members 11,12).
Re claim 5, wherein the one or more drivable longitudinal segments do not overlap longitudinally with the one or more threaded longitudinal segments (this is the case when only member 6 is used).
Re claim 6, wherein the one or more drivable longitudinal segments overlap longitudinally with the one or more threaded longitudinal segments (members 6,5,7 separated via members 11,12).
Re claim 7, further comprising one or more pushable longitudinal
segments (11, of Fig. 5) of the hollow tube each tapering inward from a wider cross-section to a narrower cross-section in a direction from the first end towards the second end.
Re claim 8, EP document ‘270 discloses a ground pile comprising:
an elongate hollow tube (6,5,7 connected) extending longitudinally from a first end to a second end; a mount (holes near the top of 7) proximate the first end for attaching components; and one or more threaded longitudinal segments (5,6,7) of the hollow tube each having exterior helical segments (2) extending around the longitudinal segment and forming a screw thread, the helical segments of the one or more threaded longitudinal segments being formed by a hydroforming process.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Re claim 9, wherein the first end is open, and the second end is open (see Figs. 3,4,11).
Re claim 13, wherein the mount includes a series of holes through the hollow tube (see Figs. 1,2,3,4).
Re claim 14, wherein the helical segments of the one or more threaded
longitudinal segments are formed by a hydroforming process of a hollow tube.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
EP document ‘270 discloses a ground pile, comprising: an elongate hollow tube extending longitudinally from a first end to a second end (6,5,7); a mount (holes near member 7) proximate the first end for attaching components;
one or more threaded longitudinal segments of the hollow tube each having exterior
helical segments (5,6,7) extending around the longitudinal segment and forming a screw thread (2); and one or more pushable longitudinal segments (11, Fig. 5) of the hollow tube each tapering inward from a wider cross-section to a narrower cross-section in a direction from the first end towards the second end.
Re claim 16, wherein the non-circular internal surface (see Figs. 1,2,10) of the cross-sections of the one or more drivable longitudinal segments are formed by a hydroforming process of a hollow tube.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Re claim 17, wherein the one or more drivable longitudinal segments are
formed via welding to a hollow tube.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Re claim 18, wherein the tapering inward from a wider cross-section to a
narrower cross-section in a direction from the first end towards the second end of the one or more pushable longitudinal segments (11, Fig. 5) are formed by a hydroforming process of a hollow tube.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Re claim 19, wherein the one or more drivable longitudinal segments are
formed via welding to a hollow tube.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Re claim 20, wherein the helical segments of the one or more threaded
longitudinal segments form one of sharp threads, buttress threads, or knuckle threads (2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document ‘845 in view of Steininger et al. (US 11453463).
German document ‘845 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘845 is silent about wherein the internal surface of the cross-sections of the one or more drivable longitudinal segments is polygonal shaped. Steininger et al. teaches wherein the internal surface of the cross-sections of the one or more drivable longitudinal segments is polygonal shaped (see Fig.3, col. 4). 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 German document to have the internal surface of the cross-sections of the one or more drivable longitudinal segments polygonal in shape as taught by Steininger et al. since such a modification is less complicated to manufactured.
Claim(s) 7,15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document ‘845 in view of EP document (EP 2003270)
German document ‘845 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘845 is silent about the one or more pushable longitudinal
segments of the hollow tube each tapering inward from a wider cross-section to a narrower cross-section in a direction from the first end towards the second end.
EP document ‘270 teaches one or more pushable longitudinal
segments of the hollow tube each tapering inward from a wider cross-section to a narrower cross-section in a direction from the first end towards the second end (11, Fig. 5).
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 German document to have the one or more pushable longitudinal segments of the hollow tube each tapering inward from a wider cross-section to a narrower cross-section in a direction from the first end towards the second end as taught by EP document ‘270 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the segments.
Re claim 15, German document ‘845 as modified by EP document ‘270 (see discussion above with regards to claim 7) discloses a ground pile comprising: an elongate hollow tube extending longitudinally from a first end to a second end (1,2,3); a mount (holes at top of 1,2,3) proximate the first end for attaching components;
one or more threaded longitudinal segments of the hollow tube each having exterior
helical segments extending around the longitudinal segment and forming a screw thread (7,8); and one or more pushable longitudinal segments (11, Fig. 5 of EP document ‘270) of the hollow tube each tapering inward from a wider cross-section to a narrower cross-section in a direction from the first end towards the second end.
Re claim 16, wherein the non-circular internal surface of the cross- sections of the one or more drivable longitudinal segments are formed by a hydroforming process of a hollow tube.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Re claim 17, wherein the one or more drivable longitudinal segments are
formed via welding to a hollow tube.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Re claim 18, wherein the tapering inward from a wider cross-section to a
narrower cross-section in a direction from the first end towards (11, see Fig. 5 of EP ‘270) the second end of the one or more pushable longitudinal segments are formed by a hydroforming process of a hollow tube.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Re claim 19, wherein the one or more drivable longitudinal segments are
formed via welding to a hollow tube.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Re claim 20, wherein the helical segments of the one or more threaded
longitudinal segments form one of sharp threads, buttress threads, or knuckle threads (7,8 of German document ‘845).
Claim(s) 11,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document ‘845.
Re claim 11, German document ‘845 further discloses an unthreaded longitudinal segment extending from the first end that does not have any of the helical segments of the one or more threaded longitudinal segments (3); however, German document ‘845 is silent the unthreaded longitudinal segment constituting more than one-fourth of the longitudinal length of the hollow tube. It is well know to one of ordinary skill in the art that the threaded region is based on the material type; therefore, 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 German document ‘845 to have the unthreaded longitudinal segment constituting more than one-fourth of the longitudinal length of the hollow tube since such a modification would be based on the type of soil being encountered. If the soil does not require threads for insertion then there is no need for them.
Re claim 12, German document ‘845 further discloses wherein the helical segments of the one or more threaded longitudinal segments (1,2,7,8) are located in the longitudinal portion of the hollow tube closer to the second end; however, German document is silent about the threaded segments are located in only two-thirds of the longitudinal portion of the hollow tube closer to the second end.
It is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the threaded region is based on the material type; therefore, 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 German document to have the threaded segments located in only two-thirds of the longitudinal portion of the hollow tube closer to the second end since such a modification would be based on the type of soil being encountered. If the soil requires threads for insertion then they are provided in the needed sections.
Claim(s) 11,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document ‘270
Re claim 11, EP document document ‘270 further discloses an unthreaded longitudinal segment extending from the first end that does not have any of the helical segments of the one or more threaded longitudinal segments (7, see machine translation); however, EP document ‘270 is silent the unthreaded longitudinal segment constituting more than one-fourth of the longitudinal length of the hollow tube. It is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the threaded region is based on the material type; therefore, 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 EP document ‘270 to have the unthreaded longitudinal segment constituting more than one-fourth of the longitudinal length of the hollow tube since such a modification would be based on the type of soil being encountered. If the soil does not require threads for insertion then there is no need for them.
Re claim 12, EP document ‘270 further discloses wherein the helical segments of the one or more threaded longitudinal segments (2,6,5) are located in the longitudinal portion of the hollow tube closer to the second end; however, EP document ‘270 is silent about the threaded segments are located in only two-thirds of the longitudinal portion of the hollow tube closer to the second end.
It is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the threaded region is based on the material type; therefore, 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 EP document ‘270 to have the threaded segments located in only two-thirds of the longitudinal portion of the hollow tube closer to the second end since such a modification would be based on the type of soil being encountered. If the soil requires threads for insertion then they are provided in the needed sections.
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
8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights