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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 fails to further limit claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, because claim 3 does not recite any additional structural limitations. Examiner takes the position that the limitations recited in claim 3 appear to be directed to a method of using the claimed apparatus.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 - 5, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 3,839,875) in view of Schupp et al. (WO 2019206690).
Regarding claim 1, Matsushita discloses a foundation for a structure comprising: a body (pile 1) for insertion into a soil in an insertion direction during installation, the body having a toe (nozzle fitting 3) comprising a manifold at a distal end of the body; and an array of nozzles (nozzle openings 14) for jetting a fluid; wherein each nozzle produces a respective fluid jet wherein the nozzles in the array are configured such that the respective fluid jets of the nozzles are complementarily directed to feed into and generate a fluid stream ahead of the toe which flows in a direction substantially perpendicular to the insertion direction and acts to erode the soil; and wherein the fluid stream creates a gap between the manifold (3) and the soil (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 1 - 66). Matsushita fails to disclose the nozzles extending from the manifold. Schupp teaches nozzles (10) extending from a manifold (Figs. 1, 3(a), and 3(b); paragraph 0032). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the nozzles as disclosed by Matsushita so that the nozzles extend from the manifold as taught by Schupp to make the nozzles easily accessible, thereby improving the ease with which the nozzles can be removed for repair or replacement.
Regarding claim 2, Matsushita further discloses the fluid stream forms a fluid channel ahead of the toe (3) in a plane perpendicular to the insertion direction by eroding soil as the fluid flows through the fluid channel in the direction substantially perpendicular to the insertion direction (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 1 - 66).
Regarding claim 3, Examiner takes the position that claim 3 fails to recite any structural limitations and, therefore, fails to further limit claim 2, from which claim 3 depends. Assuming arguendo that claim 3 further limits claim 2, Matsushita further discloses the soil is progressively eroded from a wall of the fluid channel as the toe (3) advances in the insertion direction during installation (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 1 - 66).
Regarding claim 4, Matsushita further discloses the nozzles (14) in the array are configured for generating the fluid stream flowing in a cyclic path in a soil region ahead of the toe (3) (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 57 - 62).
Regarding claim 5, Matsushita further discloses the cyclic path is a circumferential path coaxial with the body (1) (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 57 - 62).
Regarding claim 9, Matsushita further discloses the manifold (3) feeds the fluid to the nozzles (14) (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 1 - 66).
Regarding claim 11, Matsushita further discloses a pressurized fluid supply (water supply tube 10) for supplying pressurized fluid to the nozzles (14) (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 23 - 25).
Regarding claim 14, Matsushita discloses a method of installing a foundation according to claim 1, the method comprising: inserting the toe (3) into the soil; supplying the fluid (via water supply tube 10) to the array of nozzles (14) to produce the respective fluid jets to feed into and generate the fluid stream ahead of the toe which flows in a direction perpendicular to the insertion direction and acts to erode the soil; and controlling movement of the body in the insertion direction to maintain formation of a fluid channel by the fluid stream as the toe advances in the insertion direction (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 23 - 25).
Claims 6 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita in view of Schupp et al. as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Lin (US 4,761,096). Matsushita further discloses the array of nozzles (14) comprises a first array of nozzles and the fluid stream comprises a first fluid stream that acts to erode the soil (Fig. 2). Matsushita in view of Schupp fails to explicitly teach a second array of nozzles provided at the distal end, wherein the nozzles in the second array are configured such that the fluid jets of the respective nozzles in the second array are complementarily directed to feed into and generate a second fluid stream ahead of the toe which flows in a direction perpendicular to the insertion direction and opposite to the first fluid stream. Lin teaches a first array of nozzles (horizontally-oriented nozzles 61 on right side of spud-can 14, nozzles attached to horizontal conduit of jetting network 59; see Figs. 5 and 8) and the fluid stream comprises a first fluid stream, and the foundation further comprising a second array of nozzles (horizontally-oriented nozzles 61 on left side of spud-can 14, nozzles attached to horizontal conduit of jetting network 59; see Figs. 5 and 8) provided at the distal end, wherein the nozzles in the second array are configured such that the fluid jets of the respective nozzles are complementarily directed to feed into and generate a second fluid stream ahead of the toe which flows in a direction perpendicular to the insertion direction and opposite to the first fluid stream (Figs. 5 and 8; col. 4, lines 33 - 60). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the plurality of nozzles as disclosed by Matsushita with the second array of nozzles and associated fluid jets as taught by Lin to improve the efficiency with which the apparatus produces a borehole.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita in view of Schupp et al. and Lin as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Volk (FR 2712317). Matsushita in view of Schupp and Lin discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a fin provided at the distal end for separating the first fluid stream from the second fluid stream. Volk teaches a fin (reinforcement 9a) provided at the distal end for separating the first fluid stream from the second fluid stream (Figs. 2 and 4; page 4 of the translation provided in a previous Office action). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the fin as taught by Volk to control the directions in which the fluid streams flow from the manifold.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita in view of Schupp et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin. Matsushita in view of Schupp discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the nozzles are directed downward in a range of 1 - 40 degrees about a radial axis from a tangential direction. Lin teaches the nozzles are directed downward in a range of 1 - 40 degrees about a radial axis from a tangential direction (Figs. 2 and 4; pages 3 and 5 of the translation provided in a previous Office action). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the nozzles as disclosed above such that the nozzles are directed downward in a range of 1 - 40 degrees as taught by Lin to optimize the efficiency with which the borehole is dug based upon properties of the strata in which the borehole is formed.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita in view of Schupp et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schupp et al. (EP 3561181; hereinafter Schupp ‘181).
Regarding claim 12, Matsushita in view of Schupp discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a controller for controlling one or more of: an installation speed, a ballast weight, and a fluid pressure of fluid supplied to the nozzles. Schupp ‘181 teaches a controller (control system) for controlling a fluid pressure of fluid supplied to the nozzles (paragraph 0018) to manage the properties of the soil column and thereby minimizing the risk of its collapse. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the controller as taught by Schupp ‘181 to manage the properties of the soil column and thereby minimizing the risk of its collapse.
Regarding claim 13, Matsushita in view of Schupp discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except an additive delivery system for delivering additives to the fluid stream. Schupp ‘181 teaches an additive delivery system (vents 13) for delivering additives to the fluid stream (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraph 0035) to increase the viscosity of the fluid in order to form a filter cake around the soil column. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the additive delivery system as taught by Schupp ‘181 to increase the viscosity of the fluid in order to form a filter cake around the soil column.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 6 and 8 - 15 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
1/30/2026
Prosecution Insights