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
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 7, Examiner recommends changing “calculated values” to “calculated values of pressure”, or something similar, for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4 - 6, 9, 17 -20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koller (EP 3613903).
Regarding claim 1, Koller discloses a foundation construction machine comprising: a tracked undercarriage (crawler track 1) configured for moving on soil and moving the foundation construction machine and configured for withstanding forces and loads acting upon the foundation construction machine and for transmitting the forces and loads to the soil whereon said machine lies; an upper structure (upper carriage 2) mechanically connected to the tracked undercarriage; a mast (leader 3), whereon an operating equipment (Kelly rod 6; drill drive 10; drill pipe 12) is configured to be mounted in order to drill the soil; a kinematic mechanism (support cylinders 5; adjustment mechanism 4) which mechanically connects said mast to said upper structure and which is configured for varying a distance between said mast and said upper structure; a control station (operator interface, i.e. visual, acoustic, or optical display, that allows an operator to monitor and control system operations; paragraphs 0013 and 0014) configured to be used by an operator, for said operator to issue commands aimed at controlling said foundation construction machine and for said operator to display and/or input information about operation of said machine; and a control system (paragraph 0017) operationally connected to said control station and configured for controlling and driving the foundation construction machine as a function of the commands issued by said operator, and comprising at least one memory unit (paragraph 0015 teaches storing monitoring results, which inherently requires at least one memory unit) in which a data archive is stored; said data archive containing at least maximum pressure data representative of maximum values of pressure generated by the machine on the soil (Paragraphs 0010 and 0011 teach calculating maximum pressure values for each of the individual subcomponents of the foundation construction machine on the soil and paragraph 0025 teaches converting these stored maximum pressure values to a maximal load that the foundation construction machine applies to the soil.); said maximum pressure data being determined as a function of corresponding combinations of: setup data representative of the possible setups of said machine (leader length, ballasting, condition values; paragraph 0010), geometric configuration data representative of possible geometric configurations of said machine (machine geometry; paragraph 0010), and working force data representative of working forces (paragraph 0011) acting upon said machine (Figs. 1 and 4; paragraphs 0008, 0010 - 0015, 0017, 0019 - 0022, and 0025). Examiner has interpreted “maximum values of pressure generated by the machine on the soil” as recited in lines 16 - 17 of claim 1 as “maximum values of pressure generated by the machine, wherein the machine is located/positioned on the soil”, as best understood.
Regarding claim 4, Koller further discloses said maximum pressure data are preloaded into said data archive (paragraphs 0008 and 0010).
Regarding claim 5, Koller further discloses said maximum pressure data are representative of values measured during a machine calibration phase (paragraphs 0008 and 0010).
Regarding claim 6, Koller further discloses said maximum pressure data are representative of values calculated during a machine calibration phase (paragraphs 0008 and 0010).
Regarding claim 9, Koller further discloses said control system (paragraph 0017) is configured for receiving as input allowable pressure limit value data representative of the maximum pressure that can be exerted by the machine on the soil (Examiner has interpreted “the machine on the soil” as “the machine located/positioned on the soil”, as best understood.) whereon said machine lies, and at least one of the data selected from the group including: actual setup data representative of a setup (paragraph 0010) actually adopted by said foundation construction machine, and actual geometric configuration data representative of a geometric configuration (paragraph 0010) assumed by said foundation construction machine; and maximum working force data representative of maximum values of the working forces (paragraph 0011) acting upon the foundation construction machine (paragraphs 0008, 0010 - 0012 and 0017).
Regarding claim 17, Koller further discloses at least one sensor operationally connected to said control system (paragraph 0017) and configured for detecting an actual value of at least one parameter of said geometric configuration data of the foundation construction machine, said control system being further configured for comparing said actual value of a geometric configuration with a maximum allowable value of said geometric configuration data, and for having the foundation construction machine execute at least one predetermined function (insert drill pipe 10 into the ground) when the a difference between said maximum allowable value and said actual value is below a predefined threshold value (paragraphs 0008, 0012, 0013, 0022, and 0023).
Regarding claim 18, Koller further discloses at least one sensor operationally connected to said control system (paragraph 0017) and configured for detecting an actual value of at least one working force acting upon the foundation construction machine, said control system being further configured for comparing said actual value of the at least one working force with a maximum allowable value of such force, and for having the foundation construction machine execute at least one predetermined function (insert drill pipe 10 into the ground) when the a difference between said maximum allowable value and said actual value is below a predefined threshold value (paragraphs 0008, 0012, 0013, 0022, and 0023).
Regarding claim 19, Koller further discloses said at least one predetermined function is activating at least one motion of parts of the machine (paragraphs 0022 and 0023).
Regarding claim 20, Koller further discloses sensors detecting actual resultant loads acting upon the machine, said control system (paragraph 0017) being further configured for making a comparison between the actual resultant loads measured by said sensors and the resultant loads calculated based on said actual setup data entered by the operator and the measured actual values of the working forces (paragraphs 0008, 0012, 0013, 0022, and 0023).
Regarding claim 24, Koller discloses a method for controlling a foundation construction machine; said foundation construction machine comprising: a tracked undercarriage (1) configured for moving on soil, thus also moving the foundation construction machine, and configured for withstanding forces and loads acting upon the foundation construction machine and for transmitting the forces and loads to the soil whereon said machine lies; an upper structure (2) mechanically connected to the tracked undercarriage (1); a mast (3), whereon an operating equipment (6, 10, 12) is configured to be mounted to drill the soil; a kinematic mechanism (4, 5), which mechanically connects said mast (3) to said upper structure (2), and which is configured for varying a distance between said mast (3) and said upper structure (2); a control station (operator interface, i.e. visual, acoustic, or optical display, that allows an operator to monitor and control system operations; paragraphs 0013 and 0014) configured to be used by an operator, from said control station, for said operator to issue commands aimed at controlling said foundation construction machine and for said operator to display and/or input information about operation of the machine; a control system (paragraph 0017) operationally connected to said control station and configured for controlling and driving the foundation construction machine as a function of the commands issued by said operator, and comprising at least one memory unit (paragraph 0015 teaches storing monitoring results, which inherently requires at least one memory unit) in which a data archive is stored; wherein said method comprises the following steps: preloading into said data archive maximum values of pressure generated by the machine on the soil (Examiner has interpreted “maximum values of pressure generated by the machine on the soil” as “maximum values of pressure generated by the machine, wherein the machine is located/positioned on the soil”, as best understood.), determined as a function of corresponding setup data representative of possible setups of said machine, geometric configuration data representative of possible geometric configurations of said machine, and working forces data representative of working forces acting upon said machine; interrogating said data archive by said control system; and controlling and driving said foundation construction machine, from said control station and by said control system, as a function of said interrogation of said data archive (Figs. 1 and 4; paragraphs 0008, 0010 - 0015, 0017, 0019 - 0022, and 0025).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller in view of Lanzl et al. (US 2012/0072081). Koller further discloses said upper structure (2) is rotatably mounted relative to said undercarriage (1) about an axis of rotation (paragraph 0019). Koller fails to disclose said geometric configuration data comprising: a working radius defined by a distance between said axis of rotation and said operating equipment, and an angle of rotation defined between said upper structure and said undercarriage in a plane substantially orthogonal to said axis of rotation. Lanzl teaches said geometric configuration data comprising: a working radius defined by a distance between said axis of rotation and said operating equipment, and an angle of rotation defined between said upper structure and said undercarriage in a plane substantially orthogonal to said axis of rotation (paragraphs 0004, 0020, and 0023). 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 by Koller with the working radius and axis of rotation as taught by Lanzl to increase the range of application and versatility of the construction machine and to provide the construction machine with high reliability with regard to safety against tilting.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller in view of Oh (WO 2018/092980). Koller discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except said data archive contains pressure distribution data representative of values of lengthwise spatial distribution of pressure under tracks of said undercarriage. Oh teaches a data archive (controller 30) contains pressure distribution data representative of values of lengthwise spatial distribution of pressure under tracks (endless track 10) of said undercarriage (Figs. 1 and 2; abstract; paragraphs 0014, 0043, 0048, and 0049). 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 pressure distribution data representative of values of lengthwise spatial distribution of pressure under tracks of said undercarriage as taught by Oh to prevent the foundation construction machine from overturning.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller in view of Dirksen et al. (US 2016/0201449). Koller further discloses said maximum pressure data are representative of calculated values (paragraphs 0008 and 0010), and wherein the data is stored into a data archive (paragraph 0015 teaches storing monitoring results). Although Koller fails to explicitly teach a data archive or database, Examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known in the art to store monitoring data in a data archive or database. Koller fails to teach a data table and/or data map is stored into a data archive or database. Dirksen teaches a data table is stored into a database (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 apparatus as disclosed above with the data table stored into a database as taught by Dirksen to store pressure data in an organized format in a database.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller in view of Dirksen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Krelifaoui (US 2019/0316417). Koller in view of Dirksen discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except for explicitly teaching an electronic processing system is configured for interrogating said data archive and accessing the respective data table and/or map. Krelifaoui teaches an electronic processing system (control system 40 including electronic control module) is configured for interrogating said data archive and accessing the respective data table (paragraphs 0025 and 0026). 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 electronic processing system as taught by Krelifaoui to provide a means for manipulating data collected by data sensors.
Claims 10 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koller.
Regarding claim 10, Koller further discloses said control system (paragraph 0017) is configured for interrogating said data archive and outputting at least one admissible combination of said setup data and/or said geometric configuration data and/or said working force data; said at least one admissible combination being correlated with corresponding maximum pressure data contained in said data archive, which are smaller than or equal to said allowable pressure limit value data (paragraphs 0010 - 0012, 0017, 0021, and 0022). Examiner takes the position that since the control system as disclosed by Koller is capable of performing calculations on the setup data, geometric configuration data, and working force data as described in the cited paragraphs, the control system as disclosed by Koller is capable of/configured for performing the claimed processes. Assuming arguendo that it is necessary for the control system to perform the functions recited in claim 10, it would have been considered obvious to have modified the control system as disclosed by Koller, which is designed to control the storage and manipulation of the setup data, geometric configuration data, and working force data associated with a foundation construction machine so that it is configured for interrogating said data archive and outputting at least one admissible combination of said setup data and/or said geometric configuration data and/or said working force data; said at least one admissible combination being correlated with corresponding maximum pressure data contained in said data archive, which are smaller than or equal to said allowable pressure limit value data as a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 11, Koller further discloses said control system (paragraph 0017) is configured for selecting and outputting said at least one admissible combination (paragraphs 0007, 0008, and 0013).
Regarding claim 12, Koller further discloses said control system (8) is configured for outputting at least one alternative admissible combination; said at least one alternative admissible combination being correlated with corresponding maximum pressure data, which are smaller than or equal to said allowable pressure limit value data (paragraphs 0010 - 0012, 0017, 0021, and 0022). Examiner takes the position that since the control system as disclosed by Koller is capable of performing calculations on the setup data, geometric configuration data, and working force data as described in the cited paragraphs, the control system as disclosed by Koller is capable of/configured for performing the claimed processes.
Regarding claim 13, Koller further discloses the control system (paragraph 0017) is further configured for displaying values of the data (using a visual, acoustic or optical display) (paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 14, Koller further discloses said maximum pressure data are representative of values measured during a machine calibration phase, wherein said maximum pressure data are representative of values calculated during a machine calibration phase, and wherein said control system (paragraph 0017) is configured for comparing measured values and calculated values of said maximum pressure data (paragraphs 0008 and 0010).
Regarding claim 15, Koller further discloses the control system is further configured for determining a position of a static and/or dynamic center of gravity of the machine (paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 16, Koller further discloses the control system (paragraph 0017) is further configured for comparing: the position of the static and/or dynamic center of gravity (S) corresponding to said at least one admissible combination, determined based on the data contained in said data archive; and the position of the static and/or dynamic center of gravity (S) determined based on said actual geometric configuration data and said actual setup data received as input (paragraphs 0010 - 0012, 0017, 0022, and 0025).
Claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller.
Regarding claim 7, Koller further discloses said maximum pressure data are representative of calculated values (paragraphs 0008 and 0010), and wherein the data is stored into a data archive (paragraph 0015 teaches storing monitoring results). Although Koller fails to explicitly teach a data archive or database, Examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known in the art to store monitoring data in a data archive or database. Koller fails to teach a data table and/or data map is stored into a data archive or database.
Regarding claim 21, Koller fails to explicitly disclose said sensors detecting the actual resultant loads acting upon the machine are located in proximity to the undercarriage. Koller further discloses permissible load values of the machine and individual subcomponents are calculated and subsequently used as target or limit values for monitoring (paragraph 0021) and it would have been obvious to place sensors in proximity to the individual subcomponents to collect accurate measurements when monitoring said subcomponents. 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 by Koller such that said sensors detecting the actual resultant loads acting upon the machine are located in proximity to the undercarriage as a design consideration to collect accurate measurements of individual subcomponents located in proximity to the undercarriage.
Regarding claim 22, Koller further discloses said control system configured for emitting a signal (acoustic display) for warning the operator about a necessity of verifying entered data and/or the proper operation of said sensors when said comparison between said measured actual resultant loads and said calculated resultant loads shows a difference exceeding a predefined threshold value (paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 25, Koller further discloses a control system (paragraph 0017) configured for receiving as input allowable pressure limit value data representative of the maximum pressure that can be exerted by the machine on the soil whereon said machine is intended to lie lies, and at least one of the data selected from the group including: actual setup data representative of the setup actually adopted by said foundation construction machine (paragraph 0010). Koller fails to disclose the step of entering into said control system, by an operator and by said control station, actual setup data representative of the setup adopted by said foundation construction machine, and maximum allowable pressure limit value data representative of maximum pressure exerted on the soil whereon said machine lies; said interrogation being carried out as a function of said actual setup data and said maximum allowable pressure limit value data. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 25 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 26, Koller further discloses the step of outputting, through said control system (paragraph 0017), at least one admissible combination of said geometric configuration data (paragraph 0010) and/or said working forces data (paragraphs 0011 and 0012); said at least one admissible combination being correlated with corresponding preloaded maximum pressure data contained in said data archive, which are smaller than or equal to said entered allowable pressure limit value data (paragraphs 0010 - 0012, 0017, 0021, and 0022).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller in view of Mannering et al. (US 10,494,784). Koller discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except said data archive is a database. Mannering teaches a data archive is a database (col. 6, lines 1 - 2). 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 data archive comprising a memory as taught by Koller with the memory comprising a database as taught by Mannering as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Koller describes a method for monitoring the structural load of one or more subcomponents of the machine, which is a fundamentally different technical problem and solution compared to the present application which focuses on evaluating machine stability based on pressure generated by the machine on the soil. Examiner replies that the claim(s) recite “maximum values of pressure generated by the machine on the soil” (see, for example, lines 16 - 17 of claim 1) as “maximum values of pressure generated by the machine, wherein the machine is located/positioned on the soil”, as best understood. Therefore, Examiner has considered pressure applied to a machine located on soil as opposed to a machine located in water or in air. Since Koller describes a method for monitoring pressure generated by a machine that is located on soil, Koller reads on the claim limitation(s).
Applicant argues that the maximum permissible stresses of the device structure as taught by Koller are not maximum ground or soil pressures representative of ground pressures. Examiner replies that the claims do not recite ground or soil pressures. Instead, the claims recite pressure generated by a machine that is located on soil.
Applicant argues that Koller fails to teach how to calculate ground pressure generated by the machine. As explained above, Examiner takes the position that the claims do not recite ground pressure.
Applicant argues that Koller fails to describe the ground pressures generated for each configuration are calculated a priori and stored in a memory system. As explained above, Examiner takes the position that the claims do not recite ground pressure.
Applicant argues that Koller fails to teach how to evaluate machine stability for different ground characteristics. Examiner replies that the claims do not recite evaluating machine stability for different ground characteristics.
Applicant argues that Lanzl does not teach or suggest how to evaluate the stability of the machine for use with different ground characteristics. Examiner replies that the claims do not recite evaluating machine stability for different ground characteristics.
Applicant argues that Lanzl’s approach includes increasing the number of sensors and computing capacity, which teaches away from the present invention’s goal of reducing sensors and simplifying calculation devices. Examiner explains that the claims do not recite a specific number of sensors, reducing the number of sensors, or simplifying calculation devices. Examiner notes that Lanzl teaches the claimed sensors and geometric configuration data, and the complexity of the system lacks patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
Applicant argues that neither Koller not Lanzl teaches or suggests pre-calculation and storage of soil pressure data. Examiner replies that the claims do not recite limitations directed to soil pressure data.
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 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
12/2/2025