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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 May 2026 has been entered.
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, 3 - 6, and 9 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller (EP 3613903) in view of Oh (WO 2018/092980).
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; 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). Koller fails to disclose said data archive containing at least maximum pressure data representative of maximum values of ground pressure exerted by the tracked undercarriage on the soil to determine machine stability. Oh teaches a data archive (controller 30) containing at least maximum pressure data representative of maximum values of ground pressure exerted by the tracked undercarriage (endless track 10) on the soil to determine machine stability (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 maximum values of ground pressure exerted by the tracked undercarriage on the soil as taught by Oh to prevent the foundation construction machine from overturning.
Regarding claim 3, 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.
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 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).
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 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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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 in view of Oh 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 above 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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 in view of Oh 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 Oh and Dirksen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Krelifaoui (US 2019/0316417). Koller in view of Oh and 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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mannering et al. (US 10,494,784). Koller in view of Oh 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 - 26 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the real-time sensor system as taught by Oh only react once a dangerous pressure distribution occurs and does not allow an operator to proactively verify the stability of a planned configuration before the configuration is implemented. Examiner replies that claim 1 only recites a data archive containing at least a maximum pressure representative of maximum pressure values of ground pressure exerted by the tracked undercarriage on the soil. Claim 1 does not require the data in the data archive to be pre-loaded.
Applicant argues that Oh does not teach or suggest pre-calculating or pre-loading a comprehensive database of maximum ground pressure values. Examiner replies that claim 1 does not require the data in the data archive to be pre-calculated or pre-loaded.
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 04 May 2026, with respect to claims 24 - 26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 24 - 26 has been withdrawn.
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
6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights