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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/14/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 10702374 A) in view of Chung et al. (KR 10-095532 B1).
Considering claim 1, Wang discloses a damping ratio measuring device for consolidation equipment, comprising a bracket, a consolidation pressure device 1 and a sleeve 10;
- wherein the consolidation pressure device 1 is set at a top of the bracket, and an output direction of the consolidation pressure device is directly below (Figure 1; [0046]; [0063-65]; [0069]);
- a bottom of the consolidation pressure device is connected with a pressurized piston 5, and a displacement sensor 3 is set on the pressurized piston (Figure 1; [0046]; [0051]; [0053-54]; [0068]);
- the sleeve is set directly below the consolidation pressure device (Figure 1; [0046]; [0057]; [0060]; [0071]);
- the pressurized piston 5 extends from a top of the sleeve 10, and a diameter of the pressurized piston 5 is same as an inner diameter of the sleeve 10 (Figure 1; [0071]);
- a bottom of the sleeve 10 is sealed with a support plate 20 (Figure 1; [0046]; [0060]); and
The invention by Wang fails to disclose the use of two bending element sensors at a top of the support plate and a bottom of the pressurized piston.
However, Chung teaches the use of a plurality of bending element 410,420 sensors at a top of a support plate and a bottom of a pressurized plate (Figures 1a, 1d(1), 1d(3), 2b, 4e; [0038]; [0050-51]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plurality of bending elements on the top of a support plate and the bottom of a pressurized piston, as taught by Chung, in the invention by Wang. The motivation for doing so is to measure a shear modulus in a micro-strain region appearing under planar strain conditions, as suggested by Chung ([0062], (Summary of Invention, Effects of the Invention)).
Considering claim 3, Wang fails to disclose the bending elements.
However, Chung teaches that the bending element sensors at the top of the support plate and the bottom of the pressurized piston are set near an axis of the sleeve (Figure 4e; [0050-51]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plurality of bending elements set near an axis of the sleeve, as taught by Chung, in the invention by Wang. The motivation for doing so is to measure a shear modulus in a micro-strain region appearing under planar strain conditions, as suggested by Chung ([0062], (Summary of Invention, Effects of the Invention)).
Considering claim 4, Wang discloses that the sleeve and the support plate are continuously sealed ([0022]), but fails to explicitly disclose that an O-ring is used to link the sleeve and the support plate.
However, Chung teaches the use of sealing O-rings to link a sleeve and a support plate (Figure 4e, 5; [0055]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the O-ring of Chung for the continuous sealing of Wang and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Given that both techniques serve to form a seal, they are considered functionally equivalent, and therefore interchangeable for the intended purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an O-ring to join the sleeve to the support plate in Wang, as taught by Chung.
Considering claim 6, Wang discloses that the displacement sensor is an LVDT displacement sensor, the bottom of the consolidation pressure device is connected to a top of the LVDT displacement sensor, and a bottom of the LVDT displacement sensor is connected to the top of the pressurized piston (Figure 1; [0014], [0053]).
Considering claim 7, Wang discloses that the bracket comprises a roof, a floor and a connecting rod, the connecting rod connects the roof and the floor in parallel, and the consolidation pressure device and the sleeve are set between the roof and the floor (Figure 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 10702374 A) in view of Chung et al. (KR 10-095532 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shao et al. (CN 103245566 A) and Xiao et al. (CN 112378793 A1).
Considering claim 2, the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung, fails to explicitly disclose that a pressure sensor is installed on both sides of the sleeve and at a bottom of the support plate, and the pressure sensor at the bottom of the support plate is located at a center of the support plate.
However, Shao teaches that a pressure sensor 30 is installed on both sides of the sleeve (Figures 1-3; [0017]; [0024-27]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a pressure sensor on both sides of the sleeve, as taught by Shao, in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung. The motivation for doing so is to monitor stress value in the principal stress direction of the sample under test, as suggested by Shao ([0024]).
The invention by Wang, as modified by Chung and Shao, fails to explicitly disclose a pressure sensor located at a bottom of the support plate, wherein the pressure sensor at the bottom of the support plate is located at a center of the support plate.
However, Xiao teaches the use of a lateral displacement sensors 9 on two sides of a sleeve 8 and a pressure sensor 13 at the bottom of a support plate 10 (Figure 2; [0027]; [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a pressure sensor at the bottom of the support plate, as taught by Xiao, in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung and Shao. The motivation for doing so, as taught by Xiao, is to provide an indication of undrained hydraulic pressure and/or cyclic loads ([0035]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 10702374 A) in view of Chung et al. (KR 10-095532 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (CN 112378793 A1).
Considering claim 5, the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung, fails to explicitly disclose that the there are two support blocks at a bottom of the support plate, and the two support blocks and the support plate are eccentrically set.
However, Xiao suggests the use of two support blocks at a bottom of the support plate, wherein the two support blocks and the support plate are eccentrically set (Figure 2, annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
211
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Figure 1 of Application and Figure 2 of Xiao et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize support blocks under the support plate, as taught by Xiao, in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung, to facilitate the use of the centrally located pressure sensor, according to the teachings of Xiao.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 10702374 A) in view of Chung et al. (KR 10-095532 B1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Klucha (US 2017/0059461 A1).
Considering claim 8, Wang, as modified by Chung, fails to explicitly disclose that a latex film is set between the connecting rod and the floor.
However, Klucha teaches the use of a rubber floor mounts that separate the ground from a testing assembly ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a latex film set between the connecting rod and the floor, as taught by Klucha, in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung. The motivation for doing so is to provide vibration/sound dampening, as suggested by Klucha ([0037]), thus reducing the environmental effects on the bending elements, as would be understood in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 10702374 A) in view of Chung et al. (KR 10-095532 B1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 111103185 A).
Considering claim 9, the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung, discloses that the connecting rod is pneumatic, and therefore fails to disclose that the connecting rod is a screw connected with the roof by threads.
However, Yang teaches the use of a connecting rod 12 that is a screw connected with the roof 7 by threads (Figures 12-14; [0050]; [0056]; [0059]; [0069]; [0071]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the threaded connecting rod of Yang for the pneumatic rod of Wang, as modified by Chung and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Given that both techniques, as stated in their respective inventions, allow movement of a piston head to compress a confined sample, they are considered functionally equivalent, and are therefore interchangeable for the intended purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a connecting rod having a screw connected with the roof by threads in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung, as taught by Yang.
Claims 10, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 10702374 A) in view of Chung et al. (KR 10-095532 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (NPL - Damping-ratio measurements by the spectral-ratio method), hereafter Wang NPL.
Considering claim 10, the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung, fails to explicitly disclose the use of a spectral ratio method to determine a material damping ratio.
However, Wang NPL teaches:
- measuring a material damping ratio by a spectral ratio method:
ln
U
1
(
f
)
U
2
(
f
)
=
-
ln
r
1
r
2
β
T
+
2
π
D
V
r
1
-
r
2
f
(1)
- wherein,
U
(
f
)
is an amplitude of a signal at a displacement
r
, D is a damping ratio,
β
is a geometrical spreading constant, T is a transmission coefficient, V is a wave velocity, f is a frequency;
- an amplitude
U
(
f
)
of a propagating wave is represented by an output voltage generated by a receiving bending element
Y
(
f
)
:
Y
f
=
H
R
(
f
)
U
(
f
)
(2)
- wherein
H
R
(
f
)
is a bender element sensor transfer function;
- carrying out two signal transmission processes, and offsetting a transfer function;
- wherein the two signal transmission processes comprises a forward transfer and a reverse transfer,
- when the forward transfer occurs
H
R
2
-
1
f
Y
2
a
f
=
H
R
1
-
1
f
Y
1
a
f
r
1
r
2
β
x
e
x
p
-
2
π
D
V
r
1
-
r
2
f
T
a
(3)
- when the reverse transfer occurs
H
R
1
-
1
f
Y
1
b
f
=
H
R
2
-
1
f
Y
2
b
f
r
1
r
2
β
x
e
x
p
-
2
π
D
V
r
1
-
r
2
f
T
b
(4)
- substituting formulas (2) (3) (4) into formula (1), wherein the transfer function of formulas (3) and (4) set off against each other to obtain a result:
ln
Y
1
a
f
Y
2
b
f
Y
2
a
f
Y
1
b
f
=
-
ln
r
1
r
2
2
β
T
a
T
b
+
4
π
D
V
r
1
-
r
2
f
- wherein,
T
a
and
T
b
are transmission coefficients of two conduction waves, is an output voltage of the two bending element sensors at a top level and a bottom level (Pages 1181 and 1184 – 1185, wherein equation (1) is Wang NPL equation [3], equation (2) is Wang NPL equation [9], equation (3) is Wang NPL equation [13a], equation (4) is Wang NPL equation [13b], and the final equation is Wang NPL equation [14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the spectral ratio technique taught by Wang NPL in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung. The motivation for doing so is to provide an indication of the damping ratio at small strain with enhanced accuracy, features which are born from the spectral-ratio method, as suggested by Wang NPL.
Considering claim 12, Wang fails to disclose the bending elements.
However, Chung teaches that the bending element sensors 410,420 at the top fo the support plate and the bottom of the pressurized plate are set near an axis of the sleeve (Figure 4e; [0050-51]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plurality of bending elements set near an axis of the sleeve, as taught by Chung, in the invention by Wang. The motivation for doing so is to measure a shear modulus in a micro-strain region appearing under planar strain conditions, as suggested by Chung ([0062], (Summary of Invention, Effects of the Invention)).
Considering claim 13, Wang discloses that the sleeve and the support plate are continuously sealed ([0022]), but fails to explicitly disclose that an O-ring is used to link the sleeve and the support plate.
However, Chung teaches the use of sealing O-rings to link a sleeve and a support plate (Figure 4e, 5; [0055]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the O-ring of Chung for the continuous sealing of Wang and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Given that both techniques serve to form a seal, they are considered functionally equivalent, and therefore interchangeable for the intended purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an O-ring to join the sleeve to the support plate in Wang, as taught by Chung.
Considering claim 15, Wang discloses that the displacement sensor is an LVDT displacement sensor, the bottom of the consolidation pressure device is connected to a top of the LVDT displacement sensor, and a bottom of the LVDT displacement sensor is connected to the top of the pressurized piston (Figure 1; [0014], [0053]).
Considering claim 16, Wang discloses that the bracket comprises a roof, a floor and a connecting rod, the connecting rod connects the roof and the floor in parallel, and the consolidation pressure device and the sleeve are set between the roof and the floor (Figure 1).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 10702374 A) in view of Chung et al. (KR 10-095532 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (NPL - Damping-ratio measurements by the spectral-ratio method), hereafter Wang NPL, as applied to claim 10 above, and furthermore in view of Xiao et al. (CN 112378793 A1).
Considering claim 11, the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung, fails to disclose that a pressure sensor is installed on both sides of the sleeve.
However, Wang NPL teaches the use of load cells measuring surface pressures on multiple sides of a sample sleeve (Figures 10-11; Pages 1190-1191). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a pressure sensor on both sides of the sleeve, as taught by Wang NPL, in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung. The motivation for doing so is to monitor stress value obtained within the system to monitor for a designate value being obtained, as suggested by Wang NPL (Page 1190, Sample installation and setup).
The invention by Wang, as modified by Chung and Wang NPL, fails to explicitly disclose a pressure sensor located at a bottom of the support plate, wherein the pressure sensor at the bottom of the support plate is located at a center of the support plate.
However, Xiao teaches the use of a lateral displacement sensors 9 on two sides of a sleeve 8 and a pressure sensor 13 at the bottom of a support plate 10 (Figure 2; [0027]; [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a pressure sensor at the bottom of the support plate, as taught by Xiao, in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung and Wang NPL. The motivation for doing so, as taught by Xiao, is to provide an indication of undrained hydraulic pressure and/or cyclic loads ([0035]).
Considering claim 14, the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung and Wang NPL, fails to explicitly disclose that the there are two support blocks at a bottom of the support plate, and the two support blocks and the support plate are eccentrically set.
However, Xiao suggests the use of two support blocks at a bottom of the support plate, wherein the two support blocks and the support plate are eccentrically set (Figure 2, annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
211
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 - Figure 1 of Application and Figure 2 of Xiao et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize support blocks under the support plate, as taught by Xiao, in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung and Wang NPL, to facilitate the use of the centrally located pressure sensor, according to the teachings of Xiao.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 10702374 A) in view of Chung et al. (KR 10-095532 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (NPL - Damping-ratio measurements by the spectral-ratio method), hereafter Wang NPL, as applied to claim 16 above, and furthermore in view of Klucha (US 2017/0059461 A1).
Considering claim 17, Wang, as modified by Chung and Wang NPL, fails to explicitly disclose that a latex film is set between the connecting rod and the floor.
However, Klucha teaches the use of a rubber floor mounts that separate the ground from a testing assembly ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a latex film set between the connecting rod and the floor, as taught by Klucha, in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung and Wang NPL. The motivation for doing so is to provide vibration/sound dampening, as suggested by Klucha ([0037]), thus reducing the environmental effects on the bending elements, as would be understood in the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 10702374 A) in view of Chung et al. (KR 10-095532 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (NPL - Damping-ratio measurements by the spectral-ratio method), hereafter Wang NPL, as applied to claim 16 above, and furthermore in view of Yang et al. (CN 111103185 A).
Considering claim 18, the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung and Wang NPL, discloses that the connecting rod is pneumatic, and therefore fails to disclose that the connecting rod is a screw connected with the roof by threads.
However, Yang teaches the use of a connecting rod 12 that is a screw connected with the roof 7 by threads (Figures 12-14; [0050]; [0056]; [0059]; [0069]; [0071]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the threaded connecting rod of Yang for the pneumatic rod of Wang, as modified by Chung and Wang NPL, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Given that both techniques, as stated in their respective inventions, allow movement of a piston head to compress a confined sample, they are considered functionally equivalent, and are therefore interchangeable for the intended purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a connecting rod having a screw connected with the roof by threads in the invention by Wang, as modified by Chung and Wang NPL, as taught by Yang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous claim objections, drawing objections and 112(b) rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 3 of the response filed on 1/14/2026, Applicant argues that Chung fails to disclose two bending element sensors located on a top of a support plate and a bottom of a pressurized piston.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Chung provides for the measurement of a deformation rate and not a damping ratio, thus providing a different technical field and measurement of different physical parameters compared to the claimed invention, which appears to be a minimalistic approach to a non-analogous art argument.
It is noted that claim 1 does not actually require the measurement of any damping ratio, but merely for a device that comprises elements of a damping ratio measuring device for consolidation equipment. Actual measurement of the damping ratio is not claimed until claim 10. 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., measuring a damping ratio) 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).
With respect to non-analogous art, MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) provides that analogous art may be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a different problem, or if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is related to the field of geotechnical engineering research, with a focus on damping ratio measurements ([0002] of originally filed Specification). Similarly, Chung is related to geotechnical research, with a focus on strain ([0018], Background Art). Therefore, both the claimed invention and the invention by Chung are in the same field of endeavor. Any non-analogous art arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
On pages 3-5 of the response, Applicant asserts that the bending element sensor of Chung are not on a support plate and a pressurized piston because they are “not installed on the device itself, but on the test specimen”. To this point, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to Figure 4E and [0050-51], at least, which clearly show the bender elements 410,420 located on upper and lower plates prior to the soil sample being placed within the testing device.
With respect to [0035], the Applicant is confusing the term “specimen” in Chung to be the material worked upon by the invention. However, the “specimen” of Chung is actually the entire mold including the lower support plate, side plates, two front and two rear plates, at least, in accordance with the drawings and Abstract. Specifically, the end of [0035] states that the bender elements on the lower portion of the sample may be installed on the upper surface of the support plate and the bender element installed at an upper portion of the sample may be provided within a lower surface of a separate cap capable of covering a soil sample. It is quite clear that the bender elements are mounted to the device, not the soil sample in the device. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
With respect to [0037], [0045], [0049] and [0061], Applicant’s arguments related to the LVDTs are unrelated to the bender element arguments and are unpersuasive.
Overall Applicant’s argument that the bender elements are located on the soil sample itself, and not on the device are factually incorrect based on the cited sections and the figures of Chung. Perhaps Applicant is confusing the terms “specimen”, “sample” and “soil”? It is clear from Chung that the invention relates to a physical device having sensors, whereby a soil sample is placed inside oof the physical device. Regardless, without looking to the text of the reference, Figure 4E alone shows that the sensors are fitted to the physical structure of the device. Therefore, this entire argument is unpersuasive because the bender elements are mounted on the physical structure of the device.
Considering the argument against claim 3 on page 5 of the response, Applicant’s raw assertion that the bender elements are not located near an axis of the sleeve is unsupported by any actual argument. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Considering the argument against claim 10 on pages 5-6 of the response, Applicant’s continued assertion that the bender elements of combination of Wang, as modified by Chung, are not arranged with two on the top plate and two on the bottom plate has already been addressed above with respect to claim 1, and this argument was found to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, duplicating the same argument here is still unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 February 6, 2026