DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, it appears “second hold” should read –second hole--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asplin (8,186,907) in view of Mack, II (7,461,997) (“Mack”).
Regarding claim 1, Asplin teaches a slab lifting and leveling method, comprising: in a first injection, injecting dried sand and pressurized air underneath the slab (82) (Column 5, Lines 30-55); after the first injection. Asplin fails to teach a second injection. Mack teaches a method for lifting a slab including injecting sand (68) below a slab (66) and then performing a second injection that includes injecting water (42) underneath the slab for a predetermined period of time and at the end of the predetermined period of time, stopping the water injection (when operator moves control handle to central and rearward position). Mack teaches that sand is injected first followed by the flow of water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a water injection in the method of Asplin as taught by Mack as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. The combination of Asplin and Mack would inherently result in a third injection that includes injecting additional dried sand and pressurized air underneath the slab in a scenario where additional sand is needed to level the slab since Asplin teaches the operator repeats the process until the slab is leveled (Column 2, Lines 50-53).
Regarding claim 2, Asplin as modified by Mack teaches the pressurized air in the first injection and in the third injection has a first pressure (air pressure).
Regarding claim 4, Asplin as modified by Mack teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the predetermined period of time is 2-6 seconds. The examiner first notes that since the injection is controlled by the operator, the time period of injection is capable of being performed in the range of 2-6 seconds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to inject the particulate of Asplin for a predetermined time period of 2-6 seconds, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Asplin as modified by Mack teaches drilling a hole (72) in the slab; and performing the first injection, the second injection, and the third injection via the hole (via 26).
Regarding claim 7, Asplin as modified by Mack teaches the slab is a concrete slab.
Regarding claim 8, Asplin teaches a concrete slab lifting and leveling method, comprising: in a first injection, injecting dried sand and pressurized air underneath the concrete slab slab (82) (Column 5, Lines 30-55); after the first injection. Asplin fails to teach a second injection. Mack teaches a method for lifting a slab including ; wetting the dried sand (68) that has been injected underneath the concrete slab (66) in the first injection by injecting water (42) underneath the concrete slab for a predetermined period of time and at the end of the predetermined period of time, stopping the water injection (when operator moves control handle to central and rearward position). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a water injection in the method of Asplin as taught by Mack as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. The combination of Asplin and Mack would inherently result in a second injection that includes injecting additional dried sand and pressurized air underneath the slab in a scenario where additional sand is needed to level the slab since Asplin teaches the operator repeats the process until the slab is leveled (Column 2, Lines 50-53).
Regarding claim 9, Asplin as modified by Mack teaches the pressurized air in the first injection and in the second injection has a first pressure.
Regarding claim 11, Asplin as modified by Mack teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the predetermined period of time is 2-6 seconds. The examiner first notes that since the injection is controlled by the operator, the time period of injection is capable of being performed in the range of 2-6 seconds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to inject the particulate of Asplin for a predetermined time period of 2-6 seconds, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, Asplin as modified by Mack teaches drilling a hole (72) in the slab; and performing the first injection, the second injection, and the third injection via the hole (via 26).
Regarding claim 14, Asplin teaches a slab lifting and leveling system, comprising: an injection manifold (26) having an injection outlet port, a first inlet port (24) and a second inlet port (58), the injection outlet port (54) is fluidly connected to the first inlet port and to the second inlet port; a source of dried sand (16) and pressurized air fluidly connected to the first inlet port that supplies dried sand and pressurized air to the first inlet port (54); a first valve (78) that is located to control the flow of the dried sand and the pressurized air from the source of dried sand and pressurized air to the first inlet port (54). Asplin fails to teach a second injection. Mack teaches a method for lifting a slab including a first port (48) that controls the flow of dried sand, a source of water (42) fluidly connected to the second inlet port (54) that supplies water to the second inlet port; and a second valve (36) that is located to control the flow of the water from the source of water to the second inlet port. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a water injection in the method of Asplin as taught by Mack as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. The combination of Asplin and Mack would inherently result in a second injection that includes injecting additional dried sand and pressurized air underneath the slab in a scenario where additional sand is needed to level the slab since Asplin teaches the operator repeats the process until the slab is leveled (Column 2, Lines 50-53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13 and 15-17 are 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. The prior art fails to teach a second inlet port for delivering water and pressurized air at a second pressure greater than the first pressure of the first port that delivers sand and pressurized air. While the prior art does teach drilling more than one hole, it does not fairly suggest delivering sand in one port and water in a second port.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Doan teaches a method for raising a slab by injecting particulate below the slab.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 February 3, 2026