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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein no horizontal movement of the surface area results from the lifting routine”. This limitation renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to how it is possible to reduce horizontal movement entirely without some additional equipment or support (dampers, lateral borders around the horizontal area, etc.).
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin (US 2017/0016765) in view of Eddie et al. (US 2019/0186095).
Regarding claim 1, 7, 9-11, 18, 19, Baldwin discloses a method for the injection of injection material for the uplift of a surface area, the method comprising: selecting a target subterranean depth/stratum for depositing the injection material; wherein the subterranean depth/stratum; preparing a wellbore extending from the ground surface to the target subterranean depth/stratum via utilization of a drill string; wherein a directional drill is used for creating a horizontal wellbore; detecting the position of the directional drill; performing a lifting routine, the lifting routine comprising: injecting a slurry comprising materials suspended in a carrier liquid into the injection well lifting the surface area to a target lift elevation by depositing the injection material to the subterranean depth/stratum resulting in an uplifting force [Paragraphs 5, 33, 40 & 52; Figure 1].
Baldwin fails to disclose utilizing sensors and surface indicators to provide real-time data to measure the rise in elevation of the surface area via surface indicators and monitor the installation process as a whole.
Eddie teaches a system and method for real-time displacement control using expansive grouting techniques wherein sensors and surface indicators are utilized to provide real-time data to measure the rise in elevation of the surface area via surface indicators and monitor the installation process as a whole [Paragraphs 39-71 & 134-151; Figures 1-8 & 27].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Baldwin by adding the sensing and real-time technology as described by Eddie to reduce cost by not over-installing grout where it’s not needed, and to improve quality by knowing where to add grout where needed.
Regarding claims 2-4, although not explicitly taught in the combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize horizontal surface movement as vertical movement is the intended goal and that could cause an expensive mess to clean up or damage adjacent structures and utilities.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 8 and 12, although not explicitly detailed in the combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the procedure based on the site specific soil/rock/water conditions including the injection rates and quantities to save time and money.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, although not explicitly detailed in the combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be required by OSHA or the EPA to seal the wellbore at the ground surface and that the injected material would essentially constitute an entirely new type of stratum.
Regarding claims 14, although the combination is silent as to the exact amount of lifting, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to raise over 6 inches based on a number of site specific factors including soil/rock/water conditions, the building itself etc.
Regarding claim 16, although the combination is silent as to the grout specifically consisting of gypsum or clay, Baldwin does disclose it to be a low mobility cement grout [Abstract] which one of ordinary skill in the art would contain gypsum and/or clay.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carter, Jr (US 2002/0009331), Allen, III et al. (US 2022/0169917), Dusterhoft et al. (US 2014/0262232) and Eddie et al. (WO 2019/114998 A1) discloses apparatus and methods of injecting additives into soil and/or increasing the height of a ground surface, similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619