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 .
In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10 for further examination. As a result, claims 4-5 and 9 are withdrawn from further prosecution.
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 1, 2, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
Regarding to claims 1 and 10:
The claims cite the steps/acts of “establishing a relationship of a stress and a strain”, “establishing a damage evolution equation”, and “fitting a relationship equation” without further defining the connection of these steps/acts to the later steps/acts in the claim body, particularly to the establishing of the damage constitutive model, in order for these steps/acts to contribute to the prediction of the pile tip resistance defined in the claim preamble.
In addition, the claims are also unclear on what to base on to establish a damage constitutive model for further defining the correspondence between the confining pressure and the stress peak.
As a result of such unclear above, the scope of the claims can’t be fully determined at this stage of the prosecution.
Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 107515291).
Zhang discloses a method for predicting pile tip resistance based on a damage constitutive model of mudstone, comprising:
obtaining mechanical parameters of mudstone according to a triaxial compression test,
and defining a damage variable (Abstract: Developing three-axis compression test);
according to a strain equivalence principle, establishing a relationship of a stress and a
strain with the damage variable, establishing a damage evolution equation in combination with
the mechanical parameters of the mudstone, and fitting a relationship equation of the damage
variable, a deviatoric stress, and a confining pressure (page 3, lines 26-38: Teaching the relationship of the stress-strain with the damage variable D. Page 3, lines 42-44: Teaching the damage evolution equation);
establishing a damage constitutive model of mudstone, and calculating parameters of the damage constitutive model in combination with results of the triaxial test to obtain a
correspondence between a confining pressure and a stress peak; and obtaining force data of the mudstone at a pile tip, and substituting the force data as a confining pressure into the correspondence to obtain pile tip resistance (Abstract: The damage constitutive model is established under the confining pressure effect. Page 5, line 40 to page 6, line 2: The constitutive model is established based on the strain equivalent principle in consideration the confining pressure, rock damage variable, axial stress (stress peak)).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights