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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 - 11, filed 09/19/2025, with respect to the objection of the specification and drawings as well as rejection of 35 USC 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification and drawing objections and the 35 USC 112 (b) rejections of 06/30/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the phrase “the controller unit” in line 19. Examiner suggests to replace the aforementioned limitation with “the controller unit housing” which is in line with the terminology used in the claim.
As to Claim 15, the instant claim recites the phrase “the controller unit” in line 12. Examiner suggests to replace the aforementioned limitation with “the controller unit housing” which is in line with the terminology used in the claim.
As to Claim 19, the instant claim recites the phrase “the balloon inflatable” in line 9. Examiner suggests to replace the aforementioned limitation with “the inflatable balloon” which is in line with the terminology used in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 8, 14 – 16, 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL titled “Evaluation of Unbound Pavement Layers Moduli Using the Miniaturized Pressuremeter Test” by Alaa Mohammed Shaban dated May 2016 (hereinafter “Shaban”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,776,583 B2 to Marchetti (hereinafter “Marchetti”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Shaban teaches a compact portable handheld lightweight soil strength and stiffness pressuremeter system for determining soil strengths, stiffness and deformations of soil without using radiation (see description at page 71, introduction section 4-1 describing miniaturized pressuremeter test having a small inflatable probe capable of measuring field stress-strain response of soil including elastic deformation moduli, soil pressure and lift-off pressure along with soil stress-strain models) comprising of:
a controller unit housing (see control unit which includes a housing as seen at Fig. 4.5 at page 76, see also description at page 76 describing the control unit of the PENCEL PMT being used in the research which is housed in a plastic case) which houses a computer with a data acquisition card to record data of pressures and volumes (see Fig. 4.5 illustrating the automated control unit of pressuremeter test at page 76, see also description at section 4-2-4 at pages 77 – 78 describing the automated pressuremeter software used with the control unit which provides recordings of the applied pressures and injected volumes during the MPMT test, hence reading on the invention as claimed), tubing with connectors to a water fluid supply with pump (see components of the control unit at page 76 and illustrated at Fig. 4.5 which includes cylindrical piston assembly, several tubes and tubing fittings).
Even though Shaban teaches a control housing which houses several components as described above, Shaban is silent regarding the control unit housing an electric motor and rechargeable battery power supply.
Marchetti, in the field of an in-situ device for soil investigation, teaches a controller unit housing (see cylindrical first part 1A, Figs. 1, 2, see Col. 2, lines 40 – 58) which houses an electric motor (see driver member for example linear actuator 29 comprising an electric motor 29A, see Col. 3, lines 21 – 35) and rechargeable battery power supply (see electrical powering means 5, Fig. 2, see Col. 2, lines 34 – 35, Col. 3, lines 42 – 44). Note that Marchetti also uses a housing which houses a computer with memory to record measurements (see control unit 4, Fig. 2, see Col. 2, lines 20 – 33, in addition note that the control unit 4, Fig 2 can be microprocessor type having memory means 6 and interior timer means 30 among other circuitries, thus capable of recording the data see Col. 3, lines 45 – 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the controller unit housing which houses electric motor of Marchetti into Shaban, in order to efficiently and reliably actuate the piston. The modification allows the device to be highly precise and improve repeatability.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the controller unit housing which houses rechargeable battery power supply of Marchetti into Shaban, in order to reduce cost and reduce waste. The modification further provides convenience of use.
Shaban in view of Marchetti as modified above further teaches;
the controller unit housing includes a handheld transport container with a handle (see Fig. 4.5 at page 76 of Shaban illustrating the control unit of the PMT and/or see housing/casing 1, Figs. 1, 2, see also Fig. 5 of Marchetti illustrating handling means),
a cylindrical ground engaging probe, extending below the controller unit housing having a balloon to be placed into soil (see Figs. 4.2 – 4.4 at pages 72 – 75 of Shaban illustrating the MPMT probe comprising a rubber membrane which is inflatable and the probe having threaded ends for connecting to the control unit);
at least one USB or similar port on the controller unit housing to allow the data related to the recorded pressures and volumes to be downloaded from the computer (see 34 – 36, Fig. 2 of Marchetti illustrating apertures/ports, see Col. 3, lines 52 – 56 of Marchetti describing the plurality of apertures “for connecting a conventional on-off unit 34 (FIG. 2) for the device, a conventional inlet 35 for a recharging member for the powering means 5, and a port 36 for data exchange with the outside”, thus reading on the invention as claimed);
a side port on the controller unit housing for recharging the battery power supply (see aperture 35, Fig. 2, see Col. 3, lines 52 – 56 of Marchetti describing the plurality of apertures and a conventional inlet 35 for a recharging member for the powering means 5); and
a variable-length conduit (see several tubing (i.e., conduit) at Fig. 4.5 at page 76 of Shaban) attached between the pump in the controller unit and the balloon (see arrangement at Fig. 4.5 of Shaban), wherein the electric motor pumps water fluid through the conduit into the balloon (see description at page 76 of Shaban describing the control unit which is used to inject water to inflate the miniaturized probe, see also modification of Shaban in view of Marchetti above), which is inflated uniformly in a radial direction (see page 72, line 2 – 4 of Shaban describing the probe having a groove which is “made to facilitate constant distribution of injected water and let the membrane uniformly expand”, hence reading on the invention as claimed) up to approximately 150 cubic centimeters and deflated from the fluid supply (see page 79 of Shaban describing inflating the MPMT probe to 60 cm3,as well as deflating the probe at specific volume increments to assess the effect of different strain and stress levels of soil, see also step 8 at page 83 of Shaban describing inflating the probe until the maximum hydraulic pressure is injected which is equivalent to 60 cm3, hence reading on the invention as claimed, hence reading on the invention as claimed), and the data is provided to the computer which calculates soil stiffness, soil strength, and soil deformations of the soil, without using radiation (see results and analysis of data obtained from the measurements as described at pages 81 – 101 of Shaban, in particular to the data described at page 83 of Shaban including volume and pressure data).
Even though Shaban in view of Marchetti teach controller unit housing including the container as described above, Shaban in view of Marchetti is silent regarding the container having dimensions of up to approximately 8 inches by approximately 18 inches by approximately 24 inches, the container includes an overall weight up to approximately 35 pounds.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a container with the claimed dimensions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, note that the claim only requires “up to”, thus Marchetti’s compact and portable device having small size would read on the invention as claimed (see also applicant’s arguments at page 11).
Regarding Claim 19, Shaban teaches a method for determining soil strengths and stiffnesses and deformations of soil without emitting radiation into surrounding soil with a portable handheld pressuremeter system (see description at page 71, introduction section 4-1 describing miniaturized pressuremeter test having a small inflatable probe capable of measuring field stress-strain response of soil including elastic deformation moduli, soil pressure and lift-off pressure along with soil stress-strain models) comprising the steps of:
providing a cylindrical ground engaging probe having an inflatable balloon member to be placed into soil (see Figs. 4.2 – 4.4 at pages 72 – 75 of Shaban illustrating the MPMT probe comprising a rubber membrane which is inflatable and the probe having threaded ends for connecting to the control unit);
providing a controller unit housing (see control unit which includes a housing as seen at Fig. 4.5 at page 76, see also description at page 76 describing the control unit of the PENCEL PMT being used in the research which is housed in a plastic case) which houses tubing with connectors to a fluid supply with pump (see components of the control unit at page 76 and illustrated at Fig. 4.5 which includes cylindrical piston assembly, several tubes and tubing fittings), and computer to record data of pressures and volumes (see Fig. 4.5 illustrating the automated control unit of pressuremeter test at page 76, see also description at section 4-2-4 at pages 77 – 78 describing the automated pressuremeter software used with the control unit which provides recordings of the applied pressures and injected volumes during the MPMT test, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Shaban teaches a control housing which houses several components as described above, Shaban is silent regarding the control unit housing a motor and rechargeable battery power supply.
Marchetti, in the field of an in-situ device for soil investigation, teaches a controller unit housing (see cylindrical first part 1A, Figs. 1, 2, see Col. 2, lines 40 – 58) which houses a motor (see driver member for example linear actuator 29 comprising an electric motor 29A, see Col. 3, lines 21 – 35) and rechargeable battery power supply (see electrical powering means 5, Fig. 2, see Col. 2, lines 34 – 35, Col. 3, lines 42 – 44). Note that Marchetti also uses a housing which houses a computer with memory to record measurements (see control unit 4, Fig. 2, see Col. 2, lines 20 – 33, in addition note that the control unit 4, Fig 2 can be microprocessor type having memory means 6 and interior timer means 30 among other circuitries, thus capable of recording the data see Col. 3, lines 45 – 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the controller unit housing which houses a motor of Marchetti into Shaban, in order to efficiently and reliably actuate the piston. The modification allows the device to be highly precise and improve repeatability.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the controller unit housing which houses rechargeable battery power supply of Marchetti into Shaban, in order to reduce cost and reduce waste. The modification further provides convenience of use.
Shaban in view of Marchetti as modified above further teaches;
pumping water fluid through a conduit (see several tubing (i.e., conduit) at Fig. 4.5 at page 76 of Shaban) into the balloon inflatable member (see description at page 76 of Shaban describing the control unit which is used to inject water to inflate the miniaturized probe), which is inflated uniformly in a radial direction (see page 72, line 2 – 4 of Shaban describing the probe having a groove which is “made to facilitate constant distribution of injected water and let the membrane uniformly expand”, hence reading on the invention as claimed) up to approximately 150 cubic centimeters and deflated from the water fluid supply (see page 79 of Shaban describing inflating the MPMT probe to 60 cm3, as well as deflating the probe at specific volume increments to assess the effect of different strain and stress levels of soil, see also step 8 at page 83 of Shaban describing inflating the probe until the maximum hydraulic pressure is injected which is equivalent to 60 cm3, hence reading on the invention as claimed); and
sensing the data from the probe to provide soil stiffness, soil strength, and soil deformations of the soil, without emitting any radiation into the soil (see results and analysis of data obtained from the measurements as described at pages 81 – 101 of Shaban, in particular to the data described at page 83 of Shaban including volume and pressure data).
Regarding Claim 2, Shaban in view of Marchetti as modified above teaches wherein the conduit includes: tubing (see several tubing in Fig. 4.5 of Shaban and/or see Col. 2, lines 48 – 52 of Marchetti describing the connections of the parts 1A and 1B being through tubular connections, see also Col. 3, lines 12 – 20 describing the conduits such as 22A being a tube).
Regarding Claim 3, Shaban in view of Marchetti as modified above teaches tubing (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Shaban in view of Marchetti is silent regarding the tubing including lengths between approximately 30 to approximately 5 feet long.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tubing with approximately 30 to 5 feet long as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 4, Shaban in view of Marchetti as modified above teaches wherein the electric motor includes: stepper or linear motors (see Col. 3, lines 22 – 30 of Marchetti describing the driver 29 as being a linear electrical actuator 29).
Regarding Claim 5, Shaban in view of Marchetti as modified above teaches further comprising: a quick connect connection between the variable length conduit and the housing (see several valves and tubing fittings of the control unit at Fig. 4.5 page 76 of Shaban as well as “connector” end of the MPMT probe at Fig. 4.4 page 75 of Shaban and/or see Col. 2, lines 48 – 52 of Marchetti describing the connections of the parts 1A and 1B being through tubular connections, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 6, Shaban in view of Marchetti as modified above teaches wherein the pump includes: a cylinder and piston (see cylindrical piston assembly at Fig. 4.5 of Shaban at page 76 and/or see means 3 of Marchetti for generating fluid pressure which comprises cylinder 30A, piston 28, Fig. 2, see Col. 3, lines 21 – 32).
Regarding Claim 8, Shaban in view of Marchetti as modified above teaches further comprising: a switch, on the housing, which when activated allows the motor to inject fluid into the probe while soil resistance pressures and balloon volumes are recorded (see modification of Shaban in view of Marchetti above, see recording of data including soil resistance pressures and balloon volumes as described at steps 5 – 10 at pages 81 – 8 of Shaban and see Col. 2, lines 21 – 39 of Marchetti describing the device comprising the electrical powering means 5 to power the dilatometer, the compression means and the control unit which operates the dilatometer and allows in situ measurement of the soil properties, see also Col. 3, lines 52 – 56 of Marchetti describing apertures 34 – 36, Fig. 1 and in particular to aperture 34 for connecting a conventional on-off unit 34, Fig. 2, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claims 14, 16 and 20, Shaban in view of Marchetti as modified above teaches wherein the data includes: soil resistance pressures (in Units which includes pounds per square inch or kilonewtons kN per meter squared) (see Fig. 6.11 – 6/13 at page 154 - 156 of Shaban illustrating dynamic modulus, Lift off pressure and net-limit pressure of soils in units of psi) and balloon volumes (in Units which includes cubic inches or cubic centimeters) are recorded (see step 5 at page 81 of Shaban describing curve of pressure versus volume is obtained by recording the pressure at each 5 cm3 of water being injected, see also steps 7 – 10 at pages 82 – 83 of Shaban describing volume recording in units of cubic centimeters, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant prior art:
Comeau (U.S. No. 3,858,441) teaches a system for the in situ measurement of the mechanical properties for soils of foundations. The system consists of a probe means with a generally cylindrical inflatable membrane and a lowering tube for lowering the probe into a bore hole in the ground where the mechanical properties of the soils are to be measured.
Yvon Marie-Xavier Broise et al. (U.S. No. 3,442,122) teaches testing probe of the type used for measuring the bearing capacities of soils and includes a tube which is insertable in a bore hole of given diameter. The tube is diametrically expandable under pressure to a diameter larger than the diameter of the hole and includes a measuring device having an electrical pulse generating device for measuring the diametric expansion of the tube under a given pressure. Thus, the resistance of the soil at that location can be determined.
Sano et al. (U.S. No. 4,545,702) teaches a boring-injection device capable of performing ground improvement, a method for improving the ground by means of the device, and also a method for investigating the states of the ground before and after the improvement such as a method for measuring the permeability of the ground site, a method for measuring the strength of the ground site, and a method for measuring mud flush of the ground site, by means of the device.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855