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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 June 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 August 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson US 2002/0095984.
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a system for falling head infiltrometer testing comprising an infiltrometer (constant-head soil permeameter, fig. 1) defining an infiltrometer passage within (see for example, fig. 2B) having a first infiltrometer end (bottom) and a second infiltrometer end (top) which can be inserted into a soil at a borehole bottom of the borehole 11 to an insertion depth. Johnson further discloses a valve 32 disposed proximate the first infiltrometer end (bottom end) and wherein the valve is positionable between a first valve position that retains water within the infiltrometer passage (fig. 5b) and a second valve position that releases water from the infiltrometer passage (fig. 5a). Johnson does not explicitly teach the infiltrometer being configured for coupling to a drill stem as claimed. Johnson does however disclose the device as coupled to a cable 12 for insertion and removal.
Bradbury teaches a system and method for determining a permeability of a borehole in which a valved element 15 is inserted into a borehole and at end of a drill stem (drill pipe 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Bradbury with those of Johnson in order to incorporate the infiltrometer of Johnson on the end of a drill stem to allow for the same system to be used for drilling and measuring of permeability.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson teaches a system for falling head infiltrometer testing comprising an infiltrometer (constant-head soil permeameter, fig. 1) defining an infiltrometer passage within (see for example, fig. 2B) having a first infiltrometer end (bottom) and a second infiltrometer end (top), the infiltrometer passage containing water (abstract), which is inserted into a soil at a borehole bottom of the borehole 11 to an insertion depth (the depth is below the surface of the ground as seen in fig. 1 which corresponds to an insertion depth within the soil). Johnson further discloses a valve 32 disposed proximate the first infiltrometer end (bottom end) and wherein the valve is positionable between a first valve position that retains water within the infiltrometer passage (fig. 5b) and a second valve position that releases water from the infiltrometer passage (fig. 5a) upon insertion of the first infiltrometer end into the soil to the soil depth (water can be released at the bottom of the borehole at the insertion depth which does not need to occur automatically but rather is manually released). Johnson does not explicitly teach the infiltrometer being configured for coupling to a drill stem as claimed. Johnson does however disclose the device as coupled to a cable 12 for insertion and removal.
Bradbury teaches a system and method for determining a permeability of a borehole in which a valved element 15 is inserted into a borehole and at end of a drill stem (drill pipe 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Bradbury with those of Johnson in order to incorporate the infiltrometer of Johnson on the end of a drill stem to allow for the same system to be used for drilling and measuring of permeability.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Bradbury as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Schwidder et al. US 2019/0033196.
Regarding claim 3, Johnson and Bradbury teach the claimed invention with the exception of the level detector removably placeable within the infiltrometer passage and operable to detect a water surface level within the infiltrometer passage as function of time. Schwidder teaches an infiltrometer system which includes a removable level detector to detect a water surface level within the infiltrometer passage (paragraph 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Schwidder with those of Johnson and Bradbury to add a similar level detector in order to monitor if the water level within the borehole is changing over time to better determine a permeability.
Regarding claim 8, Johnson and Bradbury teach the claimed invention with the exception of the communication pathway claimed. Schwidder teaches an infiltrometer system which includes a communication pathway (paragraph 0040) to communicate data between a measuring device and a computer, the device being a level detector (paragraph 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Johnson and Bradbury with those of Schwidder in order to provide computer control and analysis through the system via similar communication means.
Regarding claim 10, Johnson and Bradbury teach the claimed invention with the exception of the level detector removably placeable within the infiltrometer passage and operable to detect a water surface level within the infiltrometer passage as function of time. Schwidder teaches an infiltrometer system which includes a removable level detector to detect a water surface level within the infiltrometer passage (paragraph 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Schwidder with those of Johnson and Bradbury to add a similar level detector in order to monitor if the water level within the borehole is changing over time to better determine a permeability.
Regarding claim 16, Johnson and Bradbury teach the claimed invention with the exception of the communication pathway claimed. Schwidder teaches an infiltrometer system which includes a communication pathway (paragraph 0040) to communicate data between a measuring device and a computer, the device being a level detector (paragraph 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Johnson and Bradbury with those of Schwidder in order to provide computer control and analysis through the system via similar communication means.
Regarding claim 17, the data communicated by the communication pathway of Schwidder is indicative of a plurality of water surface levels at a corresponding plurality of times as it can contain water level data which would change over time.
Regarding claim 18, the system when combined uses the data to determine values such as porosity or intrinsic permeability as claimed (Schwidder, paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Bradbury as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Stewart US 2023/0031721.
Regarding claim 4, Johnson and Bradbury teach the claimed invention with the exception of the camera in the manner disclosed. Stewart teaches a drilling device in which a camera 86 can be mounted on a drill string 10 (paragraph 0218). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon the teachings of Stewart to similarly add a camera to the infiltrometer of Johnson and Bradbury to view the operation within a hole where visual monitoring would otherwise not be possible. Stewart does not explicitly disclose the camera as being “external” as claimed, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the camera at any location where monitoring is desired, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The camera would then be configured to view the insertion into the soil surface as claimed, due to its location.
Regarding claim 6, Johnson and Bradbury teach the claimed invention with the exception of the camera in the manner disclosed. Stewart teaches a drilling device in which a camera 86 can be mounted in drill string 10 (paragraph 0218). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon the teachings of Stewart to similarly add a camera to the infiltrometer of Johnson and Bradbury to view the operation within a hole where visual monitoring would otherwise not be possible. The camera would then be configured to view the water surface level within as claimed, due to its location.
Regarding claim 11, Johnson and Bradbury teach the claimed invention with the exception of the camera in the manner disclosed. Stewart teaches a drilling device in which a camera 86 can be mounted in drill string 10 (paragraph 0218). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon the teachings of Stewart to similarly add a camera to the infiltrometer of Johnson and Bradbury to view the operation within a hole where visual monitoring would otherwise not be possible. The camera would then be configured to view the water surface level within as claimed, due to its location.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson and Bradbury teach the claimed invention with the exception of the camera in the manner disclosed. Stewart teaches a drilling device in which a camera 86 can be mounted on a drill string 10 (paragraph 0218). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon the teachings of Stewart to similarly add a camera to the infiltrometer of Johnson and Bradbury to view the operation within a hole where visual monitoring would otherwise not be possible. Stewart does not explicitly disclose the camera as being “external” as claimed, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the camera at any location where monitoring is desired, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The camera would then be configured to view the insertion into the soil surface as claimed, due to its location.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson, Bradbury and Stewart as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Parmeshwar et al. US 2016/0369619.
Regarding claim 5, Johnson, Bradbury and Stewart disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the marker affixed externally to the infiltrometer and viewable by the external video camera, the market indicative of the first infiltrometer end being inserted into the soil to the insertion depth. Parmeshwar teaches a drilling system including a drill string with a camera 504 which can monitor external markers 502 to determine a depth of the device (paragraph 0082). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Parmeshwar with the remaining art in order to monitor a position of the infiltrometer as it is installed by using markers arranged in any desired manner to ensure proper placement occurs.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Bradbury as applied to claims 9 above, and further in view of Maggio US 2015/0233075.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Johnson and Bradbury teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the casing as a hollow stem auger with the infiltrometer disposed therein. Maggio teaches a drilling system and method which uses a hollow stem auger to provide access to a borehole (paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Maggio with those of Johnson and Bradbury to use a similar hollow stem auger for drilling of the claimed system to allow the system to be placed without soil surrounding loosening.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7 and 13 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 2, the prior art does not explicitly teach the valve wherein the valve is positionable from a first position to a second position by contact of the valve with a soil surface of the soil at the borehole bottom of the borehole upon insertion of the first infiltrometer end of the infiltrometer into the soil. The valve operation of the prior art as detailed above is not dependent on contact of the valve with the soil surface.
With regard to claims 7 and 13, the claims each recite additional limitations of a tool to remove soil from the borehole bottom of the borehole, the tool comprising: a shaft configurable to extend at least a length of the borehole; a blade affixed in spiral shaped disposition to the shaft proximate a shaft end of the shaft and having a diameter generally commensurate with a diameter of a borehole passage; a blade end of a blade portion disposed nearest the shaft end formed as an edge to scoop soil proximate a soil surface onto a surface of the blade by rotation of the blade; and a blade end of a blade portion disposed furthest from the shaft end formed as a flange to retain soil upon the surface of the blade. These limitations are not found in the prior art when combined with the infiltrometer of independent claims 1 or 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights