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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed April 24th, 2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 5, 7-8, and 14 have been amended; claims 6 and 20-21 have been cancelled; claims 1-5, and 7-18 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed April 24th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Landskroon et al. (US 20200080270 A1, “Landskroon”) in view of Jongsma et al. (WO 2021006735 A2, “Jongsma”) and Kverneland et al. (NO 20200039 A1, “Kverneland”).
On Pg. 4 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claim 1, all pending dependent claims are in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claim 1, above, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained under new grounds as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Similarly claims 1-4, 8, 10, and 13-18 stand rejected, and claims 5, 7, 9, and 11-12 stand objected to.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landskroon et al. (US 20200080270 A1, “Landskroon”) in view of Jongsma et al. (WO 2021006735 A2, “Jongsma”) and Kverneland et al. (NO 20200039 A1, “Kverneland”).
Regarding claim 1, Landskroon discloses system for assessing soil properties, comprising one or more test tools, wherein a test tool of the one or more test tools includes:
an elongated housing including a first end and a second end opposite the first end;
a sensing section including: a cone penetrometer test (CPT) tool protruding from the first end of the housing ([0041], measuring probe comprises a conical nose section for measuring cone tip resistance) ([0037], soil probing device comprises a probing rod and a measuring probe. The probing rod and measuring probe are pushed downwardly into the ground),
a first seismic sensor housed in the housing and configured to sense seismic waves([0050], measuring probe includes two detectors that is designed to detect generated compression and shear waves that have travelled through the ground layers)(Fig. 6, [0034], soil probing device may contain two detectors and two generators),
one or more circuits housed in the housing and configured to process output of the first seismic sensor ([0042], inside the measuring probe is a CPU for processing data output by the detector),
And at least one seismic source configured to generate the seismic waves (Fig. 6 (right side), [0050]-[0051], instead of using one common generator for both the compression or shear waves, it is possible to use a distinctive generator for the compression waves and a distinctive generator for the shear waves… For the generators (See Fig. 2 (7)), a large number of possible sources may be used such as coils/hammers, vibration motors, etc.)
Landskroon fails to teach
memory housed in the housing and coupled to the one or more circuits and configured to store data sensed by the sensing section;
and a power source housed in the housing configured to provide power for the sensing section.
Wherein the system further comprises: a drill configured to deploy the test tool;
And at least one seismic source configured to generate the seismic waves,
wherein the at least one seismic source is mounted to a drill
Jongsma teaches
memory housed in the housing and coupled to the one or more circuits and configured to store data sensed by the sensing section ([0134], memory may comprise different types of sub-modules such as RAM for storing temporary data as well as a local memory);
and a power source housed in the housing configured to provide power for the sensing section ([0056] cone rod unit comprises a power source).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Landskroon, to include the teachings of Jongsma to yield a cone penetration test tool that has an internal power source and memory in order to allow the system to be utilized in a variety of environments where an external power source may be unavailable or impractical to include. Making such a modification amounts to using combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma fail to teach
Wherein the system further comprises: a drill configured to deploy the test tool;
wherein the at least one seismic source is mounted to a drill
Kverneland teaches
Wherein the system further comprises: a drill configured to deploy the test tool (Fig. 1, pg. 8, geotechnical drill pipe (2) includes a combined drilling and cone penetration BHA (1a) and drill-bit (11))(pg. 8, Fig. 5a illustrates combined BHA (1a) with a drill bit (1c) and cone penetrometer (1b));
The combination of Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland yields a cone penetration test tool with a built-in seismic generators, internal power source, and memory module that is deployed via a combined drilling and cone penetration bottom hole assembly that includes a drill pipe and drill bit, therefore the combination teaches “the at least one seismic source is mounted to a drill”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Landskroon, as modified in view of the teachings of Jongsma, to further include the teachings of Kverneland to yield a cone penetrometer test tool that is deployed via a drill bit in order to reach greater depths and perform seismic measurements as well as soil measurement tests in a variety of environments which may otherwise not be feasible. Making such a modification amounts to applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
Regarding claim 2, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 1. Jongsma further teaches
The sensing section further comprises: a communications interface coupled to the one or more circuits and disposed at the second end of the housing ([0053] control unit further comprises a communications unit that may enable wired or wireless communication).
Regarding claim 3, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 2. Jongsma further teaches
the communications interface comprises a light transceiver, and the second end of the housing comprises an opening through which the light transceiver transmits and receives light(Implicit, [0053] control unit further comprises a communications unit that may enable wired or wireless communication. Wireless communications units may include optical communications)(Fig. 1B illustrates control unit (150) located at a second end of test string (100)).
Regarding claim 8, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 1. Landskroon further teaches
the at least one seismic source comprises a first seismic source configured to generate P-waves and a second seismic source configured to generate S-waves (Fig. 6 (right side), [0050]-[0051], instead of using one common generator for both the compression or shear waves, it is possible to use a distinctive generator for the compression waves and a distinctive generator for the shear waves… For the generators (See Fig. 2 (7)), a large number of possible sources may be used such as coils/hammers, vibration motors, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 8. Landskroon further teaches
wherein the second seismic source generates S waves that travel in a first direction and S waves that travel in a second direction substantially 180 degrees offset from the first direction(Fig. 6 [0034], illustrates the soil probing device with two generators, one of which being configured to generate compressional waves while the other is configured to generate shear waves)(Fig. 6 illustrates the shear wave generator generating shear waves in two directions which are offset from one another substantially by 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 13, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 1. Landkroon further teaches
the sensing section further comprises: a second seismic sensor configured to sense the seismic waves, the second seismic sensor being housed in the housing and spaced apart from the first seismic sensor in a longitudinal direction of the housing(Fig. 6, [0050], measuring probe includes two detectors that is designed to detect generated compression and shear waves that have travelled through the ground layers).
Regarding claim 16, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 1. Jongsma further teaches
the housing comprises a first section, a second section, a third section, and a fourth section, wherein the first section and the second section are detachably connected, the second section and the third section are detachably connected, and the third section and the fourth section are detachably connected(Fig. 2, control unit (150) is located in a section at one end of the device, intermediate rod unit (120) is another section, cone rod unit (110) is another section, cone rod interface unit (210) is another section, and cone (140) is another section).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landskroon in view of Jongsma, Kverneland, and Farr et al. (US 20150372769 A1, “Farr”).
Regarding claim 4, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 3. Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland fails to teach
the light transceiver comprises a blue light modem.
Farr teaches
the light transceiver comprises a blue light modem ([0039], primary emitter is an LED or array of LEDs preferably encompassing wavelengths within the blue color range).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Landskroon, as modified in view of the teachings of Jongsma and Kverneland, to further include the teachings of Farr to yield a drill deployable seismic cone penetration test tool that can communicate through various mediums optically so that measured/received data can be transmitted and processed in real-time without requiring retrieval of the entire system. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landskroon in view of Jongsma, Kverneland, and Iranpour (US 20190011586 A1, “Iranpour”).
Regarding claim 14, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 1. Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland fails to teach
the one or more circuits comprises a first clock, and wherein the at least one seismic source is coupled to a second clock synchronized with the first clock.
Iranpour teaches
the one or more circuits comprises a first clock, and wherein the at least one seismic source is coupled to a second clock synchronized with the first clock ([0095], sensor package may include a 3C accelerometer which may include one or more clocks. In situations where the 3C accelerometer includes multiple clocks, synchronization circuitry helps reduce deviations between the clocks).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Landskroon, as modified in view of the teachings of Jongsma and Kverneland, to further include the teachings of Iranpour to yield a drill deployable cone penetration test tool system where the seismic sources are coupled to clocks that are synchronized ensuring coordinated firing of the respective sources and enabling more accurate seismic data collection for further processing. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR rationale A.
Regarding claim 15, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma, Kverneland and Iranpour teaches the system of claim 14. Iranpour teaches
one or more of the first clock and the second clock comprises an atomic clock ([0109], source control unit may include a rubidium atomic clock).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landskroon in view of Jongsma, Kverneland, and Payor et al. (US 8773947 B2, “Payor”).
Regarding claim 17, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 2. Jongsma further teaches
wherein the housing comprises a first section, a second section, a third section, and a fourth section, wherein the first section and the second section are detachably connected, the second section and the third section are detachably connected, and the third section and the fourth section are detachably connected (Fig. 2, control unit (150) is located in a section at one end of the device, intermediate rod unit (120) is another section, cone rod unit (110) is another section, cone rod interface unit (210) is another section, and cone (140) is another section);
and wherein the first section comprises the communications interface (Fig. 2, [0053], (150) illustrates a control unit positioned at one end of the test string which includes communications unit (152)),
Landskroon further teaches
wherein the sensing section further comprises a second seismic sensor configured to sense the seismic waves, the second seismic sensor being housed in the housing and spaced apart from the first seismic sensor in a longitudinal direction of the housing ([0050] soil probing device includes two detectors designed to detect compressional and shear waves, respectively. Both detectors are stacked on top of one another in a longitudinal manner);
the fourth section comprises the first seismic sensor and the second seismic sensor ([0050] both the compressional and shear wave detector are placed on top of one another, with or without flexible connection)(Fig. 6 illustrates the conical tip being connected to both detectors, which implicitly indicates they belong to the same section which the examiner interprets as being equivalent to a fourth section). .
Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland fails to teach the second section comprises the power source, the third section comprises the one or more circuits and the memory.
Payor teaches the second section comprises the power source, the third section comprises the one or more circuits and the memory ([column 2, lines 40-45], to retrieve logged data, memory module may be attached after disassembling the probe)(Fig. 1 [column 6, lines 43-50], (3) illustrates a battery pack module, which is its own section).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Landskroon, as modified in view of the teachings of Jongsma and Kverneland to include the memory and power source modules of Payor in order to yield a drill deployable cone penetration test tool with modular power and memory modules in order to allow efficient and convenient replacement of a power source and retrieval of sensor data for further analysis. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Regarding claim 18, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma, Kverneland, and Payor teaches the system of claim 17. Jongsma further teaches
wherein the first end of the housing from which the CPT tool protrudes is at an end of the fourth section(Fig. 2, [0053], (150) illustrates a control unit positioned at one end of the test string which includes communications unit (152)),
and wherein the second end of the housing is at an end of the first section (Fig. 2, cone unit (140) is located at the bottom of the test string at an end which is opposite from control unit (150)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12 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:
Regarding claim 5, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 1. Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland fails to teach
the drill comprises a carousel from which the test tool is deployed.
Albaghajati teaches
the drill comprises a carousel from which the test tool is deployed (Fig. 2A/B [0035]-[0037], drill assembly (142) includes a drill (126) allows drilling a variety of types of boreholes in the soil for deploying the soil test assembly (138). Robot chassis includes a carousel that includes a series of sensor slots to allow deployment of multiple seismic sensors. However the drill assembly and soil test assembly/seismic sensors of Albaghajati are separately located and do not contemplate the inclusion of a seismic source, let alone a seismic source mounted to the drill. The combination of Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland, teaches a cone penetration test tool with a built-in seismic source that is attached directly to a drill bit via a combined bottomhole assembly, thus the inclusion of a carousel with the drill would require the cone penetration test tool to be separately located from the drill and the seismic source be affixed away from the cone penetration test tool. In other words, Albaghajati’s drill with a carousel to deploy the test tool teaches away from the system as taught by the combination of Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland. No other identified prior art teaches the limitation either wholly or in part with sufficient motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 7, Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland teaches the system of claim 1. Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland fails to teach
Wherein the drill comprises a carousel from which the test tool is deployed,
wherein the drill comprises a plurality of retractable legs,
and wherein the at least one seismic source is mounted to at least one retractable leg of the plurality of retractable legs.
Albaghajati teaches
Wherein the drill comprises a carousel from which the test tool is deployed ([0035]-[0037], drill assembly allows drilling a variety of types of boreholes in the soil for deploying the seismic sensors. Robot chassis includes a carousel that includes a series of sensor slots to allow deployment of multiple seismic sensors However the drill assembly and soil test assembly/seismic sensors of Albaghajati are separately located and do not contemplate the inclusion of a seismic source, let alone a seismic source mounted to the drill. The combination of Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland, teaches a cone penetration test tool with a built-in seismic source that is attached directly to a drill bit via a combined bottomhole assembly, thus the inclusion of a carousel with the drill would require the cone penetration test tool to be separately located from the drill and the seismic source be affixed away from the cone penetration test tool. In other words, Albaghajati’s drill with a carousel to deploy the test tool teaches away from the system as taught by the combination of Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Kverneland. No other identified prior art teaches the limitation either wholly or in part with sufficient motivation to combine).
Landskroon, as modified in view of Jongsma and Albaghajati fails to teach
the drill comprises a plurality of retractable legs,
and wherein the at least one seismic source is mounted to at least one retractable leg of the plurality of retractable legs.
Gregg et al. (US 11643886 B2, “Gregg”) teaches the drill comprises a plurality of retractable legs, ([column 23, lines 63-67]-[column 24, lines 1-3] one or more support legs include a plurality of legs which are height adjustable to accommodate for surface irregularities encountered by the rig).
and wherein the at least one seismic source is mounted to at least one retractable leg of the plurality of retractable legs([column 23, lines 63-67]-[column 24, lines 1-3] one or more support legs include a plurality of legs which are height adjustable to accommodate for surface irregularities encountered by the rig, however none of Landskroon, Jongsma, Kverneland, Albaghajati, nor Gregg teaches at least one seismic source being mounted to at least one retractable leg, nor do any identified prior art teach any aspects of the limitation in part with sufficient motivation to combine)
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 12, the claims are indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to their respective dependency upon a claim indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Clark et al. (WO 2018162988 A2) which discloses a foot structure for an underwater drilling device
Goujon et al. (US 20170146673 A1) which discloses an ground-implantable seismic sensor
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 CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights