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 .
Compact Prosecution
With respect to Claim Interpretation, the Examiner has provided some notes regarding “[BRI on the record]” throughout the Office Action, so that the record is clear about the scope of the claimed invention, and the record is also clear about the basis for the Examiner’s analyses. A clear record of the claim interpretation could expedite the examination by creating the condition to allow the examination to focus on Applicant’s inventive concept and its comparison with related prior art.
If there are disagreements, Applicant may present an alternative interpretation based on MPEP 2111. The Examiner will adopt Applicant’s interpretation on the record, if Applicant’s interpretation is reasonable and/or arguments are persuasive.
Applicant may amend claims relying on the Examiner’s claim interpretation provided on the record.
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 13-23 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.
The claims appear to be machine translated, and there are numerous issues that require corrections.
Claim 13 has at least following deficiencies:
Claim 13 recites “created by the computer unit in this way”
The antecedent basis of “this way” is unclear. It is unclear what limitations are included “in this way.”
Claim 13 recites “the individual exploration points,” and its antecedent basis is unclear.
Claim 13 recites “the individual soil layers,” and its antecedent basis is unclear.
Claim 13 recites “particularly a building plot.” It is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation.
Claim 13 is a method claim; however, steps of a method are not clearly recited. For example, the limitation “data is acquired in relation to a site plan of the plot” could be modifying the data related to the model in the claim preamble, not affirmatively reciting a step of a method. MPEP states, “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” MPEP 2173.05(q).
All the dependent claims are also rejected because they inherit the deficiency.
In addition:
Claims 15 and 17 recite “in particular.” It is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation.
Claim 20 recites “for example.” It is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation.
Claim 22 recites “such as.” It is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (“Building 3D solid models of sedimentary stratigraphic systems from borehole data: An automatic method and case studies”) in view of Pardo-Fernandez (US 20140278280 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhu teaches A method for creating a three-dimensional soil model for a plot of land (Zhu figs. 7, 9), particularly a building plot (
[BRI on the record] With respect to “particularly a building plot,” the claim language is indefinite, because it is unclear whether “a building plot” is optional or required.
[Mapping Analysis] “To meet the requirements of 3D geological models in the construction projects of Shanghai, China, we have used these different algorithms for creating 3D solid models from boreholes.” Zhu p. 3.), wherein
data is acquired in relation to a siteanalysis for a construction project of the plot (
Zhu teaches acquiring data about a plot of land, stating “The first study area, which is located in Shanghai Pudong New District, China, is a part of the site area for the World Expo 2010 Shanghai (Shanghai Geotechnical Investigations and Design Institute Ltd., 2008). As Fig. 7A shows, the data set for 3D geological modeling consists of 7 shallow boreholes in the area of about 250,000 m2 (500×500 m2 ), and 6 stratigraphic units are detected.” Zhu p. 8.
Zhu discloses the plot is in relation to a siteanalysis for a construction project, stating “To meet the requirements of 3D geological models in the construction projects of Shanghai, China, we have used these different algorithms for creating 3D solid models from boreholes.” Zhu p. 3.),
data is acquired in relation to a plurality of exploratory borings (“As Fig. 7A shows, the data set for 3D geological modeling consists of 7 shallow boreholes in the area of about 250,000 m2 (500×500 m2 ), and 6 stratigraphic units are detected.” Zhu p. 8.
Here, the boreholes/borings are exploratory to explore stratigraphic information for soil layers.),
which have been carried out on the plot at certain exploration points (Fig. 7 A: B1-7
PNG
media_image1.png
206
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) and for each exploratory boring a layer structure of the soil (
PNG
media_image2.png
206
258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
), with individual layers and their layer thickness, has been ascertained (
PNG
media_image3.png
278
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) (“. . . 6 stratigraphic units are detected. The strata are denoted as S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 and S6 from the bottom to the top. S1, S4, S5 and S6 are complete strata, while S2 and S3 are incomplete.” Zhu p. 8.
The exploration points are mapped to surface points of Fig. 7 A: B1-7 as shown in Zhu fig. 7A-B.
Zhu fig. 7A-B shows layer structure of the soil for each exploratory boring, e.g., the layer structure of B3, which has layers S1-6 as shown in fig. 7A and as visually illustrated in fig. 7B.
The individual layers (fig. 7 A-C S1-6) and their thickness are ascertained and illustrated in Zhu fig. 7C.),
the individual exploration points are entered in the acquired site analysis of the plot (
[BRI on the record] With respect to “the individual exploration points,” the antecedent basis is unclear. For the purposes of art rejection, the Examiner is reading the limitation as “the certain exploration points,” because the claim has introduced “certain exploration points” earlier in the claim.
[Mapping Analysis]
The exploration points have been mapped to surface points related to B1-7 of Fig. 7 A, as shown in both Zhu fig. 7A-B.
These exploration points have been entered into site analysis as shown in Zhu Fig. 7 A-F. For example:
PNG
media_image1.png
206
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
),
wherein the individual layers for each exploratory boring are analyzed and assigned in each case to a common soil layer by a computer unit (
“The method first utilizes the topologic dimidiate data structure to discretize borehole data into a series of scatter points, then interpolates the initial elevations of the top and bottom surfaces for each stratum, and automatically deduces the genesis of the missing strata.” Zhu Abstract.
Zhu Fig. 7 A show the individual layers (S1-6) for each borehole (exploratory boring) (e.g., B3) are analyzed and assigned to common . . . layer as shown in Figs. 7 B-C.
Zhu teaches that the common layer could be soil, stating “Stratified. In terms of a given criteria for classification, the sedimentary system can be divided into several stratigraphic units, and each unit is called as a stratum. Within every stratigraphic unit, the depositional age and the mechanical properties are assumed to be approximately uniform, thus each stratum can be regarded as being composed of the same soil or rock mass, and commonly denoted as a ‘geotechnical unit’.” Zhu p. 3.
Zhu teaches the use of a computer, stating “Computer modeling and visualization of geological objects in 3D is currently a topical research area both in Engineering Geology and Geo-information Science . . ..” Zhu Abstract.),
a layer thickness profile of the individual soil layers (illustrated through Zhu Fig. 7 A-F) within the plot is interpolated depending on the position of the individual exploratory borings to one another (
Zhu teaches interpolation based on individual exploratory borings, stating “The method first utilizes the topologic dimidiate data structure to discretize borehole data into a series of scatter points, then interpolates the initial elevations of the top and bottom surfaces for each stratum, and automatically deduces the genesis of the missing strata.” Zhu Abstract.
Zhu Figs. A-F show the interpolation based on positions of exploratory borings. As shown in the figures, the approximated layer surface has to generally comply with the location of the corresponding layer of the borehole data. The position of the borehole influences the shape of the approximated layer. Surface.), and
the three-dimensional soil model for the plot is created by the computer unit in this way (“As Fig. 7A shows, the data set for 3D geological modeling consists of 7 shallow boreholes in the area of about 250,000 m2 (500×500 m2 ), and 6 stratigraphic units are detected.” Zhu p. 8; Figs. A-F.), and
wherein the computer unit is connected to a display device and is configured that a layer structure of the soil is displayed in relation to desired locations or sections in the plot (
Zhu teaches the use of computer and display for computer modeling and visualization, stating “Computer modeling and visualization of geological objects in 3D is currently a topical research area both in Engineering Geology and Geo-information Science . . ..” Zhu Abstract; Figs. A-F. It will be shown that Pardo-Fernandez also teaches the limitation related to computer and display.
Figs. A-F show layer structure of the soil. Zhu teaches that the common layer could be soil, stating “thus each stratum can be regarded as being composed of the same soil or rock mass, and commonly denoted as a ‘geotechnical unit’.” Zhu p. 3.
Zhu teaches such modeling and analysis are for construction site (desired locations), stating “The first study area, which is located in Shanghai Pudong New District, China, is a part of the site area for the World Expo 2010 Shanghai (Shanghai Geotechnical Investigations and Design Institute Ltd., 2008).” Zhu p. 8.).
Zhu teaches siteanalysis for site construction, and one could argue that it is a site plan; however, such disclosure is not explicit.
Pardo-Fernandez teaches
the computer unit is connected to a display device (Pardo-Fernandez ¶¶ 78-80, e.g., laptop), and
site plan (
Pardo-Fernandez teaches site plan, stating “As shown in FIG. 5A, a site plan 510 may be generated representing the zoning constraints and legal description of the site obtained in Phase I of the building design process. The site plan 510 may illustrate any placement constraints for placing, for example, a main building 512 or an outbuilding 514 on the site lot 516.” Pardo-Fernandez ¶ 68; see Figs. A-G.
PNG
media_image4.png
458
496
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
422
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
442
446
media_image6.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pardo-Fernandez’s site plan with Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prepare for a construction site according to a plan site. Zhu’s soil model could help better planning of the construction site to reduce cost and enhance quality for the construction. Pardo-Fernandez’s site plan also provides guidance as to the locations of Zhu’s boreholes.
Regarding Claim 14, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez teaches The method according to claim 13, wherein the computer unit is configured to ascertain and to output, for a specifiable surface region in the plot, layer volumes and/or layer masses for specified excavation depths and/or specified layers, based on the soil model (
Zhu Fig. 7 B-C:
PNG
media_image2.png
206
258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
278
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The specifiable surface region is mapped to the modeled surface region as shown in Zhu Fig. 7 B-C.
The layer volumes are mapped to volumes of specified layers S1-S6 as shown in Zhu Fig. 7C are ascertained and displayed.
This mapping is sufficient because of “and/or” claim language in the claim.).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez teaches The method according to claim 13, wherein in addition to a surface area, also the topography, in particular a profile of a ground surface, is also acquired when acquiring the site plan (
Zhu Fig. 7C:
PNG
media_image3.png
278
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which shows the top green surface, which is a profile of a ground surface).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez teaches The method according to claim 13, wherein data acquired in relation to the site plan of the plot and/or to the exploratory borings (Figs. 7A-F) with the information about the layer structure is supplied as digital data to the computer unit, in order to create the soil model (
Zhu teaches computer based digital data, stating “Computer modeling and visualization of geological objects in 3D is currently a topical research area both in Engineering Geology and Geo-information Science . . ..” Zhu Abstract.
“As Fig. 7A shows, the data set for 3D geological modeling consists of 7 shallow boreholes in the area of about 250,000 m2 (500×500 m2 ), and 6 stratigraphic units are detected.” Zhu p. 8.
“. . . 6 stratigraphic units are detected. The strata are denoted as S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 and S6 from the bottom to the top. S1, S4, S5 and S6 are complete strata, while S2 and S3 are incomplete.” Zhu p. 8.
Figs. 7A-F show the soil model with layer structure. Zhu teaches that the common layer could be soil, stating “thus each stratum can be regarded as being composed of the same soil or rock mass, and commonly denoted as a ‘geotechnical unit’.” Zhu p. 3.).
Regarding Claim 17, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez teaches The method according to claim 13, wherein data relating to the site plan of the plot (Pardo-Fernandez Figs.5 A-G) and/or to the exploratory borings (Zhu Fig. 7A-F) with the information about the layer structure (e.g., location or other information of construction site) is read out from an analogue document, in particular a geotechnical report (
[BRI on the record]
With respect to “analogue document,” the Examiner is reading the limitation to mean a document containing content that not has been digitized. Examples for such document could be paper documents and image documents. This interpretation is consistent with the specification:
[0014] Alternatively or optionally, in an advantageous variant of the invention is provided that data relating to the site plan of the plot and/or to the exploratory borings with the information about the layer structure is read from an analogue document, in particular a geotechnical report. In the case of larger building projects in particular, a geotechnical report will exist because this usually has to be submitted to the relevant building authority by a surveyor. All the data for creating a three-dimensional soil model is generally contained in such a geotechnical report, but it usually contains a large amount of additional data and information that is not needed for determining the three-dimensional soil model.
[0016] Particularly advantageously, according to a development of the invention, is that the data is read from an analogue document using a scanner and/or a data acquisition and/or digitization program. In many cases, the geotechnical report is not available or not entirely available in digital form but rather as a conventional document, for instance in paper form, as a PDF document or as another image document.
[Mapping Analysis]
Pardo-Fernandez teaches reading information from geotechnical report, stating “If GIS mapping is not available for the site location, the system may query the user to upload a scan of the property survey for the site, and input specific information from, for example, a Certificate of Elevation and/or the geotechnical report 422. The system then applies computer vision capabilities to process and interpret the scanned image, which together with the legal description 415 allows for an exact rendition of the site to be graphically generated 418, the topography of which is obtained from the topographical database 419. The user is thereon directed to the site questionnaire 420, and ultimately to a detailed summary of the site physical description/constraints 421.” Pardo-Fernandez ¶ 43.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pardo-Fernandez’s extracting information from documents with Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to collect available information from documents to save cost. For example, the cost would be significantly lower compared to drilling boreholes to collect data. Further, the information would help to better determine the locations to carry out Zhu’s method.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez teaches The method according to claim 17, wherein data is read out from an analogue document by using a scanner and/or a data acquisition and/or digitization program (
Pardo-Fernandez teaches the use of a scanner, stating “If GIS mapping is not available for the site location, the system may query the user to upload a scan of the property survey for the site, and input specific information from, for example, a Certificate of Elevation and/or the geotechnical report 422. The system then applies computer vision capabilities to process and interpret the scanned image, which together with the legal description 415 allows for an exact rendition of the site to be graphically generated 418, the topography of which is obtained from the topographical database 419. The user is thereon directed to the site questionnaire 420, and ultimately to a detailed summary of the site physical description/constraints 421.” Pardo-Fernandez ¶ 43. Pardo-Fernandez teaches the use of a data acquisition or digitization program, stating “If the user has a property survey hardcopy, but no scanning capabilities, the system can assist the user to manually input the metes and bounds 423 for the site, if applicable, which together with the legal description 415 allows for an exact rendition of the site to be graphically generated 418, the topography of which is obtained from the topographical database 419. The user is thereon directed to the site questionnaire 420, and ultimately to a detailed summary of the site physical description/constraints 421.” Pardo-Fernandez ¶ 44.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pardo-Fernandez’s extracting information from documents with Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to collect available information from documents to save cost. For example, the cost would be significantly lower compared to drilling boreholes to collect data. Further, the information would help to better determine the locations to carry out Zhu’s method.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez applied to Claim 13, in further view of Sayer et al. (US 3942101 A).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez teaches The method according to claim 13, wherein the exploratory borings are carried out as of trial drillings and/or frame soundings (
“Engineering drilling is a traditional technique to observe and sample the subsurface directly. Borehole data are simple, intuitive, exact and detailed for practical users.” Zhu p. 2.
“To meet the requirements of 3D geological models in the construction projects of Shanghai, China, we have used these different algorithms for creating 3D solid models from boreholes.” Zhu p. 3.
“In order to quantitatively evaluate the accuracy of the solid model, a set of additional borehole data and excavation data obtained from the practical construction are compared with the solids.” Zhu p. 11.
The use of boreholes are temporary, because it serves a construction site, and the holes are not features of the construction. The number of boreholes needed are determined and validated through trial and error.).
However, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez does not explicitly disclose trial drillings.
Sayer teaches trial drillings (“Conventional practice requires the performance of laborious and extremely expensive surveys in order adequately to evaulate even quite limited areas. Such surveys commonly require the drilling of a plethora of trial boreholes and the recording of temperatures at the bottoms of such boreholes.” Sayer col. 1 lines 52-63.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sayer’s trial drilling with Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce cost of data collection. Trial boreholes could reduce the number and cost of boreholes used to create a prediction model. For example, further drilling would be stopped when data indicate trail boreholes are already sufficient.
Claims 20-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez applied to Claim 13, in further view of Ready-Campbell et al. (US 20180210454 A1) and Lee et al. (“Eco-economic excavator configuration method”).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez teaches The method according to claim 13.
Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez does not explicitly disclose:
wherein costs per cubic meter for various types of layers, for excavation and/or disposal for example, are stored in the computer unit and an expected cost for a specified excavation volume is determined by the computer unit.
Ready-Campbell teaches:
wherein
PNG
media_image7.png
238
192
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ready-Campbell teaches determining a specified excavation volume, stating “Using the digital terrain model, the computers 120 determines 680 the volume of earth to be excavated based on the differences between the representation of the current state of the site and the target state of the site. More specifically, using the digital terrain model, the computers 120 determine 680 the difference in volume between the two representations which translates into the volume of earth to be excavated from the hole.” Ready-Campbell ¶ 82.
Zhu also teaches the use of 3D model for excavation, stating “Finally, the modeling result is used for 3D visualization and spatial analysis. Several operations for 3D-interaction of the solid model, such as 3D observation, slice up, arbitrary incision, virtual drilling, virtual roaming, spotting and measurement of property value in any spatial position, excavation of foundation pit or tunnel, etc., can be performed freely since the solid model is very suitable for spatial analysis and spatial query.” Zhu pp. 9-10.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ready-Campbell’s volume estimation with Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make it convenient for make estimates for a earth related job. Computer estimations based on model may provide a quick and/or more accurate estimates.
Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez and Ready-Campbell does not explicitly disclose costs per cubic meter for various types of layers, for excavation and/or disposal for example, are stored in the computer unit and an expected cost for a specified excavation volume.
Lee teaches costs per cubic meter for various types of layers, for excavation and/or disposal for example, are stored in the computer unit and an expected cost for a specified excavation volume (
Lee teaches:
PNG
media_image8.png
196
534
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Examiner takes an Official Notice that it would have been well-known in the art that the unit volume M3 could be cubic meter. The benefits of combining this well-known knowledge would have been that a standard unit volume widely used by many countries could be used and would be less likely to cause confusions in certain regions. Of course, the unit price may be adjusted when M3 is cubic meter.
Lee further teaches:
PNG
media_image9.png
94
536
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Further, Lee teaches that cost is further impacted by soil type:
PNG
media_image10.png
230
532
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
296
530
media_image11.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee’s excavator selection and optimization with Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez and Ready-Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize profit and efficiency. “This may improve the eco-economic excavating performance by providing the most favorable configuration option (the optimal set of maximum digging depth, engine capacity, and bucket size) and help ensure the maximum profit by drilling down into the motions of an excavator at the excavating process level.” Lee p. 139.
Regarding Claim 21, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez teaches The method according to claim 13.
Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez does not explicitly disclose:
wherein suitable removal equipment and/or an amount of time needed for removal/excavation per cubic meter for various types of layers is stored in the computer unit and an expected amount of time for the specified extraction volume is determined by the computer unit.
Ready-Campbell teaches wherein
PNG
media_image7.png
238
192
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ready-Campbell teaches determining a specified excavation volume, stating “Using the digital terrain model, the computers 120 determines 680 the volume of earth to be excavated based on the differences between the representation of the current state of the site and the target state of the site. More specifically, using the digital terrain model, the computers 120 determine 680 the difference in volume between the two representations which translates into the volume of earth to be excavated from the hole.” Ready-Campbell ¶ 82.
Zhu also teaches the use of 3D model for excavation, stating “Finally, the modeling result is used for 3D visualization and spatial analysis. Several operations for 3D-interaction of the solid model, such as 3D observation, slice up, arbitrary incision, virtual drilling, virtual roaming, spotting and measurement of property value in any spatial position, excavation of foundation pit or tunnel, etc., can be performed freely since the solid model is very suitable for spatial analysis and spatial query.” Zhu pp. 9-10.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ready-Campbell’s volume estimation with Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make it convenient for make estimates for a earth related job. Computer estimations based on model may provide a quick and/or more accurate estimates.
However, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez and Ready-Campbell does not explicitly disclose suitable removal equipment and/or an amount of time needed for removal/excavation per cubic meter for various types of layers is stored in the computer unit and an expected amount of time for the specified excavation volume.
Lee teaches suitable removal equipment and/or an amount of time needed for removal/excavation per cubic meter for various types of layers is stored in the computer unit and an expected amount of time for the specified excavation volume (
Lee teaches determining expected amount of time:
PNG
media_image12.png
148
538
media_image12.png
Greyscale
A person with ordinary skills in the art would know that 1/P=an expected amount time per unit volume soil. The Examiner takes an Official Notice that it would have been well-known in the art that unit volume could be cubic meter. The benefits of combining this well-known knowledge would have been that a standard unit volume widely used by many countries could be used and would be less likely to cause confusions in certain regions.
Further, Lee teaches soil types based on Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez and Ready-Campbell’s layers have impact on the calculation:
PNG
media_image10.png
230
532
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
296
530
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Further, Lee teaches suitable removal equipment that maximize profit, “This may improve the eco-economic excavating performance by providing the most favorable configuration option (the optimal set of maximum digging depth, engine capacity, and bucket size) and help ensure the maximum profit by drilling down into the motions of an excavator at the excavating process level.” Lee p. 139.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee’s excavator selection and optimization with Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez and Ready-Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize profit and efficiency. “This may improve the eco-economic excavating performance by providing the most favorable configuration option (the optimal set of maximum digging depth, engine capacity, and bucket size) and help ensure the maximum profit by drilling down into the motions of an excavator at the excavating process level.” Lee p. 139.
Regarding Claim 23, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez teaches The method according to claim 13.
However, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez does not explicitly disclose wherein data relating to costs of foundation elements is stored in the computer unit and an automatic cost estimate for foundation elements that are to be produced is made by using the soil model.
Ready-Campbell teaches wherein data relating to planning
“The on-unit computer 120a may further include instruction sets to collect earth from the dump pile and backfill voids within the hole during backfill routines. For example, once a foundation wall or retaining wall is constructed within a hole previously dug by the excavation vehicle 115 may retrieve earth from the dump pile and dispense the earth between the exterior of the foundation wall and the wall of the hole around the foundation wall according to the digital file of the site.” Ready-Campbell ¶ 145.
The digital file of the site includes Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez’s soil model.
Ready-Campbell teaches determining an excavation volume, stating “Using the digital terrain model, the computers 120 determines 680 the volume of earth to be excavated based on the differences between the representation of the current state of the site and the target state of the site. More specifically, using the digital terrain model, the computers 120 determine 680 the difference in volume between the two representations which translates into the volume of earth to be excavated from the hole.” Ready-Campbell ¶ 82.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ready-Campbell’s computer assistance associated with earth job with Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make it convenient to manage earth related job. Computer estimations based on model may provide a quick and/or more accurate estimates.
However, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez and Ready-Campbell does not explicitly disclose unit costs of for soil based related to foundation elements and cost estimate for soil based jobs related to foundation elements.
Lee teaches unit costs of for soil based related to foundation elements and cost estimate for soil based jobs related to foundation elements (
Lee provides an example of foundation related job with unit cost information:
PNG
media_image8.png
196
534
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Lee further teaches cost estimate:
PNG
media_image9.png
94
536
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Further, Lee teaches soil types based on Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez and Ready-Campbell’s layers have impact on the calculation:
PNG
media_image10.png
230
532
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
296
530
media_image11.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee’s excavator selection and optimization with Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez and Ready-Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize profit and efficiency. “This may improve the eco-economic excavating performance by providing the most favorable configuration option (the optimal set of maximum digging depth, engine capacity, and bucket size) and help ensure the maximum profit by drilling down into the motions of an excavator at the excavating process level.” Lee p. 139.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez applied to Claim 13, in further view of Wrana (“PILE LOAD CAPACITY – CALCULATION METHODS”).
Regarding Claim 22, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez The method according to claim 13.
However, Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez does not explicitly disclose wherein a load-bearing capacity of specified foundation elements, such as foundation piles, or, in the case of a specified load-bearing capacity, a dimensioning of necessary foundation elements is ascertained by using the soil model.
Wrana teaches wherein a load-bearing capacity of specified foundation elements (“PILE LOAD CAPACITY – CALCULATION METHODS” Wrana Title.), such as foundation piles (
PNG
media_image13.png
296
288
media_image13.png
Greyscale
), or, in the case of a specified load-bearing capacity, a dimensioning (Wrana’s depth determination) of necessary foundation elements is ascertained by using the soil model (
Wrana teaches depth determination, a form of dimensioning, based on the characteristics of a soil layer (stratum) of Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez’s soil model, stating “On the other hand, end-bearing piles rely on the bearing capacity of the soil underlying their bases. Usually, end-bearing piles are used to transfer most of their loads to a stronger stratum that exists at a reasonable depth.” Wrana p. 86.
Wrana also teaches critical depth determination, stating “Skin friction should increase with depth and it becomes a constant at a certain depth. This depth was named a critical depth. The typical experimental variation of skin friction with depth in a pile as evidence for critical depth is shown in Fig. 8.” Wrana p. 89.
Wrana fig. 11 teaches determining critical depth based on soil layer type:
PNG
media_image14.png
306
336
media_image14.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee’s excavator selection and optimization with Zhu in view of Pardo-Fernandez and Ready-Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create a strong foundation for an construction site. “On the other hand, end-bearing piles rely on the bearing capacity of the soil underlying their bases. Usually, end-bearing piles are used to transfer most of their loads to a stronger stratum that exists at a reasonable depth.” Wrana p. 86.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGXI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-7509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/ZHENGXI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611