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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 36-42, 47-49, 51-53, 55-59, 64, 66-67, 69-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schakenda et al. (2011/0200399).
With regard to claim 36, Schakenda discloses a method of reducing resistance to movement of a pile (1) relative to soil (5) during installation or removal of the pile underwater (fig. 1), the method comprising: pumping water out of or into an internal chamber (chambers 4/23) of the pile, defined between a top plate of the pile, a skirt of the pile and the soil (fig. 1), to reduce or to increase a level of pressure of water in the chamber relative to ambient pressure of water outside the chamber (para 0026); and while that pumping is ongoing, imparting additional oscillations in the pressure of the water in the chamber via a pressure variator pump, wherein the pressure variator pump is in fluid communication with the chamber (fig. 1-3; paras 0072-0077).
With regard to claim 37, Schakenda further discloses employing the oscillations to vibrate a wall of the pile in contact with the soil (para 0077; “pulsating”).
With regard to claim 38, Schakenda further discloses employing the oscillations to drive oscillatory vertical movement of the pile relative to the soil (abstract).
With regard to claim 39, Schakenda further discloses driving the oscillatory vertical movement by cyclically expanding and contracting the chamber in response to the oscillations (abstract; “activate/deactivate”).
With regard to claim 40, Schakenda further discloses employing the oscillations to drive pressure waves through the water in the chamber to impact against soil in the chamber (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 41, Schakenda further discloses directing the pressure waves downwardly within the chamber (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 42, Schakenda further discloses the pressure variator pump imparting the oscillations is distinct from a pump that pumps the water (via 2/3).
With regard to claim 47, Schakenda further discloses effecting fluid communication with the chamber through separate ports, at least one of those ports communicating with the pump and at least one other of those ports communicating with the pressure variator pump (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 48, Schakenda further discloses the pressure variator pump and the pump are disposed outside the chamber (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 49, Schakenda further discloses effecting fluid communication between the pressure variator pump and the water outside the chamber (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 51, Schakenda further discloses the pressure variator pump pumps the water to reduce or to increase the level of pressure of water in the chamber and the method comprises imparting the oscillations by oscillating flow passing through the pressure variator pump (fig. 1; paras 0026, 0072-0077).
With regard to claim 52, Schakenda further when installing the pile, comprising maintaining pressure within the chamber continuously below the ambient pressure of the water outside the chamber (abstract).
With regard to claim 53, Schakenda further discloses when installing the pile, comprising employing the oscillations to generate a series of pressure pulses within the chamber, each pulse being above the ambient pressure of the water outside the chamber and the pulses being separated by a period in which pressure within the chamber is below that ambient pressure (paras 0072-0077).
With regard to claim 55, Schakenda further discloses the oscillations follow a waveform in which pressure varies continuously (paras 0072-0077).
With regard to claim 56, Schakenda further discloses the oscillations follow a waveform with step-change transitions (paras 0072-0077).
With regard to claim 57, Schakenda further discloses varying any of the following parameters during installation or removal of the pile: frequency of the oscillations; amplitude of the oscillations; and/or an average level of water pressure in the chamber about which the water pressure oscillates (paras 0072-0077).
With regard to claim 58, Schakenda further discloses increasing any of said parameters in accordance with depth of penetration of the pile into the soil (figs. 2-3; paras 0072-0077).
With regard to claim 59, Schakenda discloses an underwater pile (1), comprising: a pump (2/3) in fluid communication with an internal chamber of the pile defined between a top plate of the pile, a skirt of the pile and the soil (fig. 1), the pump being configured to pump water out of or into the chamber during installation or removal of the pile, thus reducing or increasing a level of pressure of water in the chamber relative to ambient pressure of water outside the chamber; and a pressure variator pump in fluid communication with the chamber for imparting oscillations in the pressure of the water in the chamber, wherein the pressure variator pump is configured to apply negative pressure to the water in the chamber (abstract; paras 0026, 0072-0077).
With regard to claim 64, Schakenda further discloses the pump and the pressure variator pump are in fluid communication with the chamber through respective separate ports (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 66, Schakenda further discloses the pressure variator pump and the pump are disposed outside the chamber (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 67, Schakenda further discloses the pressure variator pump is in fluid communication with the water outside the chamber (fig. 1).
With regard to claims 69-70, Schakenda further discloses the pressure variator pump is a positive- displacement pump which comprises a reciprocating element that is movable to draw water from the chamber and to expel water into the chamber in alternation (abstract; paras 0072-0077).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 50 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schakenda et al. (2011/0200399) in view of Tesvich (10,094,091).
With regard to claims 50 and 68, Schakenda discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding enclosing the pressure variator pump within the chamber.
Tesvich discloses an underwater pile wherein the pump (121) is located within the chamber (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schakenda and have the pump within the chamber as taught in Tesvich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to protect the pumping device.
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schakenda et al. (2011/0200399).
With regard to claim 54, Schakenda discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding imparting the oscillations with a frequency of from 5Hz to 50Hz. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the oscillations at any frequency to include 5Hz to 50Hz based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43-46, 60-63, and 65 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: the cited prior art, either alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the dependent claim(s). Pressure varying pumping within foundation piles are known such as those taught by Schakenda et al. (2011/0200399) and Riemers (6,488,446). However, the cited prior art lacks fluid communication with the chamber through a common port shared by the pump and the pressure variator pump as required by the dependent claim(s) and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prior art to achieve applicant’s invention without the benefit of hindsight and applicant’s own disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
01/07/2026