DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 04/13/2026 has been entered.
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) 36-41, 51-53, and 55-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riemers (6,488,446).
With regard to claim 36, Riemers discloses a method of reducing resistance to movement of a pile relative to soil during installation or removal of the pile underwater (abstract), the method comprising: pumping (via 7) water out of or into an internal chamber of the pile (1), defined in the space between a top plate (4) of the pile, a skirt of the pile and a surface of 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 (col. 4, lines 47-54); 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 (col. 1, lines 31-39, “pulsating”).
With regard to claim 37, Riemers further discloses employing the oscillations to vibrate a wall of the pile in contact with the soil (fig. 1; col. 1, lines 31-39).
With regard to claim 38, Riemers further discloses employing the oscillations to drive oscillatory vertical movement of the pile relative to the soil (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 39, Riemers further discloses driving the oscillatory vertical movement by cyclically expanding and contracting the chamber in response to the oscillations (fig. 1; col. 1, lines 31-39).
With regard to claim 40, Riemers 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, Riemers further discloses directing the pressure waves downwardly within the chamber (fig. 1; pump at top).
With regard to claim 51, Riemers 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; col. 1, lines 31-39).
With regard to claim 52, Riemers further discloses maintaining pressure within the chamber continuously below the ambient pressure of the water outside the chamber (col. 1, lines 31-39).
With regard to claim 53, Riemers further discloses 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 (col. 1, lines 31-39).
With regard to claim 55, Riemers further discloses the oscillations follow a waveform in which pressure varies continuously (col. 1, lines 31-39).
With regard to claim 56, Riemers further discloses the oscillations follow a waveform with step-change transitions (col. 1, lines 31-39, constant pressure that can be increased or decreased).
With regard to claim 57, Riemers further discloses average level of water pressure in the chamber about which the water pressure oscillates (fig. 1; col. 1, lines 31-39).
With regard to claim 58, Riemers further discloses increasing pressure with depth of penetration of the pile into the soil (fig. 1; col. 1, lines 31-39).
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) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemers (6,488,446).
With regard to claim 54, Riemers 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 42-50 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.
Claims 59-70 are allowed.
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 independent claim(s). Suction piles are known such as those taught by Schakenda et al. (2011/0200399) and Riemers (6,488,446). However, the cited prior art lacks two discrete pumps for pumping within a chamber; one for reducing or increasing a level of pressure and one for imparting oscillations as required by 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been considered. Applicant’s arguments are based on new limitations which have been addressed above.
Conclusion
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 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
06/22/2026
Prosecution Insights