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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bar-Cohen et al. (US 2004/0007387, hereafter Bar-Cohen) in view of Doster et al. (US 2020/0149367).
With regards to claims 1 and 18, Bar-Cohen discloses a vibratory burrowing probe and method for probing subsurface regions within a granular medium (para 1, 2), said probe comprising: a probe tip (18) shaped for penetration thereof through the granular medium in an axial direction denoted by a longitudinal axis of the probe (para 30); and a vibratory mechanism (12) operably coupled to the probe tip and operable, in at least one mode of operation (para 41). Bar-Cohen shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it doesn’t explicitly disclose the tip, in at least one mode of operation, imparts non-longitudinal vibration thereto such that at least a partial component direction of said non-longitudinal vibration has a transversely oriented relationship to said longitudinal axis. Doster discloses an apparatus for downhole drilling which imparts non-longitudinal vibration thereto such that at least a partial component direction of said non-longitudinal vibration has a transversely oriented relationship to said longitudinal axis (para 38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vibration disclosed in Doster with the apparatus taught in Bar-Cohen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done to increase drilling speed, reduce drag and allow for efficient energy transfer (Doster para 6).
With regards to claims 2 and 18, Doster discloses said non-longitudinal vibration is lateral vibration whose peak vibrational amplitude cyclically alternates back and forth from a first location on a first side of a bisecting midplane of the probe and a second location on a second side of said bisecting midplane (Fig. 16-20, para 45, shows the source of the vibrations are symmetrically aligned with the longitudinal axis of the bit which would be read as the “bisecting midplane”).
With regards to claims 3 and 19, Doster discloses said non-longitudinal vibration is a stirring-motion vibration whose peak vibrational amplitude cycles circumferentially around the longitudinal axis (Fig. 16-20, para 45, rotational motion of the adjacent plates will cause a stirring motion in the vibration).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed.
Claims 4 and 6-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art all show similar features to those of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P STEPHENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL P STEPHENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676