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 § 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 1-18 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.
As to Claim 1, the claim recites “generally vertical”, “generally circular” and “generally parallel”. It is unclear to what extend something can be interpreted as falling under “generally”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the tubing” several times. It is unclear if this refers to the “vertical length of tubing” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “in the foundation” but there is no “foundation” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claims 2-7 and 12, the claims recite “the tubing”. It is unclear if this refers to the “vertical length of tubing” of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 5, the claim recites “using bans”. It is unclear what applicant means with the term. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claims 8 and 9, the claim recites “generally vertical”. It is unclear to what extend something can be interpreted as falling under “generally”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 9 recite “the foundation” but there is no “foundation” claimed before. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 12, the claim recites “has an inside outside diameter”. It is unclear what it is meant with this term. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 14, the claim recites “generally vertical”, “generally circular” and “generally parallel”. It is unclear to what extend something can be interpreted as falling under “generally”. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 15, the claim recites “said one vertical length of tubing” when it should be “said at least one vertical length of tubing”. Appropriate correction is required.
As to Claim 18, the claim recites “generally parallel”. It is unclear to what extend something can be interpreted as falling under “generally”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites “the vertical structural member” when claim 14 recites “vertical structural members”. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims are all rejected for depending on rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullins et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,651,302).
As to Claim 14, Mullins discloses a system for providing preformed vertical access tunnels for testing foundation structures comprising:
A structural cage (22) comprising generally vertical structural members (18) and generally circular confining members (24), and an excavated hole (26); and
At least one vertical length of tubing (20) removably attached to the structural cage (Figure 3A) generally parallel to the vertical structural member (18; Figure 3B).
As to Claim 16, Mullins discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Mullins also discloses wherein said at least one vertical length of tubing is removably attached using banding (16).
As to Claim 18, Mullins discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Mullins also discloses wherein there are plurality of vertical lengths of tubing (20) removably attached to the structural cage generally parallel to the vertical structural member (18).
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.
Claims 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al (U.S. Patent No. 4,571,124) in view of Mullins et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,651,302) and Samman (U.S. Patent No. 5,822,057).
At to Claim 1, Matsui discloses a method for providing preformed vertical access tunnels for testing foundation structures comprising the steps of:
Providing a structural cage (Figure 3) comprising generally vertical structural members (29a), and an excavated hole (Column 4, Lines 39-44: “For installing the cast-in-place concrete pile 26, a vertical hole is first bored in the ground, and a cylindrical shell 28 is inserted into the hole. Then, the reinforcement 29 of a latticework composed of steel bars 29a is placed in the cylindrical shell 28”);
Removably attaching (Column 4, Lines 66-68: “Then, the reinforcement 29 to which the hollow tubes 21a, 21b, 22 are attached is placed in position in the cylindrical shell 28, using a crane”) at least one vertical length of tubing (22) to the structural cage generally parallel to the vertical structural members (29a);
Inserting the structural cage into the hole leaving the vertical structural members in a generally vertical position (Column 4, Line 66 to Column 5, Line 6: “Then, the reinforcement 29 to which the hollow tubes 21a ,21b, 22 are attached is placed in position in the cylindrical shell 28, using a crane. Then, concrete is poured in the shell 28 through the tremie pipe to cast the concrete pile 26. The shell 28 is withdrawn from the ground immediately after the concrete is filled in the shell 28. Then, the concrete filled in the hole in the ground is cured so that the cast concrete pile 26 comes to have a sufficient strength”);
Pouring concrete into and filling the excavated hole surrounding the structural cage (Column 4, Line 66 to Column 5, Line 6: “Then, the reinforcement 29 to which the hollow tubes 21a, 21b, 22 are attached is placed in position in the cylindrical shell 28, using a crane. Then, concrete is poured in the shell 28 through the tremie pipe to cast the concrete pile 26. The shell 28 is withdrawn from the ground immediately after the concrete is filled in the shell 28. Then, the concrete filled in the hole in the ground is cured so that the cast concrete pile 26 comes to have a sufficient strength”);
Pressurizing the tubing with a fluid (Column 3, Lines 36-40: “The demolition-facilitating substance (Special S-mite) is provided in the form of powder. 30 wt. % of this demolition-facilitating powder and 70 wt. % of water are mixed together to provide a slurry”) before the concrete has cured thereby allowing the tubing to expand in diameter; (Column 5, Lines 6-9: “During the curing of the concrete, the demolition-facilitating substance in the hollow tubes 21a, 21b, 22 is gradually expanded to apply an increasing pressure to the hollow tubes 21a, 21b, 22”. “During the curing” is the time the concrete is curing but before the concrete fully solidifies -i.e. when the concrete has cured-);
Depressurizing the tubing (Column 5, Lines 10-14: “The demolition-facilitating substance in the hollow tubes is finally expanded to a predetermined level generally simultaneously when the cast concrete pile 26 is completely cured, so that the demolition-facilitating substance ruptures the hollow tubes 21a, 21b, 22”. When the tubing 22 bursts, it depressurizes).
However, Matsui is silent about the structural cage having generally circular confining members. Mullins discloses a structural cage (22) comprising generally vertical structural members (18) and generally circular confining members (24) and at least one vertical length tubing (20). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the structural cage with generally circular confining members. The motivation would have been to provide lateral reinforcements to a void the vertical reinforcement and tubing to fall sideways.
Lastly, Matsui as modified (See above paragraph) is silent about extracting the tubing thereby leaving a generally vertical access tunnel in the foundation. Samman discloses extracting a tubing (114) thereby leaving a generally vertical access tunnel (118) in a foundation (Column 7, Lines 20-22: “When member 114 is removed from structure 12 in the direction shown by the arrow a bore 118 is formed defined by structure 12”). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to about extract the tubing thereby leaving a generally vertical access tunnel in the foundation. The motivation would have been to discard and dispose the partially broken tubing.
As to Claim 2, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein the pressurizing the tubing step comprises pressurizing the tubing with a liquid (Column 3, Lines 36-40: “The demolition-facilitating substance (Special S-mite) is provided in the form of powder. 30 wt. % of this demolition-facilitating powder and 70 wt. % of water are mixed together to provide a slurry”).
As to Claim 3, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein the pressurizing the tubing step comprises pressurizing the tubing with a gas (The mixture will have air bubbles which is an entrapped gas when mixing elements together air is inevitably introduced during stirring).
As to Claim 4, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein the pressurizing the tubing step comprises pressurizing the tubing with water (Column 3, Lines 36-40: “The demolition-facilitating substance (Special S-mite) is provided in the form of powder. 30 wt. % of this demolition-facilitating powder and 70 wt. % of water are mixed together to provide a slurry”).
As to Claim 5, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein the tubing is removably attached using bans (Column 4, Lines 23-27: “The eight vertical hollow tubes 22 are disposed above the demolition plane 24, and four of them are disposed adjacent to the respective ends of the two horizontal hollow tubes 21a and secured thereto by wires”).
As to Claim 6, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein the pressurizing the tubing step occurs during the pouring concrete step (Column 6, Lines 28-32: “In addition, the demolition-facilitating substance can be applied at a time before concrete is poured into the shell, and therefore does not need to be applied separately at several stages as is the case with the conventional method”. Since the substance can be applied at several stages, then it is capable of being applied while concrete is poured)
As to Claim 7, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein the pressurizing the tubing step occurs before the pouring concrete step (Column 6, Lines 28-30: “In addition, the demolition-facilitating substance can be applied at a time before concrete is poured into the shell”).
As to Claim 8, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein the fluid (Column 3, Lines 36-40: “The demolition-facilitating substance (Special S-mite) is provided in the form of powder. 30 wt. % of this demolition-facilitating powder and 70 wt. % of water are mixed together to provide a slurry”) used for pressurizing is at least partially removed from the generally vertical access tunnel in the foundation (The method step is capable of being performed in view of the structure as someone can remove a small portion of material from the top of the tunnel).
As to Claim 9, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein a plurality of vertical lengths of tubing (Figure 3 shows a plurality of vertical tubing lengths 22) are utilized in the removably attaching step and the remaining steps are utilized to leave a plurality of generally vertical access tunnels in the foundation.
As to Claim 10, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein the at least one vertical length of tubing is coated with a material (Samman: 117) to prevent sticking to concrete (Samman - Column 7, Lines 17-19: “A lubricating coat 117 of grease is disposed on the outer surface of elongated member 114 to facilitate the removal of member 114 from structure 12 when the cast material has cured”).
As to Claim 11, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein the at least one vertical length (22) of tubing comprises plastic tubing (Column 6, Lines 13-16: “The hollow tubes 21a, 21b, 22 may be made of metal other than steel such as aluminum, a synthetic resin such as vinyl chloride, rubber, or paper”).
As to Claim 12, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Although Matsui as modified is silent about wherein after the pressurizing the tubing step, the tubing has an inside outside diameter of between about 38mm and 76mm, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to pressurize the tubing until having an inside outside diameter of between about 38mm and 76mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 13, Matsui as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Matsui as modified also teaches wherein the structural cage is preformed and the removably attaching step occurs prior to inserting the structural cage into the excavation hole (Column 4, Lines 66-68: “Then, the reinforcement 29 to which the hollow tubes 21a, 21b, 22 are attached is placed in position in the cylindrical shell 28, using a crane”).
Claims 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,651,302) in view of Samman (U.S. Patent No. 5,822,057).
As to Claim 15, Mullins discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). However, Mullins is silent about wherein said one vertical length of tubing comprises plastic tubing. Samman discloses a vertical length of tubing (114) comprising plastic tubing (Column 4, Lines 48-50: “The elongated member may be any member having the strength to withstand the casting process such as a metal, plastic or PVC rod or piping”). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make said one vertical length of tubing of plastic tubing since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
As to Claim 17, Mullins discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). However, Mullins is silent about wherein said at least one vertical length of tubing is coated to prevent sticking to concrete. Samman discloses said at least one vertical length of tubing coated to prevent sticking to concrete (Column 7, Lines 17-19: “A lubricating coat 117 of grease is disposed on the outer surface of elongated member 114 to facilitate the removal of member 114 from structure 12 when the cast material has cured”). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to coat the at least one vertical length of tubing to prevent sticking to concrete. The motivation would have been to reuse the tubing to create another foundation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678