CONE PENETROMETER TEST (CPT) TUBE

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 . Drawings New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because all the figures are grainy and difficult to read. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to because quite a few numbers in the figures are not defined in the Specification, such as “5500” and “1:20” in Fig. 1 and “1.3” in Fig. 2A (by way of example only, and not an exhaustive list). The numbers should be properly defined in the Specification or removed from the Figures. Further, the drawings would be clearer if they were amended to show the soil in relation to the claimed system. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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 USC 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 USC 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over van den Berg (NL 1006037 C2) and in view of Haran (US 10,736,281 B2). Referring to claim 1: Van den Berg teaches a cone penetrometer test (CPT) tube 3 (in the translation NPL document - page 3, third full paragraph) comprising: a forward pointing cone 18 equipped to be pushed into a soil at a controlled rate (Abstract); and a measurement probe disposed adjacent to the tube and equipped for measuring thermal properties of the soil in which the tube is pushed (page 2, sixth full paragraph; claim 17), wherein the measurement probe is fixed to the tube so as to ensure that the measurement probe can be pushed into the soil together with the tube while the tube and the probe maintain their relative position with reference to each other, and wherein the measurement probe comprises a heat supply portion 11, 11a, 11b and/or a cooling portion. Van den Berg does not specifically teach a CPT tube comprising a longitudinally extending measurement probe disposed at a fixed distance outside and adjacent to the tube. Haran teaches a test tube comprising: a forward pointing cone 112 equipped to be pushed into a soil at a controlled rate; and a longitudinally extending measurement probe 120 disposed at a fixed distance outside and adjacent to the tube (Figs. 5A and 5B) and equipped for measuring thermal properties of the soil in which the tube is pushed (column 5, lines 14-26; column 9, lines 9-22), wherein the longitudinally extending measurement probe is fixed to the tube so as to ensure that the measurement probe can be pushed into the soil together with the tube while the tube and the probe maintain their relative position with reference to each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CPT tube taught by van den Berg to include a longitudinally extending measurement probe disposed at a fixed distance outside and adjacent to the tube as taught by Haran with a reasonable expectation of success in order to obtain measurements from the probe when it is directly in contact with the soil, thereby collecting unobstructed data, as opposed to taking measurements from behind a tube housing or outer wall. While van den Berg teaches tubes 11a, 11b connected to the outside of the CPT tube 3 (Fig. 2) and that outriggers are known (page 3, second full paragraph), and Haran teaches the longitudinally extending measurement probe is fixed to the tube (Figs. 5A and 5B), van den Berg and Haran do not specifically teach the longitudinally extending measurement probe is fixed to the tube with two or more outriggers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube taught by van den Berg and Haran to include the longitudinally extending measurement probe fixed to the tube with two or more outriggers with a reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would only require a simple substitution of one known element for another (namely, the type of connection) to obtain predictable results. Referring to claim 2: Van den Berg teaches tubes 11a, 11b extend along at least about 1 meter of the tube (Fig. 1). However, van den Berg and Haran do not specifically teach the longitudinally extending measurement probe extends along at least about 1 meter of the tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the longitudinally extending measurement probe taught by van den Berg and Haran to extend along at least about 1 meter of the tube with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Referring to claim 3: Van den Berg teaches the tube and probe are mounted in a driving frame 1. Van den Berg does not specifically teach the driving frame comprising at least one centralizer and guide block for the tube and probe. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driving frame taught by van den Berg to include at least one centralizer and guide block for the tube and probe with a reasonable expectation of success since it is well known in the art to use such components to help prevent costly damage to the system. Referring to claim 4: Van den Berg teaches the driving frame comprises a set of driving rolls (unlabeled circles in Fig. 1). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sidey (US 4,408,481) teaches a CPT tube comprising a cone 16, 18 to be pushed into soil, and a longitudinally extending measurement probe 18 disposed at a fixed distance outside and adjacent the tube (Fig. 3). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm. 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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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. /Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 07 October 2026