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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the removed soil material remains at least partially in the hole and is mixed in situ by the at least one rotationally driven processing tool with the supplied suspension to form the soil mortar”. These limitations render the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to a) what are the metes and bounds of the “removed soil material” (e.g. is this the soil directly under the profile of the removal equipment, the walls of the borehole, a combination thereof, and what if there are voids in the soil); b) (for claim 1) how much of the soil is required to remain in the borehole to complete the method, is there any soil that is replaced; and c) (for claim 10) how is it possible to mix soil in-situ with soil that has been removed from the hole…it is no longer in-situ. The Examiner notes that the understanding of these concepts are critical elements to the invention as it would have been impossible for a skilled artisan to accurately reproduce the invention otherwise.
Claims 1-15 recite limitation regarding “movement” as a general item and more specifically (e.g. vertically and rotationally). In various cases, it is unclear as to which “movement” is being referred to – specifically for devices that are capable of both types of movement – therefore it is required for the Applicant to review and clarify these terms throughout the claims.
Regarding claims 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14, the limitation “in particular” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to where the terms following are an option or required part of the claims.
Regarding the statement in claim 6 that "the supply of suspension into the hole (3) and the movement of the at least one rotary drive machining tool (42), in particular the rotation of the at least one rotary drive machining tool (42)," the relationship between "movement" and "rotation" is unclear. Considering the wording "especially," it can be understood that "movement" includes "rotation." However, as stated above, this is unclear because "movement" and "rotation" are generally recognized as different movements.
Regarding the statement in claim 7 that "and/or the vertical pull-out of the at least one rotary driven machining tool (42) is set if this is not the default value," it is unclear what is meant by "setting." Therefore, the invention according to claim 7 is unclear. (From the statement before "and/or," one would infer that it is set "by the control device," but the statement does not state it this way, so it is unclear as mentioned above.)
Claim 9 contains the phrase "the feeding device (20)." However, since there is no mention of "feeding device" before this statement or in claim 1, which claim 9 refers to, it is unclear what the phrase "the feeding device (20)" refers to.
Claim 10 contains the phrase "the device (30)." However, since there is no mention of "the device (30)" before this statement or in claim 1, which claim 10 refers to, it is unclear what the phrase "the device (30)" refers to. Therefore, the invention according to claim 10 and claims 11-15 which cite claim 10 is unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11 and 15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP H09137449 A).
Regarding claims 1-15, Ito discloses the automatic control method for constructing soil cement pillars in foundation ground of the present invention, the pillar construction speed is kept constant and the injection of cement milk is controlled to match that execution speed, so the responsiveness between the pillar construction speed and the cement milk supply amount is alleviated, and the accuracy of setting the cement milk supply amount is improved. This includes an apparatus comprising the mixture of "a cement milk or other solidifying agent" ([Claim 1]) and "existing soil and sand" ([Claim 1]) described in the cited Ito corresponds to the "soil mortar (5)" of the invention according to claim 1 of the present application, and similarly hereinafter, "Soil cement column P" is the "foundation element", "Drilling and stirring part 5 having stirring blades" ([0011]) is "rotationally driven processing tool (42)", The "excavation and mixing device 2" is recognized as discharging soil by supplying cement milk or other solidifying material and excavating and mixing it, so it is considered to be a "soil removal device (40) equipped with a rotary drive processing tool (42)." "Cement milk" is a "hardening suspension" The "setting speed" ([0026]) is included in the "method parameters" for the "vertical movement of the machining tool (42)". "Milk injection amount" ([0025]) is included in the "method parameters" for "Suspension supply". "Pile pattern" ([0020]) refers to "the dimensioning of at least one of the foundation elements (8)" "Processing device 110" ([0017]) to "Control device"; The "set speed" and "milk injection amount" are, as seen from FIG. 8, "the input at least one default value" The "pump output" ([0021]) corresponds to "at least one remaining method parameter", respectively. And includes a method comprising the automatic construction control method for soil cement pillars in foundation ground described in Ito is as follows: The excavation and stirring unit 5 (processing tool) is moved in a substantially vertical direction relative to the ground, and the soil material is removed by forming a hole in the ground with the excavation and stirring unit 5 (rotary driven processing tool); The removed soil material remains at least partially in the hole and is mixed in situ with supplied cement milk (suspension) by the drilling and mixing unit 5 (rotary driven processing tool) to form soil mortar; The formed soil mortar hardens into a soil cement column P (foundation element) in the ground after the excavation and mixing unit 5 (rotary drive processing tool) is pulled out of the hole, It is understood that the method is at least partially carried out automatically using a processing device 110 (controller), and that the set speed and milk injection amount (at least one method parameter) are input into the processing device 110 (controller) as default values. It is recognized that the pump discharge volume (at least one remaining method parameter) described in Ito is affected by the set speed and milk injection volume, and is therefore set and controlled by the processing device 110 (control device) in accordance with the set speed and milk injection volume (the at least one default value input). In the invention described in Ito, the "stirring current" ([0015]) is detected, so for a person skilled in the art, including the rotational movement of the drilling/stirring part 5 (machining tool) in the "method parameters" is simply a design matter. The Examiner notes that although the terminology is different, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan the apparatus and its functions would be obtained from the prior art reference Ito.
Specifically regarding claim 2, the Examiner notes the "amount of milk injected" described in the cited Ito corresponds to the "amount of suspension delivered" of the invention according to claim 2 of the present application. In the invention described in the cited Ito, the use of parameters relating to the rotation and movement of the drilling and stirring part 5 (machining tool) for control is, in view of [0015], a mere design matter for a person skilled in the art.
Specifically regarding claim 3, the Examiner notes the "digging and stirring unit 5" described in the cited Ito corresponds to the "digging tool (82) that is driven to rotate around a substantially vertically oriented drilling axis" of the invention described in claim 3 of the present application.
Specifically regarding claim 6, the Examiner notes the "set speed" ([0026]) described in the cited Ito corresponds to the "default value" for the "movement of the rotary drive type machining tool (42)" of the invention according to claim 6 of the present application.
Specifically regarding claim 8, the Examiner notes in the invention described in Ito, it is recognized that the rotation of the drilling and stirring part 5 (machining tool) is controlled by the stirring current, and therefore, it is a mere design matter for a person skilled in the art to have the rotation set by the processing device 110 (control device).
Specifically regarding claim 9, the Examiner notes the "inverter pump 36" ([0014]) described in the cited Ito corresponds to the "feeding device (20), particularly the suspension pump" of the invention according to claim 9 of the present application.
Specifically regarding claim 11, the Examiner notes "Drilling and Mixing Equipment 2" in Ito.
Specifically regarding claim 15 the Examiner notes the "inverter pump 36" ([0014]) described in the cited Ito corresponds to the "suspension pump (22)" of the invention according to claim 15 of the present application.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP H09137449 A) in view of Arzberger (JP 20042572344).
Ito fails to disclose the use of rotary cutting equipment including a milling wheel.
Arzberger teaches a method for forming a groove wall in the ground using a groove wall cutter 10. The parallel cutting wheels 12, 12' of the groove wall cutter 10 are formed with circumferential cutting teeth 13 ([0032], Fig. 2); the "circumferential cutting teeth 13" described in the cited document 2 can be said to be "at least one removing element that removes and pulverizes soil material" and "mixing element"
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device/method of Ito by utilizing it with the rotary cutting equipment as described by Arzberger to bring the concept to a larger market and degree of application thereby increasing profitability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (CN 110185029 A) discloses a pile foundation smart construction device with a programmable controller for construction parameters via an input module for automatically lifting, rotating and spraying. New Delman et al. (US 2023/0398588) discloses a rotary excavation and slurry injection apparatus with an AI driven control module. Vandenbruwane (US 10710129) discloses a device and method for treating soil similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights