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 § 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) 1, 3-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 207003459).
With regards to claim 1, Li et al. discloses a vibration-based method for densification of ground soil, the method comprising: the steps of: providing a draining unit (figure 4-5), comprising a drain installation (figure 1-4), at a depth in the ground soil and providing a vibration unit (pipe hammer 9 and vibrating hammer 6 in figure 2); determining one or more ground soil locations for applying vibration to the ground soil based on a position of the draining unit (figure 5-7); and extracting fluid from ground soil using the drain installation while at least during an overlapping period of time applying vibration with the vibration unit to the one or more ground soil locations in order to densify the ground soil (figures 5-7).
As to claim 3, Li et al. discloses wherein the drain installation (figure 1) comprises at least one drain, and wherein the method further comprising: installing the at least one drain vertically beneath an upper surface of the ground soil, and wherein the at least one drain is a vertical drain comprising an elongated body with at least one inlet and at least one outlet for expelling fluid extracted through the at least one drain (figures 5-7).
As to claim 4, Li et al. discloses wherein the drain installation (figure 1) comprises at least one drain, and wherein the method further comprising: installing the least one drain horizontally beneath an upper surface of the ground soil, and wherein the at least one drain is a horizontal drain comprising an elongated body with at least one inlet and at least outlet for expelling fluid flowing into the drain (see background technology that it is known to use horizontal drainage and vertical drainage).
As to claim 5, Li et al. discloses further comprising: providing a vacuum pump, the vacuum pump being provided in the draining unit, and wherein applying a vacuum to extract fluid from the ground soil (abstract; paragraph 0019-0020; figure 5-7).
As to claim 6-7, Li et al. discloses wherein the vibration is applied externally on an upper surface (vibrating hammer 6) of the ground soil and/or internally (pipe hammer 9) from below the upper surface of the ground soil (figure 5-7) and wherein the vibration unit comprises at least one vibratory probe (9) and the vibration is applied by the at least one vibratory probe in the ground soil (figure 5-7).
As to claim 8, Li et al. discloses further comprising: installing a plurality of vertical drains below an upper surface of the ground soil (figure 5) and wherein the plurality of vertical drains are spaced apart from one another, wherein the spacing between the plurality of vertical drains is in a range of 1.5 m to 8 m (conventional and merely a design choice), and wherein a first vertical drain is installed substantially parallel to and at a spacing L from a second vertical drain in an X direction parallel to the upper surface of the ground soil (figure 5-7), and the first vertical drains installed substantially parallel to and at a spacing 2L from a third vertical drain in a Y direction parallel to the upper surface of the ground soil, and wherein the X direction is perpendicular to the Y direction.
As to claim 10, Li et al. discloses further comprising connecting an outlet of the at least one drain to at least one vacuum pump, configured to extract fluid (figure 5-7; paragraph 0019-0020).
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) 2, 9, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 207003459).
As to claims 2 and 18-19, Li et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Li et al. is silent about wherein the ground soil has an initial permeability K in the range of 10-4 to 10-8 m/s, as measured by the method described in determination of soil permeability coefficient according to ISO 17892-11:2019, and wherein the densification of the ground soil obtains a ground soil having a decreased permeability K' by at least a factor of 5, 10 or 50 relative to the initial permeability K. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to decrease the permeability of the soils by the factors as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result of effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 9, Li et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Li et al. is silent about wherein an elongated body of a first horizontal drain is disposed substantially parallel to an elongated body of a second horizontal drain, at different depths below the upper surface of the ground soil, and/or wherein the spacing between the first horizontal drain and the second horizontal drains is determined based on at least one of permeability of the ground soil, a drainage speed, and a vacuum pressure applied to the drains. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the spacing of the drainage as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result of effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regards to claim 11-13 and 16-17, Li et al. discloses a vibration-based soil densification system for densification of ground soil having an upper surface, comprising: at least one draining unit (figure 4-5) comprising vertical and/or horizontal drains and a vacuum pump configured to be installed in the ground soil below the upper surface of the ground soil (figure 5-7); at least one vibration unit (6, 9) for applying vibration to densify the ground soil (figure 1-7). Li et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Li et al. is silent about a controller configured to control the at least one draining unit with the vacuum pump, and the at least one vibration unit to extract fluid from the ground soil while at least during an overlapping period of time applying a vibration to the ground soil in order to densify the ground soil and configured to determine a spacing between drains. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a controller to automated the system, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same results involves only routine skil in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
As to claims 12-13, Li et al. discloses wherein the at least one draining unit comprises a draining installation having at least one drain, and wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether the at least one drain is arranged to be vertically or horizontally disposed beneath the upper surface of the ground soil, based on a depth ground soil.
As to claim 14 and 20, Li et al. discloses wherein the at least one vibration unit (6, 9) is an external vibration unit configured to apply vibration externally on the upper surface of the ground soil and/or an internal vibration unit or vibratory probe (9)) configured to apply vibration internally from below the upper surface of the ground soil (figure 1-7).
As to claim 15, Li et al. discloses further comprising a plurality of drains below the upper surface of the ground soil and which are spaced apart from one another (figure 5), with a spacing between the plurality of drains is in a range of 1.5 m to 8m (conventional and merely a design choice) and wherein the plurality of drains comprises at least a first, second and third vertical drains installed vertically below the upper surface of the ground soil, such that the first vertical drain is installed substantially parallel to and at a spacing L from the second vertical drain in an X direction parallel to the soil surface, and the first vertical drain is installed substantially parallel to and at a spacing 2L from the third vertical drain in a Y direction parallel to the upper surface of the ground soil, wherein the X direction is perpendicular to the Y direction (figure 5-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, 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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights