DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 13 have been considered, and the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 13 has been withdrawn. Specifically, the claim now requires that the measurement device be the form of spindle bushing or a grease cap comprising the claimed data acquisition and housing portions. Neither US 10,648,282 to Beach et al., nor any other cited reference, is found to teach a measurement device in the form of spindle bushing or a grease cap comprising the claimed data acquisition and housing portions. The rejections of all dependent claims have also been withdrawn for the same reason.
For a similar reason, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 25 and 30 are also withdrawn. In these cases, the claims respectively require that the measurement device be a spindle bushing comprising one or more data acquisition portion and a housing portion and that the measurement device be a segment of a spindle assembly comprising one or more data acquisition portion and a housing portion. Again, no cited reference is found to teach a measurement device in the form of spindle bushing or a segment of a spindle assembly comprising the claimed data acquisition and housing portions, and it is agreed that modifying the teachings of US 10,648,282 to Beach et al., or any other reference of record to read on these claims goes beyond the level of a rearrangement of parts.
The examiner disagrees with the argument relating to intended use. The applicant has asserted that “the segment being the only one component … that is replaced” defines structure and not merely a use, but the plain language of the claim is devoid of positively recited structure here. Again, such “replaces and functions …” language is directed to how the claimed measurement device is intended to be used and does not positively set forth limiting structure. The recited core drilling tool is moreover not part of the claimed measurement device. Even assuming that structure were imparted by this language, it would be met by routine repair or maintenance of that part. In the case of Beach et al., that would be of check valve 18. On this point, the applicant has argued that “the segment being the only one component … that is replaced” would not be met by routine repair or maintenance. The applicant’s reasoning is that “Replacement of a component during maintenance does not inherently teach or suggest redesigning the component itself to incorporate integrated electronics while preserving its original mechanical function.” Such language is not present in any apparatus claim presented. If, for example, the check valve 18 of Beach et al. were replaced by a similar check valve, it would clearly meet all that is required by the current claim language. For this reason, the rejections of claims 26-27 are being maintained.
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claim 34 is directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions.
Group I, claims 13-18, 20-22, 24-33, drawn to a measurement device for a core drilling tool, wherein the measurement device is a single backend component that replaces and functions as only one component of a backend assembly of the core drilling tool without affecting the function of the component or the operation of the core drilling tool.
Group II, claim 34, drawn to a measurement device for a core drilling tool, wherein a data processing unit is configured to control operation of one or more data acquisition portions, process received data from one or more detecting portions and change a pattern of data acquisition, wherein a communication portion comprises a transceiver, wherein the communication portion is an interface between the data processing units of adjacent data acquisition portions, wherein the communication portion is an interface between the data processing units of the one or more data acquisition portion and an external computing device or a user interface.
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”).
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical feature.
The technical feature that these ground have in common is in comprising one or more data acquisition portions, and a housing portion configured to receive the one or more data acquisition portions. However, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of at least US 10,648,282 to Beach et al. (previously cited). Specifically, Beach discloses a measurement device (e.g., check valve 18) for a core drilling tool (the drilling tool partially shown in fig. 1), the measurement device comprising: one or more data acquisition portions (data acquisition system 60; fig. 3), and a housing portion configured to receive the one or more data acquisition portions (all parts of check valve 18 except for data acquisition system 60 received therein, or just the body of check valve 18; see fig. 3b). This shared technical feature clearly does not make any contribution over the prior art, and thus cannot be a special technical feature.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 34 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 13 January 2026 and 20 January 2026 are acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the backend component being a grease cap must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
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 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,648,282 to Beach et al. (hereinafter referred to as Beach) and NO 342901 to Borg.
With regards to claim 26, Beach teaches a measurement device (e.g., check valve 18) for a core drilling tool (the drilling tool partially shown in fig. 1), the measurement device comprising:
one or more data acquisition portions (data acquisition system 60; fig. 3), and
a housing portion configured to receive the one or more data acquisition portions (all parts of check valve 18 except for data acquisition system 60 received therein; see fig. 3b),
wherein the measurement device is a single backend component (a check valve) that replaces and functions as only one component of a backend assembly of the core drilling tool without affecting the function of the component or the operation of the core drilling tool (this "replaces and functions …" language, as best understood, is directed to how the claimed measurement device is intended to be used and is not a positive limitations on the measurement device itself. The core drilling tool is moreover not part of the claimed measurement device, and because the applied reference teaches the positively recited structure of the claim, it anticipates the instant apparatus claim. In addition, this limitation would be anticipated by the mere replacement of check valve 18 with the same valve in a repair or maintenance operation) and is adapted for removable connection thereto (via the threaded parts 23, 25 of valve body 20 that couple to head assembly 12 and inner core tube 16, see fig. 4b; also note the check valve 18 can clearly be decoupled from the tool according to col. 6, ll. 48-59).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Beach does not teach the one or more data acquisition portions being configured to acquire data according to a plurality of patterns.
Borg teaches a measurement device (orientation unit 103) for a core drilling tool wherein one or more data acquisition portions (the sensors and processors of p. 2, ll. 25-28/p. 10, ll. 10-11) is configured to acquire data according to a plurality of patterns (continuously, in an event-driven manner, or based on a timer as desired; p. 11, ll. 8-32).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly configure the measurement device taught by Beach such that the one or more data acquisition portions is configured to acquire data according to a plurality of patterns as in Borg. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to be able to select the pattern best suited for a particular drilling environment, optimize the collection of data around events of interest, guarantee data collection throughout an operation, etc.
With regards to claim 27, the combination of Beach and Borg teaches the measurement device according to claim 26. Borg further teaches the feature of one or more data acquisition portions being configured to acquire data continuously in a first pattern (e.g., in the continuous process of p. 11, ll. 17-24) and at a predetermined interval in a second pattern (e.g., at the system's sampling rate in the event-driven process of p. 11, ll. 12-16).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With regards to claim 13, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination, the feature of the measurement device being a spindle bushing or a grease cap comprising the claimed data acquisition and housing portions, in combination with all other elements in claim 13.
Claims 14-18, 20-22, 24, 28, and 31-33 depend from claim 13 and are allowable for the same reason.
With regards to claim 25, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination, the feature of the measurement device being a spindle bushing comprising the claimed data acquisition and housing portions, in combination with all other elements in claim 25.
Claim 29 depends from claim 25 and is allowable for the same reason.
With regards to claim 30, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination, the feature of the measurement device being a segment of a spindle assembly comprising the claimed data acquisition and housing portions, in combination with all other elements in claim 30.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights