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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/15/2025 is acknowledged. In view of the Applicant’s amendments, claims 28-34 are now considered part of elected Group I and will be examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because it recites “the controller configured to enable bi-directional communication between the HMI device and the controller” in lines 11-12. It is assumed that this is meant to indicate that the communication interface is configured to enable bi-directional communication and not the controller itself. The Examiner suggests that lines 10-12 of claim 28 be amended to recite “sending, via a communication interface configured to enable bi-directional communication between the HMI device and the controller, the recipe information and the delivery information from the HMI device to the controller ” (emphasis added to highlight changes).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 22, 28, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US PGPub 2018/0245902, hereinafter Oliver) in view of Maguire et al. (US 6188936, hereinafter Maguire).
Regarding claim 21, Oliver discloses a mobile bulk explosive loading system, comprising:
electrically controllable components configured to mix and deliver an explosive mixture to a blast site (see components connected to system controller 58 in figure 1);
a controller (system controller 58) operably coupled to the electrically controllable components, the controller configured to control the electrically controllable components to mix and deliver the explosive mixture according to recipe information and delivery information (paragraph 0061);
a human-machine interface (HMI) device (paragraph 0089, “interface”) comprising:
a processor (paragraph 0061, “programmable logic controller”); and
a data storage device (paragraph 0061, “computer memory”) to store computer-readable instructions configured to instruct the processor to:
transform the parameters of the user inputs to instructions for the controller to follow when blending and delivering the explosive (paragraphs 0061 and 0089);
store, on the data storage device, the instructions for the controller as the recipe information and the delivery information (paragraph 0038); and
a communication interface configured to enable bi-directional communication between the HMI device and the controller, the communication interface configured to deliver the recipe information and the delivery information generated by the HMI device to the controller to enable the controller to control the electrically controllable components according to the recipe information and the delivery information (paragraph 0089 indicates communication between an interface and the controller).
Oliver discloses in interface including a screen (paragraph 0089, “a screen and keyboard, or a standalone touchscreen”) that would presumably display user inputs, but does not explicitly disclose presenting as claimed. Maguire teaches a blending apparatus (figure 1) including an HMI device (display 217 and keypad 215) with a controller configured to present, on an electronic display of the HMI device, a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI including user inputs for parameters of an explosive delivery (column 16, lines 60-65). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Oliver with the display capability of Maguire for the purpose of providing information to the user and for allowing the user to confirm information they entered.
Regarding claim 22, Oliver discloses wherein to transform the parameters of the user inputs, the HMI device determines one or more of a delivery rate, an amount of a PH control agent to add to an emulsion explosive, and an amount of a chemical gassing agent to add to the emulsion explosive to achieve a desired density (paragraph 0016). The cited paragraph indicates that the controller adjusts a valve or a pump, which would be a determination of delivery rate.
Regarding claim 28, Oliver discloses a method for bulk explosive loading, the method comprising:
transforming, at the HMI device (paragraph 0089, “a screen and keyboard, or a standalone touchscreen”), the parameters of the user inputs to instructions for a controller (system controller 58) to follow when blending and delivering the explosive (paragraphs 0061 and 0089);
storing, on a data storage device of the HMI device, the instructions for the controller as recipe information and delivery information (paragraph 0038);
sending, via a communication interface, the recipe information and the delivery information from the HMI device to the controller (paragraph 0089 indicates communication between an interface and the controller); and
controlling, via the controller, electrically controllable components to mix and deliver the explosive mixture according to recipe information and delivery information generated by the HMI device (paragraph 0061).
Oliver discloses in interface including a screen (paragraph 0089, “a screen and keyboard, or a standalone touchscreen”) that would presumably display user inputs, but does not explicitly disclose presenting as claimed. Maguire teaches a blending apparatus (figure 1) including an HMI device (display 217 and keypad 215) with a controller and presenting, on an electronic display of the HMI device, a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI including user inputs for parameters of an explosive delivery (column 16, lines 60-65). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Oliver with the display capability of Maguire for the purpose of providing information to the user and for allowing the user to confirm information they entered.
Regarding claim 29, Oliver discloses wherein to transform the parameters of the user inputs, the HMI device determines one or more of a delivery rate, an amount of a PH control agent to add to an emulsion explosive, and an amount of a chemical gassing agent to add to the emulsion explosive to achieve a desired density (paragraph 0016). The cited paragraph indicates that the controller adjusts a valve or a pump, which would be a determination of delivery rate.
Regarding claim 33, Oliver discloses the controller mixes and delivers the explosive mixture independent of the HMI device (paragraphs 0011-0012). It is noted that the cited paragraph describes the actions of the controller without describing any actions of the interface device, indicating that the controller performs functions independently.
Claims 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US PGPub 2018/0245902, hereinafter Oliver) in view of Maguire et al. (US 6188936, hereinafter Maguire), as applied to claims 21 and 28 above, and further in view of Jauffret et al. (WO 2015/140462, hereinafter Jauffret).
Regarding claim 23, Oliver discloses one or more sensors (paragraph 0023), but is silent to a temperature sensor as recited. Jauffret teaches an explosives mixing system (title) that includes one or more sensors operably coupled to the controller (paragraph 0112), the one or more sensors including at least a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of an emulsion matrix (figure 2, temperature sensor 1a2), wherein the controller is configured to transmit temperature information received from the temperature sensor to the HMI device through the communication interface to enable the HMI device to determine proper amounts of one or more gassing agents to add to the emulsion explosive to achieve a desired density of the emulsion explosive (paragraph 0112). It is noted that the cited paragraph states that temperature must remain below a certain threshold for safety reasons, indicating that temperature information would be used to adjust the functions of the device, meeting the claim. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Oliver with a temperature sensor, as in Jauffret, for the purpose of maintaining safety in the system (Jauffret: paragraph 0112).
Regarding claim 30, Oliver discloses one or more sensors (paragraph 0023), but is silent to a temperature sensor as recited. Jauffret teaches an explosives mixing system (title) that includes one or more sensors operably coupled to the controller (paragraph 0112), the one or more sensors including at least a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of an emulsion matrix (figure 2, temperature sensor 1a2), wherein the controller is configured to transmit temperature information received from the temperature sensor to the HMI device through the communication interface to enable the HMI device to determine proper amounts of one or more gassing agents to add to the emulsion explosive to achieve a desired density of the emulsion explosive (paragraph 0112). It is noted that the cited paragraph states that temperature must remain below a certain threshold for safety reasons, indicating that temperature information would be used to adjust the functions of the device, meeting the claim. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the method of Oliver with a temperature sensor, as in Jauffret, for the purpose of maintaining safety in the system (Jauffret: paragraph 0112).
Claims 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US PGPub 2018/0245902, hereinafter Oliver) in view of Maguire et al. (US 6188936, hereinafter Maguire), as applied to claims 21 and 28 above, and further in view of Lerche et al. (US PGPub 2002/0088620, hereinafter Lerche).
Regarding claim 24, Oliver is silent to receiving operator credentials as recited. Lerche teaches an explosives handling system (paragraph 0041) that includes an HMI device configured to receive operator credentials (figure 3, step 202); determine a security level associated with the operator credentials (step 204); and reconfigure the HMI device to provide access to inputs associated with a minimum authority level that is equivalent to or less than the security level associated with the operator credentials (paragraph 0045). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Oliver with the operator credential system of Lerche for the purpose of ensuring only trained, credentialed, and/or authorized users are handling explosives from the system.
Regarding claim 31, Oliver is silent to receiving operator credentials as recited. Lerche teaches an explosives handling system (paragraph 0041) that includes an HMI device configured to receive operator credentials (figure 3, step 202); determine a security level associated with the operator credentials (step 204); and reconfigure the HMI device to provide access to inputs associated with a minimum authority level that is equivalent to or less than the security level associated with the operator credentials (paragraph 0045). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the method of Oliver with the operator credential system of Lerche for the purpose of ensuring only trained, credentialed, and/or authorized users are handling explosives from the system.
Claims 25, 27, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US PGPub 2018/0245902, hereinafter Oliver) in view of Maguire et al. (US 6188936, hereinafter Maguire), as applied to claims 21 and 28 above, and further in view of Von Lengeling et al. (US PGPub 2012/0024181, hereinafter Von Lengeling).
Regarding claim 25, Oliver is silent to a GPS as recited. Von Lengeling teaches an explosive loading system (title) that includes a global positioning system (GPS) (paragraph 0014), wherein the HMI device is further to: track an amount of the explosive mixture used to fill a borehole; associate a coordinate from the GPS with the amount; and provide a delivery log of the amount of explosive mixture at the coordinate (paragraph 0059). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Oliver with the GPS tracking of Von Lengeling for the purpose of producing a record of where the explosives are used and how much was used at each site.
Regarding claim 27, Oliver discloses the controller transmitting blending information to the HMI, the blending information including pumping pressures or ingredient delivery rates (paragraph 0089), but is silent to generating reports as recited. Von Lengeling teaches an explosives loading system that transmits data and generates and exports reports based on the data (paragraph 0061). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Oliver with the reports of Von Lengeling for the purpose of keeping detailed records on the composition and use of the explosives.
Regarding claim 32, Oliver is silent to a GPS as recited. Von Lengeling teaches an explosive loading system (title) that includes a global positioning system (GPS) (paragraph 0014), wherein the HMI device is further to: track an amount of the explosive mixture used to fill a borehole; associate a coordinate from the GPS with the amount; and provide a delivery log of the amount of explosive mixture at the coordinate (paragraph 0059). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the method of Oliver with the GPS tracking of Von Lengeling for the purpose of producing a record of where the explosives are used and how much was used at each site.
Regarding claim 34, Oliver discloses the controller transmitting blending information to the HMI, the blending information including pumping pressures or ingredient delivery rates (paragraph 0089), but is silent to generating reports as recited. Von Lengeling teaches an explosives loading system that transmits data and generates and exports reports based on the data (paragraph 0061). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Oliver with the reports of Von Lengeling for the purpose of keeping detailed records on the composition and use of the explosives.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (US PGPub 2018/0245902, hereinafter Oliver) in view of Maguire et al. (US 6188936, hereinafter Maguire), as applied to claims 21 and 28 above, and further in view of Post et al. (US PGPub 2018/0126346, hereinafter Post).
Regarding claim 26, Oliver is silent to a lookup table. Post teaches a mixing device (figure 1) that produces a mixture by converting user-input parameters from an interface into a mixing method by means of a lookup table (paragraphs 0026-0027). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Oliver with a lookup table, as in Post, for the purpose of providing simple conversions from user preferences to mixing algorithms.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited references generally disclose devices for mixing a predetermined recipe according to user preferences using a controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774