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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Ng fails to disclose determination of feeding distance from the rotational motion of a target wheel is not persuasive since Ng discloses using the rotary encoder to digitize readings of the encoder resulting from motion of the traveling block to control the raising and lowering of the drill string in pgph. 146 which requires measuring distance traveled and discloses monitoring position of the traveling block over time to determine ROP in pgph. 78 which also requires determining distance travelled.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 7, 9-10, 13, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 4449592 A) in light of Ng (US 20200056470 A1) and Et (US 5365674 A).
With respect to claim 1, Mayer discloses a method performed by a control device for controlling a feeding distance and feeding rate in a rock drilling unit the rock drilling unit comprising: an elongated beam (14) on a boom (boom extending between vehicle indicated by 12 in fig. 1 and the mast 14) a feeding device (42 and chain and sprocket, col. 5 ll. 22-30) for feeding at least one drill rod (26) and a drill bit (col. 4 ll. 58-64) in an axial direction; a rotating device (20, col. 4 ll. 28-34) configured to generate a rotational movement of the at least one drill rod and the drill bit; controlling the feeding device to move in the axial direction (col. 5 ll. 22-63), wherein a hose drum (drum/reel shown in figs. 1-3 but not labeled, referred to as 60 in spec in col. 6 ll. 9-14) is driven by the feeding device (the reel would naturally be driven by the feeding device and would wind and unwind the hoses as the feeding device moves in each (uphole and downhole) direction in accordance with the well-known functionality of a hose reel. Failing to either unwind the hoses or wind up the hoses as the feeding device moves in a first or second direction would be failing to protect/minimize damage to the hoses which is expressly set forth in the cited portion of Mayer in col. 6 ll. 10-13).
However, Mayer fails to disclose the measuring device and control device as claimed.
Nevertheless, Ng discloses a distance and rate measuring device (pgph. 146) comprising at least one rotational target wheel (roller, pgph. 146, or rotating member of crown sheave) configured to be driven by the feeding device and at least one sensor device (rotary motion encoder used to digitize readings, pgphs. 75-78, 146) connected to a control device (212) wherein the at least one sensor device is configured to sense a rotational motion of the at least one rotational target wheel the method comprising (pgphs. 75-78, 146, this is how encoders function), and determining the feeding distance from a first position and the feeding rate of the feeding device from the rotational motion of the at least one rotational target wheel (pgphs. 75-78, 174) and controlling the feeding device using the controller based on the determined feeding distance and feeding rate of the feeding device (pgphs. 165-168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the wheel and sensor with the control device of Ng to sense position and feed rate of the device of Mayer and to be able to calculate ROP as taught by Ng and to have used this information to control drilling operations in order to prevent damaging accelerations or decelerations as taught by Ng (pgphs. 3, 165-167). In the combination, the wheel would be connected to the hose drum since all parts of the rig of Mayer are connected. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have directly attached the wheel to the drum of Mayer since Ng contemplates a crown sheave as a suitable location for the encoder wheel which is a rotating drum at the top of a mast which is the same location as the hose drum of Mayer thus making this an obvious choice for a location of the wheel.
Mayer and Ng also fail to explicitly discloses determining direction. Nevertheless, Et discloses determining the axial feeding direction of the feeding device (12) based on the rotational motion of the at least one rotational target wheel (42, which rotates 58, col. 2 l. 44 – col. 3 l. 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the optical encoder of Et with the roller of Mayer in light of Ng in order to be able to determine the length of displacement as well as direction in order to measure, with great precision, the displacements of the carriage as well as its direction and to be able to deduce therefrom the exact position of the tool in the well (col. 3 11. 1-30, Et).
With respect to claim 3, Ng further discloses receiving at least one signal from the at least one sensor device (pgphs. 146, 75-78).
With respect to claim 4, Ng further discloses resetting the feeding distance from the first position to zero at a predetermined position of the feeding device (30 meters after encountering a stringer, pgph. 167, since the stringer detector is counting depth since the stinger was encountered and then upon recalibration after the 30 meters has been drilled the depth is reset to zero until the next stringer is encountered) and determining the feeding distance of the feeding device from the predetermined position of the feeding device from the rotational motion of the at least one rotational target wheel (pgphs. 75-78, 146).
With respect to claim 6, Ng further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a computer cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1 (pgphs. 49, 153-170).
The limitations of claims 7, 9, 10, and 16 are substantially similar to those of claims 1, 3, and 4, rejected supra.
With respect to claim 13, Ng discloses wherein the at least one rotational target wheel is connected to an elongated frame or beam (rail, pgph. 146) of the rock drilling unit or on the feeding device wherein the at least one rotational target wheel is configured to be driven by the motion of the feeding device in relation to the elongated frame or beam (pgph. 146).
With respect to claim 14, Ng discloses a rock drilling rig (100) comprising the rock drilling unit according to claim 7.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng, Mayer, and Et as applied to claim 7 above, and further in light of Schivley (US 5449047 A).
With respect to claim 12, Mayer fails to explicitly disclose the hydraulic motor arrangement as claimed.
Nevertheless, Schivley discloses hydraulic motors (52, 54) used to rotate the sprockets of the feed device (pgph. 40), which will necessarily have output shafts. The wheel of Mayer in light of Ng will be connected to the drive shaft of the hydraulic motor of Schivley in the combination since all members of the rig of Mayer are connected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a hydraulic motor to rotate the sprockets of Mayer as taught by Schivley (col. 3 ll. 43-55) since this is the simple substitution of one prior art device for another with predictable results and a reasonable expectation for success. Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to have used one of the motor output shafts as a location for mounting the wheel of Ng since Ng also discloses mounting the encoder on the drawworks (pgph. 77), which is analogous to the sprocket motors of Schivley since they both achieve linear motion for the feeding device.
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 KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 PM.
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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 01/09/2026