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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 May 2026 has been entered.
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 1, 3, and 6 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontana et al. (EP 3404146) in view of Bauer et. al. (US 2019/0169941) and Neidhardt et al. (US 2013/0056275).
Regarding claim 1, Fontana discloses a working machine comprising: a mast (5), along which, by means of a positioning means (pulling-pushing system 11), a power rotary head (rotary 10) is vertically movable, by which a telescopic Kelly rod (Kelly rod 20) having at least two Kelly bars (20A, 20C) which, by the positioning means, is guided in a displaceable manner, wherein the at least two Kelly bars include an outer Kelly bar (20A) designed for being supported on the power rotary head (10) and an inner Kelly bar (20C), wherein the inner Kelly bar includes a rope suspension (winch 8) configured to be coupled to a rope (9), the inner Kelly bar (20) is configured to be vertically movable by means of a main rope winch (9) configured to winch the rope coupled to the rope suspension, wherein, for the purpose of torque transmission, the at least two Kelly bars are provided on external or internal sides of the at least two Kelly bars with axially running drive keys (longitudinal strips 21A) as well as locking recesses (recesses 22A, 23A) on the drive keys (21A); a controller (control unit 31) is configured to control the positioning means (11) of the power rotary head (10) or the main rope winch (8) can be actuated so that the at least two Kelly bars (20A, 20B) are moved axially relative to each other, and a detection means (first sensor 35) configured to detect a movement distance of the at least two Kelly bars (20A, 20C) with respect to each other (Figs. 1A, 3A, and 3B; paragraphs 0017, 0018, 0021, 0025, 0041, 0043, and 0055 - 0062). Fontana fails to disclose the controller is designed for locking the at least two Kelly bars into a locked condition and automatically verifying the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition, irrespective of whether a locking process is carried out, wherein the controller is configured to, based on a limit value for a maximum movement distance or a limit value for a minimum axial pressure, perform a first comparison between the movement distance and the limit value for the maximum movement distance or a second comparison between the axial pressure on the power rotary head and the limit value for the minimum axial pressure, and ascertain the correct locking state of the at least two Kelly bars based on a result of the first comparison or the second comparison; and a detection means configured to detect at least one of a tensile force on the rope and an axial pressure on the power rotary head during movement of the at least two Kelly bars in the axial direction. Bauer teaches a controller is capable of locking the at least two Kelly bars into a locked condition and automatically verifying the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition, irrespective of whether a locking process is carried out, wherein the controller is configured to, based on a limit value for a minimum axial pressure, perform a second comparison between the axial pressure on the power rotary head and the limit value for the minimum axial pressure, and ascertain the correct locking state of the at least two Kelly bars based on a result of the second comparison (paragraphs 0010, 0011, 0022, and 0036). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the controller as disclosed by Fontana with the controller having the ability to automatically check a correct locking state as taught by Bauer to reduce the number of personnel and associated labor costs required to operate the working machine. Examiner notes that although the controller as taught by Bauer is not “designed for” automatically verifying the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition, the controller as taught by Bauer is designed for determining a locking and unlocking of the Kelly bars based on the detected rotation angle and/or detected force, torque, or pressure change and the detected pressure changes can be detected as an indication for the presence of a successful locking of the Kelly bars. Examiner takes the position that given the fact that the controller as taught by Bauer can use detected pressure changes to determine the presence of a successful locking of the Kelly bars, the controller as taught by Bauer is capable of taking pressure readings at different times, such as after the locking process, which would allow for automatic verification that the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition, thereby reading on the claim limitations. Examiner notes that Bauer has only been relied upon to teach a controller capable of locking the at least two Kelly bars into a locked condition and automatically verifying the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition and that the controller as taught by Fontana is provided with detection means for detecting axial movement of the Kelly bars. Bauer fails to teach a detection means configured to detect at least one of a tensile force on the rope and an axial pressure on the power rotary head during movement of the at least two Kelly bars in the axial direction. Neidhardt teaches a detection means (sensor 42) configured to detect a tensile force on the rope (cable 33 is functionally equivalent to a rope) (Fig. 2; paragraph 0019) so that if the tensile forces sensed by the sensor become compressive, the controller will actuate winches to apply a downward force to bring the drive string back into tension. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the detection means configured to detect a tensile force on the rope as taught by Neidhardt to ensure that the rope remains in tension.
Regarding claim 3, Fontana further discloses the at least two Kelly bars (20A, 20C) includes at least one intermediate Kelly bar (20B) which are arranged between the outer Kelly bar (20A) and the inner Kelly bar (20C) (Fig. 3B; paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 6, Fontana fails to disclose in order to detect the axial pressure a pressure increase in a hydraulic drive system can be detected. Bauer teaches in order to detect the axial pressure a pressure increase in a hydraulic drive system (hydraulic system) can be detected (paragraph 0036) to indicate a successful locking of the Kelly bars. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with in order to detect the axial pressure a pressure increase in a hydraulic drive system can be detected as taught by Bauer to provide an indication that the Kelly bars have moved relative to each other and are axially positioned for locking.
Regarding claim 7, Fontana further discloses at least one input or determining means (winding sensor 30) with which a position of the rope (9) can be input or determined (Figs. 3A and 3B; paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 8, Fontana further discloses when detecting the correct locking state the position of the positioning means or a position of the rope (9) can be saved in the controller (31) (paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 9, Fontana discloses a method of controlling a working machine (soil drilling machine 1) having a mast (5), along which, by means of a positioning means (11), a power rotary head (10) is moved vertically, and by the positioning means a telescopic Kelly rod (20) having at least two Kelly bars (20A, 20C) is displaced and guided, wherein the at least two Kelly bars include an outer Kelly bar (20A) that is supported on the power rotary head (10) and an inner Kelly bar (20C) that is configured to be suspended on a rope (9), the inner Kelly bar (20C) is configured to be moved vertically by means of a main rope winch (8) coupled to the rope, wherein, for the purpose of torque transmission, the at least two Kelly bars (20A, 20C) are provided on external or internal sides with axially running drive keys (21A) as well as locking recesses (22A, 23A) on the drive keys (21A), the method comprising: actuating the positioning means (11) of the power rotary head (10) or the main rope winch (8) so that the at least two Kelly bars (20A, 20C) are moved axially relative to each other, detecting by means of at least one detection means (35) a movement distance of the at least two Kelly bars (20A, 20C) with respect to each other (Figs. 1A, 3A, and 3B; paragraphs 0017, 0018, 0021, 0025, 0041, 0043, and 0055 - 0062). Fontana fails to disclose by means of the controller, locking the at least two Kelly bars into a locked condition and automatically verifying the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition, irrespective of whether a locking process is carried out, the checking including: based on a limit value for a maximum movement distance or a limit value for a minimum axial pressure, performing a first comparison between the movement distance and the limit value for the maximum movement distance or a second comparison between the axial pressure of the power rotary head and the limit value for the minimum axial pressure, and ascertaining the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition based on a result of the first comparison or the second comparison; detecting by means of at least one detection means at least one of a tensile force on the rope and an axial pressure on the power rotary head during movement of the at least two Kelly bars in the axial direction, and ascertaining the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition based on a result of the first comparison or the second comparison. Bauer teaches a controller is capable of locking the at least two Kelly bars into a locked condition and automatically verifying the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition, irrespective of whether a locking process is carried out, wherein the controller is configured to, based on a limit value for a minimum axial pressure, perform a second comparison between the axial pressure on the power rotary head and the limit value for the minimum axial pressure, and ascertain the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition based on a result of the second comparison (paragraphs 0010, 0011, 0022, and 0036). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed by Fontana with the step of, by means of the controller, locking the at least two Kelly bars into a locked condition and automatically verifying the at least two Kelly bars are in the locked condition, irrespective of whether a locking process is carried out as taught by Bauer to reduce the number of personnel and associated labor costs required to operate the working machine. Examiner notes that although the controller as taught by Bauer is not designed for automatically verifying the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition, the controller as taught by Bauer is designed for determining a locking and unlocking of the Kelly bars based on the detected rotation angle and/or detected force, torque, or pressure change and the detected pressure changes can be detected as an indication for the presence of a successful locking of the Kelly bars. Examiner takes the position that given the fact that the controller as taught by Bauer can use detected pressure changes to determine the presence of a successful locking of the Kelly bars, the controller as taught by Bauer is capable of taking pressure readings at different times, such as after the locking process, which would allow for automatic verification that the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition. Bauer fails to teach detecting by means of at least one detection means at least one of a tensile force on the rope and an axial pressure on the power rotary head during movement of the at least two Kelly bars in the axial direction. Neidhardt teaches a detection means (sensor 42) configured to detect a tensile force on the rope (cable 33 is functionally equivalent to a rope) (Fig. 2; paragraph 0019) so that if the tensile forces sensed by the sensor become compressive, the controller will actuate winches to apply a downward force to bring the drive string back into tension. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the detection means configured to detect a tensile force on the rope as taught by Neidhardt to ensure that the rope remains in tension. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the steps of, by means of the controller, locking the at least two Kelly bars into a locked condition and automatically verifying the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition, detecting by means of at least one detection means at least one of a tensile force on the rope and an axial pressure on the power rotary head during movement of the at least two Kelly bars in the axial direction, and ascertaining the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition based on a result of the first comparison or the second comparison would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Fontana further discloses wherein the checking includes placing a ground working tool (15) on the inner Kelly bar (20C) onto ground (Figs. 3A and 3B; paragraphs 0021 and 0024).
Regarding claim 11, Fontana further discloses producing a borehole in ground (Figs. 3A and 3B; paragraphs 0021 and 0024).
Regarding claim 12, Fontana further discloses filling the borehole to form a foundation element (foundation) (paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 13, Fontana discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except performing an automatic locking process. Bauer teaches a controller to automatically lock and unlock Kelly bars (paragraphs 0010, 0011, 0018, and 0022). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed by Fontana with automatically locking of Kelly bars using a controller as taught by Bauer to ensure that the adjacent Kelly bars are locked through the continuous monitoring of rotation angle and/or detected force, torque, or pressure change.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Fontana further discloses the controller (31) is designed for verifying the existing locked condition of the at least two Kelly bars by verifying a position of the drive keys (21A) relative to the locking recesses (recesses 22A. 23A) of the at least two Kelly bars (Figs. 1A, 3A, and 3B; paragraphs 0055 - 0061).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontana et al. in view of Bauer et al. and Neidhardt et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Decker (US 4,137,974). Fontana further discloses on a lower end of the inner Kelly bar (20C) a ground working tool (drilling tool 15) is located (paragraph 0024). Fontana in view of Bauer and Neidhardt fails to disclose the ground working tool is mounted in a releasable manner. Decker teaches a ground working tool (auger 61) is mounted in a releasable manner (auger 61 releasably attached to auger holder 64) (Figs. 2 and 10; col. 6, lines 41 - 47). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the ground working tool as disclosed by Fontana with the releasable connection between the ground working tool and the inner Kelly bar as taught by Decker to allow for the repair or replacement of the ground working tool.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontana et al. in view of Bauer et al. and Neidhardt et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shor et al. (US 2020/0024901). Fontana in view of Bauer and Neidhardt discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rotary head can be actuated by the controller. Shor teaches a rotary head (top drive) can be automatically actuated by a controller (processors 204, memory 214, operating system 216) (Figs. 2 and 4; paragraph 0021). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the controller as taught by Shor to reduce the number of personnel and associated labor costs required to operate the working machine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bauer only describes a locking detection in direct conjunction with the locking process and Bauer does not describe determining, after a locking process, whether the Kelly bars are still locked. Examiner replies that although the controller as taught by Bauer is not “designed for” automatically verifying the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition, the controller as taught by Bauer is designed for determining a locking and unlocking of the Kelly bars based on the detected rotation angle and/or detected force, torque, or pressure change and the detected pressure changes can be detected as an indication for the presence of a successful locking of the Kelly bars. Examiner takes the position that given the fact that the controller as taught by Bauer can use detected pressure changes to determine the presence of a successful locking of the Kelly bars, the controller as taught by Bauer is capable of taking pressure readings at different times, such as after the locking process, which would allow for automatic verification that the at least two Kelly bars are still in the locked condition, thereby reading on the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
7/1/2026
Prosecution Insights