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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 11/06/2025.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/06/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed 07/09/2025.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-10 has been considered
and are partially persuasive, therefore the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments introduce new issues that a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to Eddowes not being a pickup mechanism has been considered and is not persuasive. Eddowes recites and illustrates 115 cradle as a pickup mechanism comprising of a magnet that attaches to the rod and returns it to the carousel after the drilling operation is complete (Fig. 24-25; Col. 12, lines 54-65). Therefore, the argument is not persuasive as the cradle meets the functional criteria of a pickup mechanism under a broad but reasonable reading of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “an inner guide device” in line 2. Examiner has read as “the inner guide device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eddowes et al. (US7607866) in view of Pyorny (US9428971).
Claim 1. Eddowes discloses: A handling system for handling expendables for an underground mining extension drilling drill rig (10 drill rig, Fig. 16), wherein the handling system comprises:
a pickup mechanism (115 magnet cradle, Fig. 16) configured to move an expendable (110 rod, Fig. 16) back and forth between a magazine (100 carousel, Fig. 16) of the drill rig for expendables and a loading position within the drill rig (Fig. 16), wherein the expendable in the loading position is aligned with a longitudinal drilling axis of the drill rig (Fig. 16) such that a drill head (38 drill, Fig. 16) of the drill rig is arranged to engage a trailing portion of the expendable to thereby move the expendable along the longitudinal drilling axis towards an outer extreme outer position of the expendable (Col. 10, lines 63-64), and a second guide devices (244, 246 arms; Fig. 16), an inner guide device (344, 346 arms; Fig. 16) configured to guide the expandable in a plane transverse to the longitudinal drilling axis (Fig. 19), and be laterally disengageable from the expandable (arms are fully retractable, moving in lateral direction; Fig. 20; Col. 11, lines 55-66). Eddowes does not disclose: a first outer guide device configured to receive and guide the expendable in a plane transverse to the longitudinal drilling axis upon said expendable being fed outwards by the drill head, and configured to optionally grip and hold the trailing portion of the expendable when the expendable is in its outer extreme position; second guiding device to be laterally disengageable from the expendable, and to be rotatable or otherwise movable out of the way of the drill head once the second outer guide device is disengaged from the expendable, wherein the first outer guide device is positioned further outwards along the longitudinal drilling axis than the second outer guide device.
Pyorny discloses a drilling unit comprising of multiple clamps and retraining devices for drilling into rock. Therefore, Pyorny teaches: a first outer guide device (14 retaining device, Fig. 5) configured to receive and guide the expendable in a plane transverse to the longitudinal drilling axis (device inherently receives and provides guidance to the tool in a plane transverse to the longitudinal drilling axis, Fig, 5) upon said expendable being fed outwards by the drill head (6 percussion device and 5 rotating device, Fig. 5), and configured to optionally grip and hold the trailing portion of the expendable when the expendable is in its outer extreme position (14 retaining device used to prevent rotation of tool components for connecting or disconnecting 7 rotating tool; Col. 5, lines 7-17); 14 is positioned at the distal end of 2 feed beam, Fig. 5); to be laterally disengageable from the expendable, and to be rotatable or otherwise movable out of the way of the drill head once the second outer guide device is disengaged from the expendable (26 can be arranged to pivot on 2 and turned between drilling axis and side 16 position, Fig. 5; Col. 6, lines 13-23), wherein the first outer guide device is positioned further outwards along the longitudinal drilling axis than the second outer guide device (14 is furthest outwards along longitudinal axis to be close to the drilled hole, Fig. 5 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the retaining device and lateral disengagable configuration of the changing devices of Pyorny into the guiding system of Eddowes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to guide a drilling tool in a plane transverse to the drilling axis with laterally disengagable guides that are moveable out the way of the drill head and a first guiding device to restrain the drilling tool at the trailing portion for making or breaking connections as taught by Pyorny (Fig. 5). Such a substitution represents the use of a known elements according to their established functions, and the results would have been predictable.
Claim 2. Eddowes in view of Pyorny teach: The handling system according to claim 1, further comprising an inner guide device positioned to receive a front portion of an expendable in the loading position (Eddowes: 344 is receiving the front portion of the rod; Fig. 18) and configured such that the expendable is guided in a plane transverse to the longitudinal drilling axis whilst the expendable is allowed to move along the longitudinal drilling axis upon being driven by the drill head (Eddowes: Col. 11, lines 27-28; Fig. 18).
Claim 3. Eddowes in view of Pyorny teach: The handling system according to claim 1. Eddowes in view of Pyrone does not explicitly teach: the first outer guide device includes a first guide screen configured to guide a front portion of the expendable into the first outer guide device as the front portion of the expendable approaches the first outer guide device. Eddowes does recite: a first guide screen configured to guide (Eddowes: conical jaw formation which provides converging and centering passage through the arms; Col. 9, lines 29-33) a front portion of the expendable into the guide device as the front portion of the expendable approaches the guide device (Eddowes: Col. 9, lines 29-33; Col. 11, lines 22-25).
Eddowes teaches the claimed invention except for the first guide screen as a separate component. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the guide screen integral or unitary, rather than from separate components, to the arms as it has been held that where the sub-components are used in the same way, constructing formerly separate structures as a one-piece construction is a matter of obvious engineering choice and involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04, subsection V, paragraph B & In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Pyorny is silent on the geometry of the jaws of the retraining device however Eddowes teaches the conical jaw for guiding purposes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the conical jaws as taught by Eddowes into the jaws of the restraining device of Pyorny with a reasonable expectation of success in order to guide the front portion of a drilling tool in a plane transverse to the drilling as taught by Eddwoes (Col. 9, lines 29-33). Such a substitution represents the use of a known elements according to their established functions, and the results would have been predictable.
Claim 4. Eddowes in view of Pyorny teach: The handling system according to claim 3, wherein the first guide screen is frustoconical (Eddowes: expendable will pass through a tapered lead formed by a conical jaw, Fig. 6; Col. 11, lines 22-25).
Claim 5. Eddowes in view of Pyorny teach: The handling system according to claim 1, wherein each one of the first and second outer guide devices includes a respective through recess for receiving an expendable, wherein each through recess is laterally open with respect to the longitudinal drilling axis such that an expendable is movable into and out of the through recess through the lateral opening (changing devices and restraining device of Pyorny (Fig. 6) and arms of Eddowes (344/346, Fig. 4) have a laterally shape opening allowing the expendable to move into and out).
Claim 7. Eddowes in view of Pyorny teach: The handling system according to claim 1, wherein the second outer guide device includes a second guide screen configured to guide a front portion of the expendable into the second outer guide device as the front portion of the expendable approaches the second outer guide device.
Eddowes does not explicitly teach: the second outer guide device includes a second guide screen configured to guide. However, Eddowes does teach expendables passing through a tapered lead formed by a conical jaw (Fig. 6; Col. 11, lines 22-25; see previously rejected claim 3). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the tapered lead formed by a conical jaw into arms 344 and 346 to guide the expendable with a reasonable expectation of success and predictability.
Claim 8. Eddowes in view of Pyorny teach: The handling system according to claim 7, wherein the second guide screen is frustoconical (see previously rejected claim 4) and provided with a lateral opening (Eddowes: 344 and 346 has a lateral shape opening and modified by rejection above with tapered lead formed by a conical jaw).
Claim 9. Eddowes in view of Pyorny teach: A drill rig system comprising: a drill rig; and a handling system according to claim 1 (Eddowes Fig. 14; Pyorny: Fig. 5).
Claim 10. Eddowes in view of Pyorny teach: A drilling vehicle, such as a cutting machine provided with a bolter, a mobile bolter, a bolter car, a bolter miner or a roadheader, comprising a drill rig system according to claim 9 (Eddowes mining vehicle; Col. 10, lines 5-11).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eddowes et al. (US7607866) in view of Pyorny (US9428971). and further in view of Ratigan (US1482148).
Claim 6. Eddowes in view of Pyorny teach: The handling system according to claim 5, first outer guide device and second outer guide device. Eddowes in view of Pyorny does not teach: a respective guide member laterally movable into and out of the through recess, and an actuator for controlling the position of the guide member.
Ratigan teaches a reliable clamp to securely hold an element of a drilling operation so that the element can be held or released from a clamping force. Therefore, Ratigan teaches: a respective guide member laterally movable into and out of the through recess (9 clamping block in 4 groove, movable laterally; Fig. 1), and an actuator for controlling the position of the guide member (15 screw provide adjustability, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the clamping arms of Eddowes and restraining device of Pyorny to include a laterally moveable guide member controlled by an actuator with a reasonable expectation of success to securely hold the rod during the drilling operation as suggested by Ratigan (Col. 1, lines 11-18).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights