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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 12/03/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11-16 are pending for examination.
Claims 1 and 14 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 4, 10, and 17 are cancelled.
Specification and Drawing:
Amendments to the specification and drawings have not been submitted with the amendment filed on 09/26/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caillieret et al. (US 20170356157 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Caillieret discloses a system for ascertaining location ([0082] “several position sensors, each position sensor being configured to detect the position of a respective electric actuator and to send position signals to said control unit, said control unit being further configured to determine the position of each one of said electric actuators based upon said position signals”-See also [0053], [0170] and Figs. 1 and 4), said system comprising:
at least one linear servo actuator ([0032]-[0033], [0130]-[0131], [0139], and [0147]-[0151]; “one electric actuator can comprise a reversible mechanical linear actuator….”) coupled to a first encoder ([0085]-[0086], [0147], [0170]; “each position sensor can be an encoder coupled with an electric actuator”…Fig. 3; the actuator is servo-controlled via control unit 54 using feedback signals [0146], and [0152]-[0154]);
at least one rotary servo actuator ([0132]-[0136], “swing actuators 28 and drive actuators 30, 10.1, 10.2 are rotational electric actuators; Figs. 1-2) coupled to a second encoder ([0082]-[0086], [0147], [0170]; “each position sensor can be an encoder coupled with an electric actuator”…Fig. 3; the actuator is servo-controlled via control unit 54 using feedback signals [0146], and [0152]-[0154]);
at least one independent carrier vehicle (8, 10, 50) coupled with said actuators (Figs. 1-2);
wherein said at least one linear servo actuator and at least one rotary servo actuator are driven by electrical power supplied by an external power source ([0139] “The electric actuators include respective electric motors. Electric power can be supplied to the electric motors by a non-illustrated electric accumulator which can for instance be mounted on a chassis of excavator 1”);
a PLC (54) coupled to said encoders and a servo driver (electric motors; [0012]-[0016], [0082], [0146], [0152]-[0166]; Fig. 4); and
wherein said system does not comprise any hydraulic lines ([0027] “said at least one actuating set may comprise only electric actuators. In other words, said at least one actuating set does not comprise any other kind of actuator, in particular no hydraulic actuator, apart from electric actuators”).
Caillieret further discloses:
Regarding claim 3, wherein said at least one actuator comprises a plurality of linear actuators ([0123]-[0124], [0131] and [0140]).
Regarding claim 5, further comprising at least four linear actuators (22, 24, 26, 27) and at least one rotary actuators (28; see also [0123]-[0131], [0140], and [0147]).
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a tool (2) coupled to said system (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, wherein said tool is used for drilling ([0059]; ‘a drilling tool”).
Regarding claim 8, wherein said PLC determines the location of said tool based on information from said at least one actuator ([0082]-[0086], [0146], [0152], and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, wherein said PLC determines the location of said tool based on information from a plurality of actuators ([0082]-[0086], [0129]-[0131], and [0157]-[0160]; multiple actuators are monitored and controlled concurrently as position sensors are provided for each actuator and combined motion is calculated based on multiple actuators).
Regarding claim 11, further comprising a boom (6) which couples said independent vehicle (8, 10, 50) with a tool (2).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the angle at which the boom (6) and the vehicle (8, 10, 50) are coupled, is adjustable ([0116]-[0122]).
Regarding claim 14, a method of ascertaining location of a tool (([0082] “several position sensors, each position sensor being configured to detect the position of a respective electric actuator and to send position signals to said control unit, said control unit being further configured to determine the position of each one of said electric actuators based upon said position signals”-See also [0053], [0123]-[0137], [0170] and Figs. 1 and 4), said method comprising the steps of:
a) coupling a carrier vehicle (8, 10, 50) with a tool (2), wherein said tool is coupled to a at least one linear servo actuator ([0032]-[0033], [0130]-[0131], [0139], and [0147]-[0151]; “one electric actuator can comprise a reversible mechanical linear actuator….”), and at least one rotary servo actuator ([0132]-[0136], “swing actuators 28 and drive actuators 30, 10.1, 10.2 are rotational electric actuators; Figs. 1-2), each actuator coupled to an encoder ([0085]-[0086], [0147], [0170]; “each position sensor can be an encoder coupled with an electric actuator”…Fig. 3; the actuator is servo-controlled via control unit 54 using feedback signals [0146], and [0152]-[0154]); wherein said at least one linear servo actuator and at least one rotary servo actuator are driven by electrical power supplied by an external power source ([0139] “The electric actuators include respective electric motors. Electric power can be supplied to the electric motors by a non-illustrated electric accumulator which can for instance be mounted on a chassis of excavator 1”);
b) instructing the plurality of actuators to move said tool (via control unit, 54; [0153]-[0159]);
c) recording movement of said actuators (via sensor/encoders…se [0085], [0147]-[0149], and [0152]-[0159]);
d) calculating a final location of said tool based on the movement of said actuators (via control unit, 54; [0016], [0053] [0082]-[0086], [0149], [0157], and [0170]);
wherein said method does not utilize hydraulic lines ([0027]).
Regarding claim 15, further comprising the step of determining a first location of said tool ([0082]-[0086]).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillieret et al. (US 20170356157 A1) in view of Hering, Sr. (US 4775287 A).
Regarding claim 12, Caillieret discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 11 including said boom (6) (Figs. 1-2).
Caillieret is silent wherein said boom has an adjustable length.
Hering, Sr. teaches that it is old and well known to provide a boom having an adjustable length (Col 1 lines 5-40 and Col 2 lines 20-35, Col 4 lines 1-25; Figs. 1-3 and claims 1).
Therefore, 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 boom of Caillieret by incorporating a boom having an adjustable length as taught by Hering, Sr. in order to provide extended reach and flexibility, thereby providing operational efficiency in confined space.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillieret et al. (US 20170356157 A1) in view of Ogawa (US 20140271074 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Caillieret discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 15 including the step of determining a first location of said tool (Fig. 3).
Caillieret is silent wherein said determining a first location comprises obtaining a first location through GPS.
Ogawa teaches that it is old and well known to obtain a first location of a tool (7) via GPS ([0060] and [0062], claims 2-3).
Therefore, 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 system of Caillieret by incorporating obtaining a first location through GPS as taught by Ogawa in order to increase accuracy of data collection and allow precise positioning of the entire system or tool relative to object of drilling.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-7 of the Remarks, filed on 12/03/2025, with respect to the rejections of the independent claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are deemed moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 14, therefore the Mashimo in view Hamalainen reference for the 103 rejections no longer applies. Application of Caillieret is now relied upon for teaching the newly added subject matter. Please see the new rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See “Notice of References Cited”.
Staub (US 20040020083 A1), teaches a method of ascertaining location of a tool comprising determining location of a tool using GPS (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/STEPHEN F. GERRITY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 29 December 2025
Prosecution Insights