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 05/21/2026, 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, 8-9 and 14-15 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 4, 10, and 17 remain cancelled.
Specification and Drawing:
Amendments to the specification and drawings have not been submitted with the amendment filed on 09/26/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites in part “said PLC calculates the final location of said tool based on said recorded movement of a plurality of actuators and said stored first location of the tool” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 already establishes “said actuators” as the actuators whose movement is recorded and used in location determination. Claim 9 however switches from “said actuators” to “a plurality of actuators” which creates ambiguity as it is unclear if “a plurality of actuators” refers to the same ones as claimed in claim 1 or an entirely new set of actuators not introduced. For examination purposes, as best understood, the Office has interpreted the above recitation to read “said recorded movement of said actuators” for purposes of proper antecedent basis and consistency.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites in part “further comprising the step of determining and storing a first location of said tool.” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a first location” is the same location already known and stored in claim 14 step which in that case would create a 112(d) issues due to redundancy or if the claim does introduce a second, separate “first location” distinct from the one in claim 14 which will render the claim further indefinite as to what this second location represents, how it relates to the “final location” calculation of claim 14, or whether the method now stores two different “first locations”. A person of ordinary skill in the art will not be able to reasonably ascertain which reading is intended. The same reasoning applies to claim 16. Clarification and Correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 depend on claim 1 and recites the same limitation of “said PLC calculates a final location of said tool based on said stored first location of the tool and said recorded movement of said actuators” as recited in claim 1, merely in a reordered form. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillieret et al. (US 20170356157 A1) in view of Saulters et al. (US 4514796 A).
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”…see also [0027] and [0174]);
a PLC (54) coupled to said encoders and a servo driver (electric motors; [0012]-[0016], [0082], [0146], [0152]-[0166]; Fig. 4), wherein said PLC (54) determines a first location of a tool coupled to said actuators ([0082]-[0084], [0170] and claim 24); 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”).
However, To the extent that Caillieret is silent with regards to stores said first location of the tool, records movement of said actuators based on information from said first encoder and said second encoder and calculates a final location of the tool based on the movement of said actuators and said stored first location of the tool.
Saulters in a related invention teaches this missing logic control system by providing a PLC (CPU 88) that continuously reads a plurality of shaft encoder (18, 23, 30, 40, 50) that measures the angular positions of the boom and feed arm (Col 5 lines 20-45, and Figs. 1-2), stores the encoder readings in a memory (RAM) as reference (First) positions (Fig. 3 flowchart; “READ ALL FIVE ENCODERS AND STORE IN RAM” see also Col 6 lines 10-30), and calculate the required movements (Final) positions by comparing current encoder values against stored reference values and generating servo commands accordingly (Col 5 lines 60-68 to Col 6 lines 1-66; Claim 1 and Figs 3-6, 8-11….see also Cols 7 and 8)
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 control unit of Caillieret by incorporating a control logic of storing a first location of the tool, recording movement of said actuators based on information from said first encoder and said a encoder and calculating a final location of the tool based on the movement of said actuators and said stored first location of a tool as taught by Saulters in order to provide accurate automatic closed-loop positioning of the tool position (parallelism) from stored encoder references which improves accuracy and eliminates the need for continuous manual readjustment (Abstract of Saulters and Col 2 lines 10-33 and Col 3 lines 1-10).
Caillieret in view of Saulters further teaches:
Regarding claim 3, wherein said at least one actuator comprises a plurality of linear actuators ([0123]-[0124], [0131] and [0140] of Caillieret).
Regarding claim 5, further comprising at least four linear actuators (22, 24, 26, 27 of Caillieret) and at least one rotary actuators (28; see also [0123]-[0131], [0140], and [0147] of Caillieret).
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a tool (2 of Caillieret) coupled to said system (Figs. 1-2 of Caillieret).
Regarding claim 7, wherein said tool is used for drilling ([0059]; ‘a drilling tool” of Caillieret).
Regarding claim 8, wherein said PLC (54 of Caillieret as modified) calculates a final location of said tool based on said stored first location of the tool and said recorded movement of said actuators (Col 5 lines 60-68 to Col 6 lines 1-66; Claim 1 and Figs 3-6, 8-11….see also Cols 7 and 8 of Saulters as modified).
Regarding claim 9, wherein said PLC (54 of Caillieret as modified) calculates the final location of said tool based on said recorded movement of a plurality of actuators and said stored first location of the tool (Col 5 lines 60-68 to Col 6 lines 1-66; Claim 1 and Figs 3-6, 8-11….see also Cols 7 and 8 of Saulters as modified).
Regarding claim 11, further comprising a boom (6 of Caillieret) which couples said independent vehicle (8, 10, 50 of Caillieret) with a tool (2 of Caillieret).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the angle at which the boom (6 of Caillieret) and the vehicle (8, 10, 50 of Caillieret) are coupled, is adjustable ([0116]-[0122] of Caillieret).
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]).
However, To the extent that Caillieret is silent with regards to d) calculating a final location of said tool based on the movement of said actuators, wherein the calculating step comprises knowing a first location of said tool and using the movement of said actuators to determine the final location of the tool, and storing the first location of the tool.
Saulters in a related invention teaches this missing logic control system by providing a PLC (CPU 88) that continuously reads a plurality of shaft encoder (18, 23, 30, 40, 50) that measures the angular positions of the boom and feed arm (Col 5 lines 20-45, and Figs. 1-2), stores the encoder readings in a memory (RAM) as reference (First) positions (Fig. 3 flowchart; “READ ALL FIVE ENCODERS AND STORE IN RAM” see also Col 6 lines 10-30), and calculate the required movements (Final) positions by comparing current encoder values against stored reference values and generating servo commands accordingly (Col 5 lines 60-68 to Col 6 lines 1-66; Claim 1 and Figs 3-6, 8-11….see also Cols 7 and 8)
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 control unit of Caillieret by incorporating a control logic of storing a first location of the tool, recording movement of said actuators based on information from said first encoder and said a encoder and calculating a final location of the tool based on the movement of said actuators and said stored first location of a tool as taught by Saulters in order to provide accurate automatic closed-loop positioning of the tool position (parallelism) from stored encoder references which improves accuracy and eliminates the need for continuous manual readjustment (Abstract of Saulters and Col 2 lines 10-33 and Col 3 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 15, further comprising the step of determining and storing a first location of said tool ([0082]-[0086] Caillieret and Col 5 lines 60-68 to Col 6 lines 1-66; Claim 1 and Figs 3-6, 8-11….see also Cols 7 and 8 of Saulters as modified).
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 Saulters et al. (US 4514796 A), and in further view of Hering, Sr. (US 4775287 A).
Regarding claim 12, Caillieret as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 11 including said boom (6) (Figs. 1-2), including the arm actuator 24 and boom actuator can have telescopic parts displaceable by means of a rotational electric motor and of a roller screw ([0131]). However, wherein Caillieret is said to be 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 as modified 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 Saulters et al. (US 4514796 A), and in further view of Ogawa (US 20140271074 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Caillieret as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 15 including the step of determining a first location of said tool but 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 as modified 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 and absolute coordinates of the machine body and the direction (azimuth) of the machine body , is measured [0060]).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7 of the Remarks, filed on 05/21/2026, with respect to the rejections of the independent claims under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are deemed moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 14, therefore the Caillieret rejection for the 102 rejections no longer applies. Application of a new 103 rejection under Caillieret in view of Saulters is now relied upon for teaching the newly added subject matter. Please see the new rejection above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights