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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 31-34 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The originally claimed invention broadly recites a civil engineering tool which can take a variety of forms. The newly recited invention requires a particular form and recites a significant amount of additional structure. There would be a significant additional search and examination burden if the examiner were to consider the newly recited invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 31-34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
Claim(s) 16-19 and 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millgard et al. (US 5,135,058, hereafter Millgard) in view of Tubel et al. (WO 98/12418, hereafter Tubel)
With respect to claim 16, Millgard teaches a civil engineering tool (Kelly bar 18) comprising: a memory; at least one sensor (sensor 104, 106) configured to acquire operating data of the civil engineering tool, and a processor (microprocessor 102) to store the operating data of the civil engineering tool in the memory, wherein the civil engineering tool comprises at least one of a drilling bucket, an auger drill, a displacement auger, a Kelly bar or a Kelly extension. (col. 3, lines 30-51; col. 5, lines 33-47; Figs. 1, 7) Note that although the specification does not explicitly mention a memory, this must inherently exist in order for the processor to function.
Millgard does not explicitly teach wherein the memory and the processor are disposed on the civil engineering tool.
Tubel teaches a civil engineering tool (downhole tool 10) comprising: a memory (memory 420) disposed on the civil engineering tool, at least one sensor (418, configured to acquire data, and a processor (control circuit 410) disposed on the civil engineering tool, the processor configured to store the data in the memory. (page 30, Fig. 8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to dispose the memory and the processor of Millgard on the civil engineering tool, as taught by Tubel, in order to allow for local automatic control and data processing.
With respect to claim 17, Millgard, as modified by Tubel, teaches the operating data of the civil engineering tool includes an operating time of the civil engineering tool and the processor is configured to store in the memory the operating time in association with a time marking including a time and a date. (Millgard, col. 5, lines 33-47) Note that, although Millgard, as modified by Tubel, does not explicitly mention marking the date, this would inherently be necessary in order to distinguish data acquired over an extended period of time.
With respect to claim 18, Millgard, as modified by Tubel, teaches the operating data includes at least one of a rotation speed of the civil engineering tool, an external pressure on the civil engineering tool, and a temperature of the civil engineering tool. (Millgard, col. 5, lines 33-47)
With respect to claim 19, Millgard, as modified by Tubel, teaches the at least one sensor comprises an acceleration sensor configured to acquire the rotation speed of the civil engineering tool. Millgard also teaches additional sensors which measure pressure and temperature of the environment.(col. 5, lines 33-47) Although Millgard, as modified by Tubel, does not explicitly teach a pressure measuring device configured to measure the external pressure on the civil engineering tool and a temperature sensor configured to measure the temperature of the civil engineering tool, these would have been obvious additions to the structure in order to provide additional operating information.
With respect to claim 21, although Millgard, as modified by Tubel, does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a servicing state of the civil engineering tool based on the operating data, this data would have been available as a result of the monitoring taught by Millgard and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide this data.
With respect to claim 22, Millgard, as modified by Tubel, teaches an energy supply including an electric accumulator (rechargeable batteries 366) configured to supply energy to the processor and the memory. (Tubel, page 29)
With respect to claim 23, Millgard, as modified by Tubel, teaches the processor, the memory, and the at least one sensor are included in an operating data unit configured to be attached to and detached from a housing of the civil engineering tool. (Millgard, col. 5, lines 33-47) Note that, in general, elements of a device are inherently detachable.
With respect to claim 24, Millgard, as modified by Tubel, teaches the operating data unit includes a wired or wireless transmission device for data transmission of the operating data. (Millgard, col. 5, lines 33-47)
With respect to claim 25, Millgard, as modified by Tubel, teaches the civil engineering tool comprises a drilling tool, the drilling tool comprising at least one of the drilling bucket, the auger drill, a rock drill, the displacement auger, the Kelly bar or the Kelly extension. (Millgard, col. 3, lines 30-51)
With respect to claim 26, Millgard, as modified by Tubel, teaches a civil engineering machine with a carrier comprising a chassis, which comprises an undercarriage with the chassis and an upper carriage mounted rotatably thereon, and a civil engineering tool (Kelly bar 18) according to claim 16 attached to the civil engineering machine. (Millgard, col. 3, lines 30-51) Note that the undercarriage and upper carriage are not positively claimed and therefore have been broadly interpreted to apply to the structure of the apparatus of Millgard.
With respect to claim 27, Millgard teaches a civil engineering method of a civil engineering tool (Kelly bar 18), the method comprising: acquiring, by at least one sensor (sensor 104, 106) attached to the civil engineering tool, operating data of the civil engineering tool; and storing, by a processor of the civil engineering tool, the operating data of the civil engineering tool in a memory of the civil engineering tool, wherein the civil engineering tool comprises at least one of a drilling bucket, an auger drill, a displacement auger, a Kelly bar or a Kelly extension. (col. 3, lines 30-51; col. 5, lines 33-47; Figs. 1, 7) Note that although the specification does not explicitly mention a memory, this must inherently exist in order for the processor to function.
Millgard does not explicitly teach wherein the memory and the processor are disposed on the civil engineering tool.
Tubel teaches a civil engineering tool (downhole tool 10) comprising: a memory (memory 420) disposed on the civil engineering tool, at least one sensor (418, configured to acquire data, and a processor (control circuit 410) disposed on the civil engineering tool, the processor configured to store the data in the memory. (page 30, Fig. 8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to dispose the memory and the processor of Millgard on the civil engineering tool, as taught by Tubel, in order to allow for local automatic control and data processing.
With respect to claim 28, although Millgard, as modified by Tubel, does not explicitly teach the operating data are stored securely against manipulation in the memory, data security is well-known and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the operating data unit of Millgard to include secure data storage in order to maintain the integrity of the data.
With respect to claim 29, Millgard, as modified by Tubel, teaches further comprising transmitting, by the processor, the operating data from the memory to an output device. (Millgard, col. 5, lines 33-47) Although Millgard, as modified by Tubel, does not explicitly discuss a central control room, this is broadly interpreted to represent whatever space contains the output device.
With respect to claim 30, although Millgard, as modified by Tubel, does not explicitly teach wherein operating data of a carrier of a civil engineering machine are compared to the operating data of the civil engineering tool in the central control room, Millgard does discuss cooperating with additional sensors and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include additional data retrieval and comparison as claimed in order to provide additional operating data to an end user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights