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
This action is responsive to the communications filed 05/10/2023 (claimed foreign priority date 11/13/2020):
Claims 41-80 have been examined.
Claims 1-40 have been canceled by Applicant.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “detection means for detecting boreholes in the drilled surface and assigning a location for each borehole;” “means for determining physical parameters of each borehole;” “means for cleaning each borehole;” “means for loading a booster, detonator, and/or other explosive materials;” “means for supplying a blasting agent;” “means for covering each borehole;” “means for detonating each borehole loaded with explosives;” “mesh guiding and opening subsystem for those cases in which a reinforcement mesh is provided on the loading surface;” “device in the form of a speculum comprising two or more pieces that are opened by a driving mechanism, deforming the mesh, and creating space for system elements to pass through;” “cutting tool;” “means for moving and placing the various elements;” “sensors that scan the surface three-dimensionally, and detect each borehole and assign a location within a digital model;” “inertial sensor that establishes parameters such as borehole length and inclination, and wherein the sensor is placed at the end of a drilling element that allows various measurements to be made as the sensor is inserted into each borehole;” “means for identifying the state of cleanliness of each borehole and for cleaning each borehole;” “mechanism that performs the priming operation, which couples the detonator with the booster inside the priming device;” “pushing means that push the primed object into the borehole;” “means for serial insertion and connection of different dynamite-type devices in each borehole;” “pressurization means that allow supplying the blasting agent through the hose;” “mixing means;” “pumping means;” “means covering the end exposed from each borehole, generating a seal or plug after the operation of loading explosives is finished;” “means that enable the activation of antennas;” “means of a device in the form of a speculum, or cutting a section of the mesh;” “means for supplying a blasting agent to each of the boreholes through the hose used in loading explosives;” “means that introduce inert material covering the exposed end of each borehole, generating a seal or plug after the operation of loading explosives is finished;” “detonator antenna outside each borehole;” “an antenna at the end of each borehole” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “detection means for detecting boreholes in the drilled surface and assigning a location for each borehole;” “means for determining physical parameters of each borehole;” “means for cleaning each borehole;” “means for loading a booster, detonator, and/or other explosive materials;” “means for supplying a blasting agent;” “means for covering each borehole;” “means for detonating each borehole loaded with explosives;” “mesh guiding and opening subsystem for those cases in which a reinforcement mesh is provided on the loading surface;” “device in the form of a speculum comprising two or more pieces that are opened by a driving mechanism, deforming the mesh, and creating space for system elements to pass through;” “cutting tool;” “means for moving and placing the various elements;” “sensors that scan the surface three-dimensionally, and detect each borehole and assign a location within a digital model;” “inertial sensor that establishes parameters such as borehole length and inclination, and wherein the sensor is placed at the end of a drilling element that allows various measurements to be made as the sensor is inserted into each borehole;” “means for identifying the state of cleanliness of each borehole and for cleaning each borehole;” “mechanism that performs the priming operation, which couples the detonator with the booster inside the priming device;” “pushing means that push the primed object into the borehole;” “means for serial insertion and connection of different dynamite-type devices in each borehole;” “pressurization means that allow supplying the blasting agent through the hose;” “mixing means;” “pumping means;” “means covering the end exposed from each borehole, generating a seal or plug after the operation of loading explosives is finished;” “means that enable the activation of antennas;” “means of a device in the form of a speculum, or cutting a section of the mesh;” “means for supplying a blasting agent to each of the boreholes through the hose used in loading explosives;” “means that introduce inert material covering the exposed end of each borehole, generating a seal or plug after the operation of loading explosives is finished;” “detonator antenna outside each borehole;” “an antenna at the end of each borehole” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
For the purpose of this examination and in view of the specification, the Examiner will interpret the claimed/specified, but not show in the drawings, limitations/features indicated above under BRI, as well-known in the art equipment/features/tools, etc. used in mining/rock excavation-rock support/underground construction/tunneling operations fields/industries.
Claim Interpretation
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
1.1 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step,” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for moving the system;” “means for removing unwanted elements;” “means for cleaning each borehole;” “means for covering each borehole;” “means for removing debris or residue at the base or bottom area of the surface;” “means for cleaning debris;” “means for cleaning each borehole;” “pushing means that push the primed object into the borehole;” “means for housing components required for manufacture of blasting agent, preparing mixture of said components, and allowing supply of blasting agent to each borehole on the surface;” “means covering the end exposed from each borehole, generating a seal or plug after the operation of loading explosives is finished;” “means covering each borehole placed at the end of a robotic arm;“ “means that introduce inert material covering the exposed end of each borehole, generating a seal or plug,” in claims 41, 47-48, 53, 56, 60, 64-65, 72-73, 80.
Per fig. 1-3, Para [0044, 0050, 0055, 0057, 0078] of the specification, at least as published, the claimed/specified “means 110, 123, 140” listed above appear to be structure elements/components of a bigger structure(s).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
1.2 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step,” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) do not recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detection means for detecting boreholes in drilled surface and assigning a location for each borehole;” “means for determining physical parameters of each borehole;” “means for loading a booster, detonator, and/or other explosive materials, placing them in each borehole;” “means for supplying a blasting agent;” “means for detonating each borehole loaded with explosives;” ”means for moving and placing the various elements;” “means for identifying state of cleanliness of each borehole;“ “means for serial insertion and connection of different dynamite-type devices in each borehole;” “pressurization means that allow supplying the blasting agent through the hose;“ “mixing means;” “pumping means;” “means that enable the activation of antennas:” “means of a device in form of a speculum;” “means for supplying blasting agent to each of boreholes through hose used in loading explosives,” in claims 41, 45, 53, 57, 59, 61, 66, 68, 71, 79.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. Claims 41-68, 70-71 and 79 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1.1 Claim limitations “detection means for detecting boreholes in drilled surface and assigning a location for each borehole;” “means for determining physical parameters of each borehole;” “means for loading a booster, detonator, and/or other explosive materials, placing them in each borehole;” “means for supplying a blasting agent;” “means for detonating each borehole loaded with explosives;” ”means for moving and placing the various elements;” “means for identifying state of cleanliness of each borehole;“ “means for serial insertion and connection of different dynamite-type devices in each borehole;” “pressurization means that allow supplying the blasting agent through the hose;“ “mixing means;” “pumping means;” “means that enable the activation of antennas:” “means of a device in form of a speculum;” “means for supplying blasting agent to each of boreholes through hose used in loading explosives,” in claims 41, 45, 53, 57, 59, 61, 66, 68, 71, 79 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear whether the listed above claimed/specified “means” are structures or not. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret that the claimed “means” listed above to be actual structure elements/components of a bigger structure(s) to be actual structure units/devices thereby providing structure(s) to the bodies of the claims.
1.1.2 Claims 42-68 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 41, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
1.1.3 Claims 42-44 and 70-71 recite the following limitations/features: "mesh guiding and opening subsystem in which a reinforcement mesh is provided on the loading surface, which allows the operation of the different elements of the system through the mesh;” device in the form of a speculum comprising two or more pieces that are opened by a driving mechanism, deforming the mesh, and creating space for system elements to pass through;” “cutting tool used where there is insufficient space for insertion of the speculum-shaped device;” “device for mesh opening/deforming the mesh in the form of a speculum;” “opened reinforcement mesh provided with the boreholes on the front, which allows the operation of the different elements of the system through the mesh;” “cut section of mesh so as to create a space through which the various elements of the system used for loading explosives can pass,” which is unclear what the features recited in these limitations are, where these features are positioned/placed/installed, how these features performed to achieve claimed/specified results, e.g., creating a space through which the various elements of the system used for loading explosives can pass, opening/cutting reinforcement mesh provided with the boreholes on the front, which allows the operation of the different elements of the system through the mesh, etc., which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required. Additionally, these limitations/features are not presented/shown in the drawings, which renders the claims indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret these claimed/specified limitations/features as well-known in the art drilling boreholes, through well-known in the art metal rock support wire mesh, for well-known in the art rock support via installation of bolts/anchors/dowels with epoxy cartridges and tightening plates, and/or well-known in the art grouting, and/or well-known in the art explosive material installation.
1.1.4 Claim 68 recites the limitation "the used means" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 41 and 45-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (US20170142403) in view of YU (CN111648281A), further in view of CONG (CN211116127U), further in view of LOPEZ (AU2011351342A1), and further in view of PETROPOULOS (US20230384074).
As per claim 41, WANG discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document) , a system for loading explosives into a loading surface of an underground mining site (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-6, Para [0032, 0040, 0056]), wherein the system comprises:
a positioning subsystem comprising means for moving the system (see entire document, particularly fig. 1, 6, Para [0024] – teaching, under BRI, movable carrier 14 equipped with track);
a scanning subsystem of the loading surface comprising detection means for detecting boreholes in the drilled surface (see entire document, particularly fig. 1-11, numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0020, 0024, 0029] – teaching, under BRI, checking the estimated certainty of the hole detection; robot 102 having an imager or camera system 104 supported on a suitable mounting assembly or movable carrier 14 for imaging a wall 16 having a plurality of holes 18; wall 16 that includes a plurality of holes 18 defining a drill hole pattern; predetermined drill hole map, used by an operators for drilling the holes in the wall, used in the imaging system for determining the locations of the holes for use in the localized scanning; some of the plurality of the holes identified by the local scanning corresponded to and aligned with the holes in the predetermined drill hole map) and assigning a location for each borehole (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0020, 0024, 0027, 0029, 0032, 0035, 0038-0041]);
a borehole drilling subsystem comprising means for determining physical parameters of each borehole (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0032, 0035]);
a priming and loading subsystem comprising means for loading a booster, detonator, and/or other explosive materials, placing them in each borehole (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0040, 0046]);
a subsystem for loading a blasting agent comprising means for supplying a blasting agent after explosives have been placed in each borehole (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0040, 0046, 0056]);
a detonation subsystem comprising means for detonating each borehole loaded with explosives (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0046]); and
a control subsystem that communicates with each of the other subsystems and controls each of the elements for loading and detonating the explosives (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 3, 7-13, Para [0025, 0047, 0051-0067]).
WANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, means for removing unwanted elements that obstruct the operation of loading explosives in the boreholes; means for cleaning each borehole to proceed with the loading of explosives; means for covering each borehole after the operation of loading explosives is finished.
However, YU discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 10-12, abstract, page 5 of 29 in last paragraph on the bottom, page 8 of 29 in 3rd paragraph from the top – teaching, under BRI, tunnel cleaning robot 2 with debris collecting vehicle 3, rear driving mechanism 4, power control system 5, front driving wheel mechanism 6, cleaning assembly 7, camera 8, searchlight 9, lifting device 10, a lifting connecting rod 11, a supporting frame 12, a circular brush 13. a power device 14, a conveying belt 15, a slope-shaped shovel 16, a supporting rod 17, a conveying roller 18, a driven roller 19, a conveying motor 20, a hydraulic motor 21, a belt 22, a supporting platform 101, a wheel 102, a first hook 103, a locating groove 104, a front pushing plate 201, a rear pushing plate 202. a debris box 301. The Examiner finds that the above, in the YU reference, teaches on “means for removing unwanted elements that obstruct the operation of loading explosives in the boreholes” in the instant application, because both Applicant and YU teach on debris removal near excavated underground vertical wall, e.g., tunnel face, in order to create free of obstacle/obstruction space at the excavated underground vertical wall, e.g., tunnel face for a machinery that is supposed to further continue underground construction/mining/drill-and-blast operations.
CONG, in turn, discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-2, abstract – teaching, under BRI, coal mine fully mechanized mining face inspection robot with the obstacle clearing component that can clean the obstacle of the coal mine fully mechanized working face. The Examiner finds that the above, in the CONG reference, teaches on “means for removing unwanted elements that obstruct the operation of loading explosives in the boreholes” in the instant application, because both Applicant and CONG teach on obstacle removal at excavated underground vertical wall, e.g., working face, in order to create free of obstacle/obstruction space at the excavated underground vertical wall, e.g., working face for a machinery that is supposed to further continue underground construction/mining/drill-and-blast operations.
LOPEZ, in turn, discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-2, 5, page 9 of 30, l27-31 – teaching, under BRI, self-cleaning system, the centering system, and the wireless reception system based on autonomous equipment; page 8 of 30, l4-22 – teaching, under BRI, rapid borehole self-cleaning at all times without needing to extract the camera from the borehole, a centered view of the borehole and the viewing thereof maintained at all times; simultaneous viewing of loading the explosive; page 10 of 30, l12-22 – teaching, under BRI, self-cleaning operations without needing to extract the equipment to the surface, spraying on demand a cleaning fluid ( 4) supplied from the surface, onto the transparent closure (2) through which the borehole is illuminated and images of the borehole are captured; the transparent closure ( 2) cleaned occasionally for the purpose of removing any dirt remains deposited on said element, or by continuously spraying the fluid, therefore creating turbulences by way of an air lock, in order to prevent any foreign body from being deposited on said transparent closure ( 2). The Examiner finds that the above, in the LOPEZ reference, teaches on “means for cleaning each borehole to proceed with the loading of explosives” in the instant application.
PETROPOULOS, in turn, discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-13, abstract, Para [0006-0007, 0021-0024, 0055, 0070, 0077-0078, 0110-0111, 0121, 0130, 0132, 0144] – teaching, under BRI, borehole openable cover device during explosive material charging. The Examiner finds that the above, in the PETROPOULOS reference, teaches on “means for covering each borehole after the operation of loading explosives is finished” in the instant application.
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of WANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by YU, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a tunnel cleaning robot and automatic system equipment for tunnel cleaning; for timely recycling the cleaned residue waste, after cleaning; for realizing the tunnel cleaning fully automatic, unmanned and efficient and comprehensive cleaning (see entire YU document, particularly page 3 of 29 in 1st paragraph from the top);
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by CONG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to conveniently inspect and clean excavated working face; to improve the reliability of the obstacle clearing of the robot (see entire CONG document, particularly abstract);
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LOPEZ, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to encompass the methodologies for loading explosive in blast boreholes and/or those devices or tools which facilitates the control of correctly filling the explosive in the boreholes for the purpose of improving the safety and efficiency of the blast (see entire LOPEZ document, particularly page 2 of 30, l5-10); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PETROPOULOS, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a blasting system that safely keeps or holds the explosive material in the borehole (see entire PETROPOULOS document, particularly Para [0011]).
As per claim 45, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), a vehicle operated by at least one of autonomous navigation, semi-autonomous navigation, and remote operation, and comprises means for moving and placing the various elements comprising the system for loading explosives (see entire document, particularly fig. 1, 6-7, numerous paragraphs – teaching, under BRI, robotic or automated vehicle in mining).
As per claim 46, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), utilizing a map of the area, which is provided by the control subsystem, from which the positioning subsystem actuates various elements to move the system autonomously or semi-autonomously within the underground mining site (see entire document, particularly fig. 2, numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0029, 0033-0034, 0037-0038, 0050] – teaching, under BRI, drilling map, distance map).
As per claim 47, WANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, means for removing debris or residue at the base or bottom area of the surface.
However, YU discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly similar to how it is presented in claim 41 rejections above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of WANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by YU, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a tunnel cleaning robot and automatic system equipment for tunnel cleaning; for timely recycling the cleaned residue waste, after cleaning; for realizing the tunnel cleaning fully automatic, unmanned and efficient and comprehensive cleaning (see entire YU document, particularly page 3 of 29 in 1st paragraph from the top).
As per claim 48, WANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, means for cleaning debris selected from a group comprising: the use of hoses supplying pressurized water and/or air; or the use of movable elements in the form of brushes and/or shovels.
However, YU discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly similar to how it is presented in claim 41 rejections above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of WANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by YU, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a tunnel cleaning robot and automatic system equipment for tunnel cleaning; for timely recycling the cleaned residue waste, after cleaning; for realizing the tunnel cleaning fully automatic, unmanned and efficient and comprehensive cleaning (see entire YU document, particularly page 3 of 29 in 1st paragraph from the top).
As per claim 49, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), sensors that scan the surface three-dimensionally, and detect each borehole and assign a location within a digital model (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 2-5, 8, numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0020, 0024, 0027, 0029-0035, 0037-0046, 0050]).
As per claim 50, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), sensors moved by robotic arms, and wherein the arm moves in different positions to scan the entire surface (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1, 3, 8, numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0025, 0035, 0039, 0041-0045, 0052-0054]).
As per claim 51, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), use of LIDAR sensors, TOF sensors, cameras, and others (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1, 3-4, 8, numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0024-0026, 0051]).
As per claim 52, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), inertial sensor that establishes parameters such as borehole length and inclination, and wherein the sensor is placed at the end of a drilling element that allows various measurements to be made as the sensor is inserted into each borehole (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 8, 10, numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0035, 0038, 0041-0043]).
As per claim 53, WANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, means for identifying the state of cleanliness of each borehole and for cleaning each borehole to proceed with the loading of explosives.
However, LOPEZ discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly similar to how it is presented in claim 41 rejections above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of WANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LOPEZ, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to encompass the methodologies for loading explosive in blast boreholes and/or those devices or tools which facilitates the control of correctly filling the explosive in the boreholes for the purpose of improving the safety and efficiency of the blast (see entire LOPEZ document, particularly page 2 of 30, l5-10).
As per claim 54, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), a priming device, one or more robotic arms, a booster container, and a detonator container, and wherein the robotic arm takes a booster from the booster container to place the booster in the priming device, and takes a detonator from the detonator container to place it in front of the booster in the priming device to perform a priming operation and then place the primed object at the end of the robotic arm (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0032, 0040, 0046, 0056]).
As per claim 55, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), mechanism that performs the priming operation, which couples the detonator with the booster inside the priming device (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0032, 0040, 0046, 0056]).
As per claim 56, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), robotic arm that positions the primed object to the interior of a borehole in the surface by using pushing means that push the primed object into the borehole (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0032, 0040, 0046, 0056]).
As per claim 57, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), loading dynamite-type explosive element, and wherein the priming and loading subsystem positions the dynamite elements in the boreholes at the ends of the surface and includes means for serial insertion and connection of different dynamite-type devices in each borehole (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0032, 0040, 0046, 0056]).
As per claim 58, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), after the primed object has been placed, the loading subsystem of a blasting agent that actuates a hose to move back in the borehole and that simultaneously supplies a blasting agent, loading the blasting agent as the hose is withdrawn from the borehole (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0032, 0040, 0046, 0056]).
As per claim 59, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), blasting-agent containers and pressurization means that allow supplying the blasting agent through the hose (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0002, 0024, 0032, 0040, 0046, 0056, 0074]).
As per claim 60, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), a system for preparing the blasting agent comprising means for housing the components required for the manufacture of the blasting agent, preparing the mixture of said components, and allowing the supply of the blasting agent to each borehole on the surface (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0002, 0024, 0032, 0040, 0046, 0056, 0074]).
As per claim 61, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), containers that house the components for manufacturing the blasting agent, mixing means, and pumping means that allow the components to be transferred to the mixing means and to transfer the mixture to each borehole at the surface (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0002, 0024, 0032, 0040, 0046, 0056, 0074]).
As per claim 62, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), hoses that enable the transfer of the prepared blasting agent towards the boreholes on the surface, with the aid of the robotic arms (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0002, 0024, 0032, 0040, 0046, 0056, 0074]).
As per claim 63, WANG further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), system for preparing the blasting agent that communicates with the control subsystem, which allows to automatically control the process of blasting agent preparation (see entire document – teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in fig. 1-11, Para [0023-0025, 0032, 0035, 0039-0065, 0067]).
As per claim 64, WANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, means covering the end exposed from each borehole, generating a seal or plug after the operation of loading explosives is finished.
However, PETROPOULOS discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-13, abstract, Para [0006-0007, 0021-0024, 0055, 0070, 0077-0078, 0110-0111, 0121, 0130, 0132, 0144] – teaching, under BRI, borehole openable cover device during explosive material charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of WANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PETROPOULOS, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a blasting system that safely keeps or holds the explosive material in the borehole (see entire PETROPOULOS document, particularly Para [0011]).
As per claim 65, WANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, means covering each borehole placed at the end of a robotic arm.
However, PETROPOULOS discloses, under BRI, these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-13, abstract, Para [0006-0007, 0021-0024, 0055, 0070, 0077-0078, 0110-0111, 0121, 0130, 0132, 0144].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of WANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by PETROPOULOS, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a blasting system that safely keeps or holds the explosive material in the borehole (see entire PETROPOULOS document, particularly Para [0011]).
2. Claims 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of WANG, YU, CONG, LOPEZ and PETROPOULOS, further in view of DIAZ ARCE (WO2018104140A1).
As per claim 42, WANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, a mesh guiding and opening subsystem for those cases in which a reinforcement mesh is provided on the loading surface, which allows the operation of the different elements of the system through the mesh.
However, DIAZ ARCE discloses, under BRI, these limitation/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-11, abstract, Para [0010-0011, 0015-0026, 0031].
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of WANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by DIAZ ARCE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to develop an apparatus for deployment of a protective net for lining tunnel ceilings or tunnel walls, which can work with any bolting machine currently existing on mines to install a protective net relatively fast. (see entire DIAZ ARCE document, particularly Para [0010]).
As per claim 43, WANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, mesh guiding and opening subsystem that comprises a device in the form of a speculum comprising two or more pieces that are opened by a driving mechanism, deforming the mesh, and creating space for system elements to pass through.
However, DIAZ ARCE discloses, under BRI, these limitation/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-11, abstract, Para [0010-0011, 0015-0026, 0031].
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir.