DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/26/2026 has been entered. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
As discussed in the Advisory Action mailed 3/26/2026, Applicant's remarks filed 2/27/2026 and citations to ¶s 17-19 and 23-25 of the present PGPUB are sufficient to obviate the 112(a) rejections. The examiner respectfully notes that, in support for these arguments, on pages 6-7 of the as-filed Remarks, Applicant describes these claimed features as "well-known in the art", "well-established terms or procedures", "well known in the art", "conventional or well known" and "state of the knowledge".
Applicant's amendments to independent claim 1, particularly the amendments to the final clause (f), are sufficient to overcome the prior grounds of rejection. New grounds necessitated by amendment respectfully follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0173153 (Alft) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art, citing the present Applicant's pre-grant publication, US 2024/0247579, in further view of US 2002/0103630 (Aldred).
Independent claim 1. Alft discloses a method for introducing a planned boring channel in the ground (title, abstract, fig 1; "a pre-planned bore path" - ¶ 71) by an earth boring device ("machine 12" - fig 1, ¶ 80), wherein the earth boring device has a boring head ("boring tool 24 attached at the end of the drill string 22") which is moved to introduce the planned boring channel in the ground (¶s 71 & 80), and the method comprises:
a) detecting obstacles ("The processor receives radar data from the radar unit indicative of subsurface strata and obstacles respectively located generally forward and/or lateral of the cutting tool." - ¶ 13) in front of and/or next to the boring head (ibid);
b) displaying the position of a detected obstacle relative to the boring head ("The boring system may also include a display for displaying a graphical representation of one or more of a boring tool location, orientation, the underground path, underground structures or boring tool movement along the underground path. Underground hazards and utilities, for example, may be graphically depicted in the display. Such a display may be provided on the boring machine, on a portable tracker unit, or both" - ¶ 56);
c) issuing a shutdown warning ("an in-tool or above-ground GPR unit may detect the presence of an obstruction several feet ahead of the boring tool. The GPR data representative of the detected obstruction is typically presented to the operator on a display of the remote unit 324" - ¶ 261. "a warning indicator 374 may be provided to alert the operator as to an impending collision situation. The warning indicator 374 may be an illuminatable indicator, a speaker that broadcasts an audible alarm or a combination of visual and audible indicators" - ¶ 277. The "shutdown warning" is not a command to stop, as shown by clause d; "A bore should remain a safe distance away from underground utilities to avoid strikes" - ¶ 191) when the distance between the detected obstacle and the boring head is less than a first, in particular selectable, distance (The detection threshold for the system, which is inherent to the sensor system. In other words, the obstacle is always there, but is only detected at a certain distance away from the bit);
e) manually checking ("Returning once again to FIG. 4, a user interface 84 provides for interaction between an operator and the boring machine 70. The user interface 84 includes various manually-operable controls, gauges, readouts, and displays to effect communication of information and instructions between the operator and the boring machine 70" - ¶ 103), by a user, a safety query ("an in-tool or above-ground GPR unit may detect the presence of an obstruction several feet ahead of the boring tool. The GPR data representative of the detected obstruction is typically presented to the operator on a display of the remote unit 324" - ¶ 261; also ¶ 277 as cited above) in the form of an acknowledgment of the warning ("The GPR data representative of the detected obstruction is typically presented to the operator on a display of the remote unit 324. The operator may issue steering commands to the boring tool 181 in order to avoid the obstruction" - ¶ 61. The user interface has "manually-operated controls… to effect communication of information and instructions between the operator and the boring machine" - ¶ 103); and
f) resuming the introducing of the boring channel upon successful checking of the acknowledgment (ibid).
Alft discloses that boring of the planned boring channel is stopped, but only "[i]f an acceptable alternative bore plan cannot be computed due to operational or safety constraints (e.g., maximum drill string bend radius will be exceeded or clearance from detected buried utility is less than pre-established minimum clearance margin)" (¶ 72). If an acceptable alternative plan cannot be found, "the drilling operation is halted and a suitable warning message is communicated to the operator."
While Alft does clearly teach that it is undesirable to contact the obstruction with the bit ("A bore should remain a safe distance away from underground utilities to avoid strikes" - ¶ 191), Alft does not does not explicitly disclose stopping boring of the channel when the shutdown warning has been issued. Further, Alft does not disclose that the original "planned boring channel" is resumed. Rather Alft teaches either steering around the obstacle with "a valid alternative bore plan" or stopping drilling (¶ 72).
However, in the present Background, Applicant admits that "[i]t is known to perform an emergency shutdown when an obstacle is detected in the region of the planned or driven boring channel" (¶ 5 of the pre-grant publication). This is clearly an admission of general knowledge in the art ("It is known…" in the Background section). Evidence to support this being an acknowledgement of general knowledge is that the same section of the specification uses the same "It is known" phrasing to describe earth drilling per se (¶ 2). In other words, Applicant's "background" section usage of "It is known" is used to describe the entire concept of drilling (¶ 2), as well as "perform[ing] an emergency shutdown when an obstacle is detected" (¶ 5). This very reasonably points to a statement of general knowledge in the art, not a step solely developed by the present invention. As articulated in MPEP 2129, the "examiners should treat such subject matter as the work of another".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to stop the drilling, as is known in the prior art, upon Alft identifying "an impending collision situation" (¶ 277). Again, Alft is clear that a collision is undesirable, and the reference is directed to avoiding a collision. It therefore very logically follows that when "an impending collision situation" is identified, a good and safe first step is to stop drilling. Upon relaying this information the operator, if the operator desires, "the operator may issue a steering command that may cause avoidance of an obstruction, but not within a desired safety margin (e.g., 2 feet)" (¶ 261).
Alft does not disclose resuming introducing the original planned boring channel upon successfully checking of the acknowledgment.
However Aldred discloses a method for introducing a planned boring channel in the ground (abstract; ¶s 8, 24, 34, & 37) comprising
a) detecting a drilling hazard (abstract) that may include obstacles (¶s 4, 6, 7 all describe "obstacles" at the high level of generality currently recited) that may be detected in real-time while drilling (¶s 8, 34, & 37; fig 3; "while-drilling characterization" - ¶ 24);
b) displaying hazard data and issuing a hazard warning (¶s 34 & 36);
e) manually checking, by a user, a safety query in the form of an acknowledgement of the hazard warning ("At 30 in FIG. 2, the system operator or wellbore operator makes a determination as to whether any or all particular hazards displayed carry with them an acceptably small level of risk acceptably small consequences, acceptably small cost to remedy, or any combination thereof which in the judgment of the wellbore operator or system operator do not require changing the initial well plan..." - ¶ 36);
f) resuming introducing of the [originally] planned boring channel upon successful checking of the acknowledgment ("…If this is the case, as shown at 34, the initial well plan will remain unchanged, and drilling may continue according to the initial well plan." - ¶ 36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to resume the original path of Alft if the user decides adjustment / steering away is not necessary as taught by Aldred. This allows the operator to use their professional judgement within the context of that specific obstacle and drilling operation to override what may be an unnecessary detour from the original plan.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein a pre-warning is issued when the distance between the detected obstacle and the boring head is less than a second distance (Alft: drawn to the "distances" and "known obstacles" that are entered on the route during the planning stage: ¶s 120), wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (as a known obstacle that is identified during planning, the distance between the bit and obstacle is naturally greater than "an impending collision situation").
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the display of the position of the detected obstacle relative to the boring head comprises displaying multiple views (Alft: "Further, the displays 77 and 79 may constitute two display windows of a single physical display. It is also understood that any type of view may be generated as needed, such as a top, side or perspective view, such as view with respect to the drill or the tip of the boring tool, or an oblique, isometric, or orthographic view, for example." - ¶ 132).
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the display of the position of a detected obstacle relative to the boring head comprises a display of an at least two-dimensional extent of a detected obstacle (Alft: "Further, the displays 77 and 79 may constitute two display windows of a single physical display. It is also understood that any type of view may be generated as needed, such as a top, side or perspective view, such as view with respect to the drill or the tip of the boring tool, or an oblique, isometric, or orthographic view, for example." - ¶ 132).
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the acknowledgment is through an alphanumeric entry and/or a key entry (Alft: The user interface 84 includes various manually-operable controls, gauges, readouts, and displays to effect communication of information and instructions between the operator and the boring machine 70" - ¶ 103; "a keyboard, keypad or other form of user input device 507" - ¶ 128; "…the user interface 84 typically comprises a user input device (e.g., keyboard, mouse, etc.) and a display" - ¶ 190; "an operator initiates boring machine and boring tool commands using a portable control unit. " - ¶ 76).
6. The method of claim 2, wherein a log of the display of the position of the detected obstacle relative to the boring head and/or output of the pre-warning and/or the shutdown warning and/or the acknowledgment is created (Alft: "A bore plan database 78 stores data concerning a pre-planned boring route, including the distance and variations of the intended bore path, boring targets, known obstacles, unknown obstacles detected during the boring operation…" - ¶ 120 - "The on-site designed bore plan may then be uploaded to the bore plan database 78 for subsequent use. As will be discussed in greater detail hereinbelow, the universal controller 72 may execute bore planning software and interact with the bore plan database 78 during a boring operation to perform "on-the-fly" real-time bore plan adjustment computations in response to detection of underground hazards, undesirable geology, and operator initiated deviations from a planned bore program" - ¶ 121; figs 4 & 10. Further, US 5,720,354 - incorporated by reference in ¶ 65 - teaches "the position data acquired by the GRS 150 is preferably communicated to a route mapping database 158 which adds the boring pathway data to an existing database while the boring operation takes place. The route mapping database 158 covers a given boring site, such as a grid of city streets or a golf course under which various utility, communication, plumbing and other conduits may be buried. The data stored in the route mapping database 158 may be subsequently used to produce a survey map that accurately specifies the location and depth of various utility conduits buried in a specific site" - col 15:16-27).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is carried out on a computer (Alft: ¶s 79, 121, 125, 134, 135, 190).
17. The examiner initially notes that Alft incorporates U.S. Pat. No. 4,907,658 (Stangl) by reference in ¶ 168. The method of claim 1, wherein the earth boring device is self-driven (Stangl, "Anvil 19 is press fitted into mole body 23 and extends from the forward surface of mole body 23 into the hollow section of housing 16. Anvil 19 is threadedly engaged with housing 16. A hammer or striker (not shown) which is driven by compressed air is located within mole body 23 and repeatedly strikes the anvil causing forward movement of the drilling assembly" - col 3:54-61). As a formally "incorporated by reference" document, Stangl is read as though "[t]he information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in the application, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as file" - MPEP 2163.07(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571.270.7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights