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 .
Priority
The examiner acknowledges the present application claims priority to 371 of PCT/KR2022/016363, filed 10/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2024, 5/29/2025, 1/5/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
terminal location information transmission unit – claim 1 2 10
on-site information provision unit – claim 1 3 10
electronic detonator information transmission unit – claim 1 4 10
electronic detonator state transmission unit – claim 1 5 10
blasting machine location information transmission unit – claim 6 11
test progress result collection unit – claim 7 11
charging work progress result collection unit – claim 8 11
blasting result report upload unit – claim 9
The following is an analysis of the three-prong test for each of the limitations. Thus, the claimed limitations invoke 112(f) interpretation.
"terminal location information transmission unit, on-site information provision unit, electronic detonator information transmission unit, electronic detonator state transmission unit, blasting machine location information transmission unit, test progress result collection unit, charging work progress result collection unit, blasting result report upload unit," are terms used as a substitute for "means," and are generic placeholders for performing the claimed functions of "configured to collect location information, configured to download design information, configured to transmit input information, and configured to collect state information, configured to collect the location information, configured to collect test progress results, configured to collect charging work progress results, configured to receive a transmitted blasting report."
The generic placeholders "terminal location information transmission unit, on-site information provision unit, electronic detonator information transmission unit, electronic detonator state transmission unit, blasting machine location information transmission unit, test progress result collection unit, charging work progress result collection unit, blasting result report upload unit," are modified by functional language: "configured to collect, configured to download, configured to transmit, and configured to receive."
The generic place holders "terminal location information transmission unit, on-site information provision unit, electronic detonator information transmission unit, electronic detonator state transmission unit, blasting machine location information transmission unit, test progress result collection unit, charging work progress result collection unit, blasting result report upload unit," are not modified by sufficient structure, performing the claimed function. There is no hardware described in the claims that perform the feature of "configured to collect location information, configured to download design information, configured to transmit input information, and configured to collect state information, configured to collect the location information, configured to collect test progress results, configured to collect charging work progress results, configured to receive a transmitted blasting report."
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
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 1-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 4 recite the limitation “but.” It is unclear to the examiner whether the limitation before and the limitation after the word “but” should be performed or not.
Regarding claims 1-11, claim limitations “terminal location information transmission unit, on-site information provision unit, electronic detonator information transmission unit, electronic detonator state transmission unit, blasting machine location information transmission unit, test progress result collection unit, charging work progress result collection unit, blasting result report upload unit,” invokes 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the above limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is 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.
Claims 2-9 are dependent claims, and inherit the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections from claim 1.
Claims 11 is/are dependent claims, and inherit the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections from claim 10.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Terminal location information transmission unit, on-site information provision unit, electronic detonator information transmission unit, electronic detonator state transmission unit, blasting machine location information transmission unit, test progress result collection unit, charging work progress result collection unit, blasting result report upload unit, are described in the disclosure for their function, but are not described in their structure. One skilled in the arts is unable to determine what these units are made of, and whether they are hardware, etc.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20160209195 A1, (hereinafter “Kruger”), in view of Finn et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20140210947 A1 (hereinafter “Finn”), in view of Wiens-Kind et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20170321923 A1 (hereinafter “Wiens-Kind”).
Claim 1: Kruger teaches “A device for monitoring… electronic detonators (i.e. an apparatus for use with a detonator system which includes a plurality of detonators, the apparatus including a user-wearable augmented display [Kruger 0012]), the device comprising:
a terminal location information transmission unit configured to collect location information of a terminal when a worker connects to… the corresponding terminal possessed by the worker (i.e. the geographical position of the sensor, and hence of the user wearing the display, to be determined with a high degree of accuracy [Kruger 0016]… unit 76 includes a detector or generator 82 which detects and generates positional data [Kruger 0055]), and transmit the location information to a… service (i.e. the positional data 90 is relayed, as appropriate, to the mechanism 44 and stored in the facility 78… positional data generated by the tagger is usually more accurate… For example, if the tagger is attached to a user's wrist the tagger position would normally be closer to a borehole than the detector 82, during a tagging process [Kruger 0068]);
an on-site information provision unit configured to… provide on-site information obtained by overlaying the… design information and on-site images that are collected through a camera of the terminal by the worker (i.e. a camera which can detect the presence of a borehole in which a detonator or detonators are located [Kruger 0016]… present an augmented image 106 which augments what is visually directly discernible. For example a user may directly see a borehole or a detonator and, through the use of the hardware and software associated with the apparatus 40, the device 42 and the mechanism 44, images relating to the borehole or detonator are superimposed on the true (physical) picture. Timing information and detonator identify numbers can be shown, in the image, adjacent the borehole, if the field of the user's vision is altered, for example if the user looks at an adjacent borehole, then the data pertaining to that borehole is shown, instead, superimposed on the actual view [Kruger 0072]… the image presented on the display could include data pertaining to the identity number, firing time and location, of a detonator… A map of all or part of the blasting system, including factors pertaining to the design of the blasting system, can be embodied in an image [Kruger 0081]);
an electronic detonator information transmission unit configured to transmit input information of a plurality of electronic detonators to the… service when the worker inputs, through the terminal, the information of the plurality of electronic detonators collected on the basis of the provided on-site information (i.e. information which is transmitted to or by a detonator may include identity data relating to the detonator, test instructions, the results of tests conducted by or on a detonator e.g. data relating to integrity aspects of the detonator, information relating to aspects of the detonator status, calibration data, timing data and the like [Kruger 0023]… a transmitter for transmitting data, preferably wirelessly, to an external processor [Kruger 0024]… Via the respective mechanisms 44 which are carried by the different operators information from each operator can be transmitted to a centralised location, say at the blasting machine 12… In this way information pertaining to an operator's activities and functional area is available to each other operator [Kruger 0076] note: this acts as a server); and
an electronic detonator state transmission unit configured to collect state information of each electronic detonator when communication tests between the plurality of electronic detonators and the terminal are completed, and transmit the state information to the… service (i.e. operates the tagger 64 to allow the module 72 to read the position 90, and to read the identity 92, of one of the detonators 16, and also initiates a test routine 94 which is executed by the detonator. The results of the routine 94 are transmitted to arid received by the tagger (FIG. 7A) [Kruger 0063]… generates an augmented image 106 reflecting the detonator's identity and the outcome of the test routine [Kruger 0064]… a test routine has been carried out to ensure that all detonators are present and are responding appropriately [Kruger 0058] note “responding appropriately” indicates a “communication” test).”
Kruger is/are silent regarding “cloud-based” and a “cloud” service and “download design information when the worker requests downloading of the design information provided from the web page through the terminal.”
Finn teaches “A device for monitoring cloud-based electronic (i.e. server computer 120, and the mobile device 140) can communicate with one another via… the Internet [Finn 0027, Fig. 1]), the device comprising:
an on-site information provision unit configured to download design information when the worker requests downloading (i.e. digital markers from which a user can select [Finn 0058]… a selected digital marker so that when a physical marker (corresponding to the digital marker) is captured and decoded by the mobile device 140 in the real environment, the associated supplemental digital model is retrieved for augmented reality visualization [Finn 0059]) of the design information… through the terminal (i.e. A composite digital model, which includes the physical structure digital model and the unbuilt element digital model incorporated at the tie-in location… for augmented reality visualization… The supplemental digital model can be stored in the data storage 126, transmitted to the mobile device 140 for storage, and/or uploaded to an AR software server to allow for mobile device retrieval [Finn 0036]), and provide on-site information obtained by overlaying the downloaded design information and on-site images that are collected through a camera of the terminal by the worker (i.e. the mobile device 140 has a number of components, including a camera 141, which can be used to detect and capture an image of the physical marker 103 and to view the project site with the physical structure 101 in the real environment. Any real scenes seen through the camera and/or any images retrieved from a data storage 147 (or retrieved from the server computer 120 or a third party AR server) can be processed by a data processor 148 and displayed on a display screen 145 of the mobile device 140 [Finn 0039, Fig. 1]… provides an augmented reality image comprising the physical structure in the real environment seen through the camera in real-time, overlaid with the 3D digital model [Finn 0042]);”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Kruger to include fetching data from a network as disclosed by Finn.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to provide a remote data storage, which keeps important data in one place (e.g. not on a worker who may easily lose/break equipment), and also keeps important data safe and far away from the blast site, and to be able to centrally distribute the same data to a plurality of users devices.
Kruger and Finn is/are silent regarding a worker “logs in a preset web page,” and information “provided from the web page.”
Wiens-Kind teaches “a terminal location information transmission unit configured to collect location information of a terminal when a worker connects to and logs in a preset web page through the corresponding terminal possessed by the worker, and transmit the location information to a cloud service (i.e. FIG. 18 is a login interface 1800. The login interface 1800 can be displayed in response to selecting a site via the site selection interface via one of buttons 1702, 1704, and 1706. The login interface 1800 may prompt a user to provide a username, password [Wiens-Kind 0176, Fig. 18]… application 518 can be a web application (i.e., an application configured to run in a web browser [Wiens-Kind 0174]… application services 1612 can be configured to receive communications from the mobile devices 516 and/or building equipment. Communications can include… GPS data… Client services 1610 can provide client devices with a graphical visualization (e.g., a three-dimensional model, an augmented reality overlay, a map, etc.) [Wiens-Kind 0139]);
…design information provided from the web page through the terminal (i.e. application 518 can be a web application (i.e., an application configured to run in a web browser [Wiens-Kind 0174]… application services 1612 can be configured to receive communications from the mobile devices 516 and/or building equipment. Communications can include… GPS data… Client services 1610 can provide client devices with a graphical visualization (e.g., a three-dimensional model, an augmented reality overlay, a map, etc.) [Wiens-Kind 0139]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Kruger and Finn to include providing information from a web application as disclosed by Wiens-Kind.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to access the data from any device that has a web browser, which increases the number of users that can access the data.
Claim 3: Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wiens-Kind teaches “wherein the on-site information provision unit downloads the design information (i.e. application services 1612 can be configured to receive communications from the mobile devices 516 and/or building equipment. Communications can include… GPS data… Client services 1610 can provide client devices with a graphical visualization (e.g., a three-dimensional model, an augmented reality overlay, a map, etc.) [Wiens-Kind 0139]) to the terminal through the web page (i.e. application 518 can be a web application (i.e., an application configured to run in a web browser [Wiens-Kind 0174, Fig. 18]),”
Kruger teaches “and realizes, as Augmented Reality (AR), the on-site information obtained by overlaying the downloaded design information and the collected on-site images, so as to provide the Augmented Reality (AR) to the worker through the terminal (i.e. a camera which can detect the presence of a borehole in which a detonator or detonators are located [0016]… present an augmented image 106 which augments what is visually directly discernible. For example a user may directly see a borehole or a detonator and, through the use of the hardware and software associated with the apparatus 40, the device 42 and the mechanism 44, images relating to the borehole or detonator are superimposed on the true (physical) picture. Timing information and detonator identify numbers can be shown, in the image, adjacent the borehole, if the field of the user's vision is altered, for example if the user looks at an adjacent borehole, then the data pertaining to that borehole is shown, instead, superimposed on the actual view [Kruger 0072]… the image presented on the display could include data pertaining to the identity number, firing time and location, of a detonator… A map of all or part of the blasting system, including factors pertaining to the design of the blasting system, can be embodied in an image [Kruger 0081]).”
One would have been motivated to combine Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to access the data from any device that has a web browser, which increases the number of users that can access the data.
Claim 4: Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Kruger teaches “wherein the electronic detonator information transmission unit transmits the electronic detonator information including at least any one of electronic detonator IDs, detonation times in milliseconds (i.e. information which is transmitted to or by a detonator may include identity data relating to the detonator, test instructions, the results of tests conducted by or on a detonator e.g. data relating to integrity aspects of the detonator, information relating to aspects of the detonator status, calibration data, timing data [Kruger 0023]), and quantities to the cloud service, but displays the collected information of the plurality of electronic detonators on a map of the connected web page (i.e. the image presented on the display could include data pertaining to the identity number, firing time and location, of a detonator… A map of all or part of the blasting system, including factors pertaining to the design of the blasting system [Kruger 0081]).”
Claim 5: Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wiens-Kind teaches “wherein the electronic detonator state transmission unit realizes the collected state information… in the connected web page (i.e. application services 1612 can be configured to receive communications from the mobile devices 516 and/or building equipment. Communications can include detected emitter identifiers, GPS data… Client services 1610 can provide client devices with a graphical visualization (e.g., a three-dimensional model, an augmented reality overlay, a map, etc.) [Wiens-Kind 0139]… application 518 can be a web application (i.e., an application configured to run in a web browser [Wiens-Kind 0174]).” Kruger teaches “and provides the collected state information of the plurality of electronic detonators to the worker through the terminal (i.e. Via the respective mechanisms 44 which are carried by the different operators information from each operator can be transmitted to a centralised location, say at the blasting machine 12, and at this location the information is consolidated. In this way information pertaining to an operator's activities and functional area is available to each other operator [Kruger 0076]).”
One would have been motivated to combine Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to access the data from any device that has a web browser, which increases the number of users that can access the data.
Claim 7: Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Kruger teaches “a test progress result collection unit configured to collect test progress results when the communication tests between the plurality of electronic detonators and the blasting machine are completed, and display the collected test progress results (i.e. results of the test process are relayed to the mechanism which records the identity of the detonator and the test results. Information thereon is transmitted by the mechanism to the apparatus and the processor of the apparatus, in response thereto, generates an image, on the display, which is based on, or related to, such information [Kruger 0032]).”
Wiens-Kind teaches “on the connected web page (i.e. the alarm information interface 2300 lists each alarm along with summary information for the alarm. For example, the alarm interface can include an indication of the alarm status (e.g., a red icon indicating an “alarm” status, a yellow icon indicating a “warning” status, and a black icon indicating an “equipment offline” status) [Wiens-Kind 0184]… application 518 can be a web application (i.e., an application configured to run in a web browser [Wiens-Kind 0174] note: Wiens-Kind is capable of displaying the status (or test results) of equipment and display them on a web application).”
One would have been motivated to combine Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to access the data from any device that has a web browser, which increases the number of users that can access the data.
Claim 10: Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kindteach a method for monitoring cloud-based electronic detonators, the method comprising operations corresponding to the device of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger, in view of Finn, in view of Wiens-Kind, in view of Kaufman et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20190051051 A1 (hereinafter “Kaufman”).
Claim 2: Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kindteach teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Finn teaches a cloud service in [0027 Fig. 1] claim 1, above. Kruger teaches “wherein the terminal location information transmission unit collects the location information of the corresponding terminal… to transmit the location information to the… service (i.e. information which is transmitted to or by a detonator may include identity data relating to the detonator, test instructions, the results of tests conducted by or on a detonator e.g. data relating to integrity aspects of the detonator, information relating to aspects of the detonator status, calibration data, timing data and the like [Kruger 0023]… a transmitter for transmitting data, preferably wirelessly, to an external processor [Kruger 0024]… Via the respective mechanisms 44 which are carried by the different operators information from each operator can be transmitted to a centralised location, say at the blasting machine 12… In this way information pertaining to an operator's activities and functional area is available to each other operator [Kruger 0076] note: this acts as a server), but displays the collected location information of the terminal on a map of the connected web page (i.e. the image presented on the display could include data pertaining to the identity number, firing time and location, of a detonator… A map of all or part of the blasting system, including factors pertaining to the design of the blasting system [Kruger 0081]).”
Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kindteach is/are silent regarding “at a preset interval.”
Kaufman teaches “wherein the terminal location information transmission unit collects the location information of the corresponding terminal at a preset interval to transmit the location information to the cloud service, but displays the collected location information of the terminal on a map of the connected web page (i.e. FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an embodiment of the system and method of mapping a virtual world to physical reality… While the user 101 is walking… system tracks the user's 101 physical position generally as (x,y) coordinate pairs and collects up to an n.sup.th value of maximum (x,y) coordinate data points for a given predetermined time interval t. The system and method projects the user's physical position onto virtual space, such as for example, as the navigation path as shown in the FIG. 1, 120 and as further shown in the real world floor plan 115, item 118 [Kaufman 0084, Fig. 1]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind teach to include the feature of collecting data at a preset interval as disclosed by Kaufman.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to recognize when information is transmitted, for the receiver to be able to match when information transmitted, instead of receiving at all times, which reduces power costs and increases efficiency.
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger, in view of Finn, in view of Wiens-Kind, in view of Benson, Patent Application Publication number US 20100211429 A1 (hereinafter “Benson”).
Claim 6: Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wiens-Kind teaches logging into a preset web page in [0176, Fig. 18] claim 1, above.
Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind is/are silent regarding “a blasting machine location information transmission unit configured to collect the location information of a blasting machine when the corresponding blasting machine for electronic detonator detonation is connected to… the network, and display the collected location information of the blasting machine on a map...”
Benson teaches “a blasting machine location information transmission unit configured to collect the location information of a blasting machine when the corresponding blasting machine for electronic detonator detonation is connected to… the network (i.e. FIG. 3 is an illustration of an illustrative network environment in which an abrasive blasting machine communicates blasting data to a remote server located on a network [Benson 0020, Fig. 3]… enabling a maintenance worker to log into the computing unit to initiate performing preventative maintenance [Benson Claim 21]… illustrative GUI 1100 that may be displayed on a webpage [Benson 0061, Fig. 11] note: Benson appears to be a web application), and display the collected location information of the blasting machine on a map (i.e. A global positioning system may be utilized to capture location of the abrasive blasting machine and provide geographic positioning information to a user in a table or a graphical format, such as on a map [Benson 0068])…”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind to include the location of the blasting machine as disclosed by Benson.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to inform the users to the location of the blasting machine, which provides more information to the user, which enables the user to make more informed decision making, which improves the user experience.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger, in view of Finn, in view of Wiens-Kind, in view of Hallin et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20050243499 A1 (hereinafter “Hallin”).
Claim 8: Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wiens-Kind teaches results “on the connected web page (i.e. the alarm information interface 2300 lists each alarm along with summary information for the alarm. For example, the alarm interface can include an indication of the alarm status (e.g., a red icon indicating an “alarm” status, a yellow icon indicating a “warning” status, and a black icon indicating an “equipment offline” status) [Wiens-Kind 0184]… application 518 can be a web application (i.e., an application configured to run in a web browser [Wiens-Kind 0174] note: Wiens-Kind is capable of displaying the status (or test results) of equipment and display them on a web application).”
Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind is/are silent regarding “a charging work progress result collection unit configured to collect charging work progress results when the electronic detonator charging work for detonation is in progress in the blasting machine, and display the collected charging work progress results…”
Hallin teaches “a charging work progress result collection unit configured to collect charging work progress results when the electronic detonator charging work for detonation is in progress in the blasting machine, and display the collected charging work progress results (i.e. In response, the operating device turns on the LED marked CHARGING, and transmits a status enquiry to the blasting machine, which again responds by transmitting the signal M M M M M M S K, the status byte of which contains information that charging is in progress. This exchange of status enquiries and status enquiry responses continues until the charging of the blasting machine has been completed. The blasting machine then transmits yet another M M M M M M S K signal, the status byte S of which contains information that charging has been completed. In response thereto, the operating device turns on the LED marked DONE [Hallin 0084])…”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind to include the feature of having the ability to display results on a web page as disclosed by Hallin.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to access the results from any device that has a browser, which increases the number of devices capable of viewing the results, which distributes information faster, for a better user experience.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger, in view of Finn, in view of Wiens-Kind, in view of Papillon et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20170123087 A1 (hereinafter “Papillon”).
Claim 9: Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind teach(es) all the limitations of claim 1, above. Wiens-Kind teaches a report “to the connected web page (i.e. the alarm information interface 2300 lists each alarm along with summary information for the alarm. For example, the alarm interface can include an indication of the alarm status (e.g., a red icon indicating an “alarm” status, a yellow icon indicating a “warning” status, and a black icon indicating an “equipment offline” status) [Wiens-Kind 0184]… application 518 can be a web application (i.e., an application configured to run in a web browser [Wiens-Kind 0174] note: Wiens-Kind is capable of displaying the status (or test results) of equipment and display them on a web application).”
Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind is/are silent regarding “a blasting result report upload unit configured to receive a transmitted blasting result report generated by the blasting machine after the electronic detonator blasting is completed, and upload the blasting result report...”
Papillon teaches “a blasting result report upload unit configured to receive a transmitted blasting result report generated by the blasting machine after the electronic detonator blasting is completed, and upload the blasting result report (i.e. The blasting machine 4 in certain embodiments, moreover, may report a successful detonation including the CTB value 62 from the blasting machine 4 to an external system (e.g., data acquisition system 18) if the sensed electrical parameter indicates a successful detonation [Papillon 0026]… an external system such as the data acquisition system 18 through any suitable wired and/or wireless communications interconnections [Papillon 0020])…”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind to include the feature of having the ability to display results on a web page as disclosed by Papillon.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to access the results from any device that has a browser, which increases the number of devices capable of viewing the results, which distributes information faster, for a better user experience.
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger, in view of Finn, in view of Wiens-Kind, in view of Benson, in view of Hallin.
Claim 11: Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind teach(es) all the limitations of claim 10, above. Kruger teaches “collecting, by a test progress result collection unit, test progress results when the communication tests between the plurality of electronic detonators and the blasting machine are completed, and displaying the collected test progress results (i.e. results of the test process are relayed to the mechanism which records the identity of the detonator and the test results. Information thereon is transmitted by the mechanism to the apparatus and the processor of the apparatus, in response thereto, generates an image, on the display, which is based on, or related to, such information [Kruger 0032])…”
Wiens-Kind teaches logging into a preset web page in [0176, Fig. 18] claim 1, above. Wiens-Kind teaches “on the connected web page (i.e. the alarm information interface 2300 lists each alarm along with summary information for the alarm. For example, the alarm interface can include an indication of the alarm status (e.g., a red icon indicating an “alarm” status, a yellow icon indicating a “warning” status, and a black icon indicating an “equipment offline” status) [Wiens-Kind 0184]… application 518 can be a web application (i.e., an application configured to run in a web browser [Wiens-Kind 0174] note: Wiens-Kind is capable of displaying the status (or test results) of equipment and display them on a web application).”
Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind is/are silent regarding “collecting, by a blasting machine location information transmission unit, the location information of a blasting machine when the corresponding blasting machine for electronic detonator detonation is connected to… the network, and displaying the collected location information of the blasting machine on a map…”
Benson teaches “collecting, by a blasting machine location information transmission unit, the location information of a blasting machine when the corresponding blasting machine for electronic detonator detonation is connected to… the network (i.e. FIG. 3 is an illustration of an illustrative network environment in which an abrasive blasting machine communicates blasting data to a remote server located on a network [Benson 0020, Fig. 3]… enabling a maintenance worker to log into the computing unit to initiate performing preventative maintenance [Benson Claim 21]… illustrative GUI 1100 that may be displayed on a webpage [Benson 0061, Fig. 11] note: Benson appears to be a web application), and displaying the collected location information of the blasting machine on a map (i.e. A global positioning system may be utilized to capture location of the abrasive blasting machine and provide geographic positioning information to a user in a table or a graphical format, such as on a map [Benson 0068])…”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind to include the location of the blasting machine as disclosed by Benson.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to inform the users to the location of the blasting machine, which provides more information to the user, which enables the user to make more informed decision making, which improves the user experience.
Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind and Benson is/are silent regarding “collecting, by a charging work progress result collection unit, charging work progress results when the electronic detonator charging work for detonation is in progress in the blasting machine, and displaying the collected charging work progress results…”
Hallin teaches “collecting, by a charging work progress result collection unit, charging work progress results when the electronic detonator charging work for detonation is in progress in the blasting machine, and displaying the collected charging work progress results (i.e. In response, the operating device turns on the LED marked CHARGING, and transmits a status enquiry to the blasting machine, which again responds by transmitting the signal M M M M M M S K, the status byte of which contains information that charging is in progress. This exchange of status enquiries and status enquiry responses continues until the charging of the blasting machine has been completed. The blasting machine then transmits yet another M M M M M M S K signal, the status byte S of which contains information that charging has been completed. In response thereto, the operating device turns on the LED marked DONE [Hallin 0084]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Kruger and Finn and Wiens-Kind and Benson to include the feature of having the ability to display results on a web page as disclosed by Hallin.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to access the results from any device that has a browser, which increases the number of devices capable of viewing the results, which distributes information faster, for a better user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Givens (US 20120227608 A1) listed on 892 is related to overlaying a map with detonator locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights