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 .
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 is confusing because claim 1 line 13 calls for “which fuel tank”; this implies more than one; however, claim 1 line 7 calls for “a fuel tank”.
Claim 5 lines 3,4 “the electrical batteries” lack clear antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is confusing because claim 7 line 14 calls for “which fuel tank”; this implies more than one; however, claim 7 line 9 calls for “a fuel tank”.
Claim 10 line 2, “the plurality of fuel cell tanks” lack clear antecedent basis.
Claim 15 is confusing because claim 15 line 13 calls for “which fuel tank”; this implies more than one; however, claim 15 line 8 calls for “a fuel tank”.
Claim 17 line 3, “the first threshold value” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,6, 15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. (US 20070090808) in view of Well Known worksite machines and Mizuno et al. (US 5193635)
McCabe et al. discloses a lift truck, comprising at least a primary power source (10,11, Figs. 1,2), a secondary power source (12, Figs. 1,2) and one control unit (54,40,34), wherein the control unit is configured to control the lift truck to perform work tasks according to a work cycle, both the primary and the secondary power source are configured to selectively providing operating power to the lift truck, the primary power source is a fuel cell (10) with a fuel tank (11), the secondary power source is an electrical battery (12), and the control unit is additionally configured to control a charge of the electrical battery with power from the primary power source, simultaneously as supplying operating power to the lift truck (see abstract, para 0007, 0009, 0026, 0035,0036). McCabe et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, McCabe et al. is silent about the worksite machine being a rock drilling rig. Further, McCabe et al. ‘808 is silent about charging the electrical battery simultaneously as the primary power source is supplying operating power to the rock drilling rig and control from which fuel tank the rock drilling rig is provided with fuel.
Rock drilling rig is an example of well-known worksite machines similar to a lift truck
Mizuno et al. ‘635 teaches charging the electrical battery (col. 4 line 15+, claim 2) simultaneously as the primary power source (24, col. 3 line 20+) is supplying operating power to the motor and control from which fuel tank (31, col. 3 line 55+) the motor is provided with fuel.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCabe et al. by using his hybrid power system on a rock drilling rig instead of a lift truck since such a modification enables other worksite machines to take advantage of the hybrid power system.
Further, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCabe et al. by charging the electrical battery simultaneously as the primary power source is supplying operating power to the motor (rock drilling rig) and control from which fuel tank the rock drilling rig (motor) is provided with fuel as taught by Mizuno et al. ‘635 since such a modification
enhances efficiency of the hybrid system.
Re claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to charge the electrical battery, only when the electrical battery delivers power to the rock drilling rig below a first threshold value (para 0009, 0026, 0035, 0036).
Re claim 4, wherein the control unit controls the charge of the electrical battery with regard to the work tasks according to the work cycle of the lift truck (rock drilling rig,
para 0009, 0035).
Re claim 5, Mizuno et al. teaches wherein a multipurpose vehicle comprises a plurality of electrical batteries, wherein the control unit is configured to selectively power the multipurpose vehicle from any of the electrical batteries (see col. 4 line 15+).
Re claim 6, wherein the rock drilling rig is provided with an interface for simultaneously receiving the fuel tank for providing the fuel cell with fuel (31, col. 3 line 55+ of Mizuno et al. ‘635).
With regards to claims 15,16, the recited method steps are considered obvious in view of the combination of references discussed above.
Claim(s) 3,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. ‘ in view of Well Known worksite machine and Mizuno et al. ‘635 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20200055422).
McCabe et al. (as modified above) discloses moving the worksite machine around the workplace during a work cycle (see para 0003, 0009, 0035,0038). However, McCabe et al. is silent about wherein the control unit is configured to determine the first threshold value, dependent on at least one of a state of health of the electrical battery, a state of charge of the electrical battery. Lee et al. teaches about wherein the control unit is configured to determine the first threshold value, dependent on at least one of a state of health of the electrical battery, a state of charge of the electrical battery (see para 0044).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify McCabe et al. (as modified above) to have the control unit configured to determine the first threshold value, dependent on at least one of a state of health of the electrical battery, a state of charge of the electrical battery as taught by Lee et al. since such a modification avoids over charging the battery.
With regards to claims 17, the recited method steps are considered obvious in view of the combination of references discussed above.
Claim(s) 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. ‘ in view of Well Known worksite machine and Mizuno et al. ‘635 and WO document ‘356.
McCabe et al. (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see claim 1 addressed above). However, McCabe et al. (as modified above) is silent wherein the rock drilling rig is provided with an interface for simultaneously receiving a plurality of fuel tanks for providing the fuel cell with fuel and the control unit is configured to control from which fuel tank the rock drilling rig is provided with fuel. WO document ‘356 teaches wherein the worksite machine is provided with an interface for simultaneously receiving a plurality of fuel tanks for providing the fuel cell with fuel and the control unit is configured to control from which fuel tank the rock drilling rig is provided with fuel (see page 10 lines 4-7). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify McCabe et al. (as modified above) to have the rock drilling rig provided with an interface for simultaneously receiving a plurality of fuel tanks for providing the fuel cell with fuel and the control unit is configured to control from which fuel tank the rock drilling rig is provided with fuel as taught by WO document ‘356 since such a modification allows to provide power for a longer duration.
Re claim 8, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify McCabe et al. (as modified above) to have the system comprises a plurality of mining equipment devices as called for in claim 1 since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re claim 9, wherein the plurality of fuel tanks is interchangeable, such that each fuel tank can be provided at each interface of respective mining equipment device
See WO ‘356 page 10 lines 4-7).
Re claim 10, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify McCabe et al. (as modified above) to wherein at least two different sizes of the plurality of interchangeable fuel cell tanks are provided since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955)/
Re claim 11, wherein the system comprises at least one working area and at least one pitstop area (fueling station), wherein the working area ( para 0038 of McCabe et al. )defined by the area within which the mining equipment devices are performing its work tasks, the pitstop area is an area within which fuel tanks are allowed to be refilled and/or exchanged and/or stored, and wherein the working area and the pitstop area are separated and distanced from each other.
Re claim 12, wherein a minimum distance between the pitstop area and any other defined area is dependent on the maximum amount of fuel the fuel tanks and/or the type of fuel tank used (see para 0038, McCabe et al.).
Re claim 13, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify McCabe et al. (as modified above) to wherein the system further comprises at least one maintenance area, within which maintenance of the mining equipment devices is performed, is distanced to the at least one pitstop area and the working area since it is obvious to have a maintenance area for cases where maintenance is needed on the machines.
Re claim 14, wherein a maximum distance between the at least one pitstop area and the maintenance area is dependent on the size of the energy storage of the secondary power source (see para 0038 McCabe et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fail to teach “control from which fuel tank the rock drilling rig is provided with fuel”. The examiner disagrees. Since the claim recites a fuel tank, controlling from which fuel tank is met since its only one tank.
McCabe et al. (US 20070090808) and Mizuno et al. (US 5193635) both teach a fuel tank (11, 31, respectively), therefore controlling from which fuel tank would be tank 11, 31 respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. 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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
4/17/2026
Prosecution Insights