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
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder 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: “dust mitigation system” in Claims 1-20, “device” in Claims 1 and 13-15, “separate device” in Claims 2 and 3, and “control system” in Claim 10, 11, and 20.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pareja US 2024/0069174 (hereafter Pareja).
Regarding Claim 1, Pareja anticipates:
1. A dust mitigation system (dust suppression system, Title) comprising:
at least one compressor (compressor 3) configured to deliver compressed air to an air tank;
a pressure regulator (pressure regulator 5) configured to regulate the pressure of compressed air flowing out of the air tank; and
at least one air flow line (line 7) configured to deliver regulated compressed air to remove dust from a lens of a device (lasers 11a-e).
Regarding Claim 2, Pareja anticipates:
2. The dust mitigation system of claim 1, further comprising:
a manifold (distribution block 6) operable to split the regulated compressed air into a plurality of ports;
wherein the at least one air flow line (line 7) comprises a plurality of air flow lines (Figure 1);
wherein each of the plurality of ports (outputs 2) is coupled to a separate air flow line of the plurality of air flow lines (Figure 1); and
wherein each separate air flow line is configured to deliver regulated compressed air to remove dust from a lens of a separate device (lasers 11a-e)(Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Pareja anticipates:
3. The dust mitigation system of claim 2, wherein the separate devices (lasers 11a-e) consist of lasers (lasers) or cameras (not selected) or a combination of lasers and cameras (not selected).
Regarding Claim 10, Pareja anticipates:
10. The dust mitigation system of claim 1, further comprising:
a control system (assembly comprising laser metal protector 13 and pneumatic board 12) operable to control the operation of the dust mitigation system (dust suppression system, Title).
Regarding Claim 13, Pareja anticipates:
13. The dust mitigation system of claim 1, further comprising:
a solenoid valve (flow regulation valves 8) coupled between the at least one air flow line (line 7) and the device (lasers 11a-e)(Figure 1);
wherein the solenoid valve is periodically activated to deliver regulated compressed air to remove dust from the lens of the device (Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 14, Pareja anticipates:
14. The dust mitigation system of claim 13, further comprising:
a flow splitter (distributor fittings 9) coupled to an outlet of the solenoid valve (flow regulation valves 8);
wherein the flow splitter divides and directs the regulated air to a first nozzle (first diffusor 10a) and a second nozzle (second diffusor 10b) positioned on opposite sides of the lens of the device (lasers 11a-e)(Figures 1 and 4);
wherein the first nozzle and the second nozzle deliver the regulated compressed air to remove dust from the lens of the device (Paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 15, Pareja anticipates:
15. The dust mitigation system of claim 14, wherein each of the first nozzle (first diffusor 10a) and a second nozzle (second diffusor 10b) are pointed toward the lens of the device (lasers 11a-e) at a desired angle (Figures 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Pareja anticipates:
16. A mining equipment rig (autonomous drilling machine) comprising the dust mitigation system (dust suppression system, Title) of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Pareja anticipates:
20. The mining equipment rig of claim 16, wherein a control system (assembly comprising laser metal protector 13 and pneumatic board 12) of the mining equipment rig (autonomous drilling machine) controls the operation of the dust mitigation system (dust suppression system, Title).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 4-7, 11, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pareja US 2024/0069174 (hereafter Pareja) in view of Walsh US 2023/0417235 (hereafter Walsh) and design choice.
Regarding Claims 4-7, 11, 12, and 17-19 below, Pareja discloses that his device relies upon an air compressor for operation, however, Pareja does not disclose the specific features of the air compressor that are common to those devices in the prior art. The reference Walsh discloses a prior art air compressor, with typical features such as a pressure switch, pressure relief valve, tank drain valve, controller, and powered connection that would be expected on an air compressor used in the environment where the Pareja device would be located. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pareja device to include the air compressor features cited below from the Walsh device with the motivation to incorporate standard components into the air compressor necessary for expected compressor operation.
Regarding Claim 4, Pareja in combination with Walsh teaches:
4. The dust mitigation system of claim 1, further comprising:
a pressure switch (Walsh – Step 272) set to indicate when to turn on and off the at least one compressor (Walsh - air compressor 12) based on the pressure of compressed air within the air tank (Walsh – tank 14).
Regarding Claim 5, Pareja in combination with Walsh teaches:
5. The dust mitigation system of claim 1, further comprising:
a pressure relief valve (Walsh – pressure relief valve 92) set to bleed compressed air from the air tank if the pressure of compressed air within the air tank (Walsh – tank 14) exceeds an upper limit set point (Walsh - Paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 6, Pareja in combination with Walsh teaches:
6. The dust mitigation system of claim 1, further comprising:
an air filter (Walsh – intake filter) disposed on an intake side of the at least one compressor (Walsh - air compressor 12).
Regarding Claim 7, Pareja in combination with Walsh teaches:
7. The dust mitigation system of claim 1, further comprising:
an air dump solenoid valve (Walsh – tank drain valve, Paragraph [0101]) operable to enable the removal of air and condensed water (Walsh - condensate) from the air tank (Walsh – tank 14).
Regarding Claim 11, Pareja in combination with Walsh teaches:
11. The dust mitigation system of claim 10, wherein the control system (assembly comprising laser metal protector 13 and pneumatic board 12) comprises:
a controller (pneumatic board 12, Walsh – intelligent controller 10 - PLC-type controller, Paragraph [0006]);
a timer (Walsh – timer, Paragraph [0004]); and
an on/off switch (Walsh – relay 78 being an electronic on-off switch, Paragraph [0038] and [0101]).
Regarding Claim 12, Pareja in combination with Walsh teaches:
12. The dust mitigation system of claim 11, wherein the controller (Walsh – intelligent controller 10) is a PLC controller (Walsh – PLC-type controller, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 17, Pareja in combination with Walsh teaches:
17. The mining equipment rig of claim 16, wherein power to operate the dust mitigation system (dust suppression system, Title) is pulled from a motor starter (Walsh – starter 109, Paragraphs [0038] and [0104]) of the mining equipment rig (autonomous drilling machine).
Regarding Claim 18, Pareja in combination with Walsh teaches:
18. The mining equipment rig of claim 17, wherein the dust mitigation system (dust suppression system, Title) is operational when an engine of the mining equipment rig (autonomous drilling machine) is running, and wherein the dust mitigation system turns off when the engine turns off (see discussion below).
Neither Pareja nor Walsh specifically disclose that the dust mitigation system turns off when the motor of the autonomous drilling machine turns off. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically link the dust mitigation system with the autonomous drilling machine such that the dust mitigation system controller turns off at a predetermined time after the autonomous drilling machine turns off to since continuous operation after the drilling operation is stopped would be unnecessary.
Regarding Claim 19, Pareja in combination with Walsh teaches:
19. The mining equipment rig of claim 17, wherein the dust mitigation system (dust suppression system, Title) further comprises a battery that charges when an engine of the mining equipment rig (autonomous drilling machine) is running, and wherein the dust mitigation system is powered by the battery when the engine turns off (see discussion below).
Neither Pareja nor Walsh specifically disclose that the dust mitigation system turns has a battery that charges during autonomous drilling operation and it powered by the battery when the motor of the autonomous drilling machine turns off. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically link the dust mitigation system with the autonomous drilling machine such that the dust mitigation system controller includes a battery that allows it to have a controlled shutdown operation that turns off the dust mitigation system at a predetermined time after the autonomous drilling machine turns off to since continuous operation after the drilling operation is stopped would be unnecessary.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pareja US 2024/0069174 (hereafter Pareja) in view of Park Bokhyun KR 20170002973 U (hereafter Park Bokhyun).
Regarding Claim 8, Pareja in combination with Park Bokhyun teaches:
8. The dust mitigation system of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one heater (see discussion below).
Regarding Claim 8, Pareja discloses that his device relies upon an air compressor for operation, however, Pareja does not disclose the specific features of the air compressor that are common to those devices in the prior art. The reference Park Bokhyun discloses a prior art air compressor that includes a heater that prevents the condensate water from being frozen in the air tank. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pareja device to include a heater as taught by the Park Bokhyun device with the motivation to prevent the water from freezing, especially in an outdoor environment where drilling would be performed, allowing the condensate water to be automatically drained as taught by Park Bokhyun.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pareja US 2024/0069174 (hereafter Pareja) in view of Li CN 112524010 A (hereafter Li).
Regarding Claim 9, Pareja in combination with Li teaches:
9. The dust mitigation system of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one battery that charges using solar power (see discussion below).
Regarding Claim 9, Pareja discloses that his device relies upon an air compressor for operation, however, Pareja does not disclose the specific features of the air compressor that are common to those devices in the prior art. The reference Li discloses a prior art air compressor that includes a solar powered battery that operates the air compressor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pareja device to include a solar powered battery from the Li device with the motivation to be self-powered, especially in an outdoor environment where drilling would be performed, to eliminate the need for separate electrical power.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of air compressors and dust mitigation systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights