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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 01/14/2026 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,467 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,078,467 is a broader version of claim 1 of the present application.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,467 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,078,467 is a broader version of claim 13 of the present application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are objected to as being allowable and would be in condition for allowance if the claims were to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the best prior art of record found during the examination of the present application, Appleby et al. (US 2017/0074625 A1 herein Appleby), fails to specifically teach, suggest, or disclose a system for assisting blasting, the system including: a plurality of wireless devices that are deployable or deployed proximate to or within a portion of physical media intended to be blasted as part of a commercial blasting operation, wherein each of the wireless devices includes a device-based magnetic induction (MI) signal receiver, with a magnetometer configured for through the earth (TTE) MI communication, and a device-based MI signal source configured for TTE MI communication of uplink MI signals; and at least one vehicle that is configured for locomotion to travel to multiple physical locations during the commercial blasting operation, wherein the vehicle includes a vehicle-based MI signal receiver that includes a set of vehicle-based magnetometers and is configured for receiving the uplink MI signals from the wireless devices, wherein the wireless devices are configured for establishing one or more ad-hoc MI based communication networks among or between each other.
Appleby teaches an initiator apparatus (IA) for blasting, the apparatus including: a magnetic receiver for receiving a magnetic communication signal through the ground by detection of a magnetic field; a controller, in electrical communication with the magnetic receiver, for processing the magnetic communication signal to determine a command for blasting; and a light source in electrical communication with the controller for generating a light beam to initiate a light-sensitive explosive (LSE) in accordance with the command (Appleby - Abstract). Appleby further teaches a system 100 includes magnetic transmitting system 106 configured to send signals to the initiating apparatuses 200 through the ground 102. Through-ground wireless communication which can be referred to as through-the-earth (TTE) communication; or through-rock wireless communication for ground comprising mostly rock) includes communication by wireless signal transmission along wireless through-ground signal paths 118 through the round 102, through the bulk explosive 116, through the primer unit 300 and into the IA 200 (Appleby - [0043]). These teachings of Appleby differ and fall short of the present application. Therefore claim 1 is considered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Claims 2-12 depend upon allowable claim 1 therefore these claims are also allowable for the same reasons explained above.
Regarding claim 13, the best prior art of record found during the examination of the present application, Appleby et al. (US 2017/0074625 A1 herein Appleby), fails to specifically teach, suggest, or disclose a method for assisting blasting, the method including: deploying a plurality of wireless devices in physical media proximate to or within a portion of the physical media intended to be blasted as part of a commercial blasting operation; communicating to the wireless devices using MI communication that is through the earth (TTE); receiving communications from the wireless devices to a vehicle with a vehicle-based MI signal receiver using uplink MI communication that is TTE; travelling the vehicle to multiple physical locations to receive the uplink MI communication during the commercial blasting operation; and establishing one or more ad-hoc MI-based communication networks among or between the wireless devices.
Appleby teaches an initiator apparatus (IA) for blasting, the apparatus including: a magnetic receiver for receiving a magnetic communication signal through the ground by detection of a magnetic field; a controller, in electrical communication with the magnetic receiver, for processing the magnetic communication signal to determine a command for blasting; and a light source in electrical communication with the controller for generating a light beam to initiate a light-sensitive explosive (LSE) in accordance with the command (Appleby - Abstract). Appleby further teaches a system 100 includes magnetic transmitting system 106 configured to send signals to the initiating apparatuses 200 through the ground 102. Through-ground wireless communication which can be referred to as through-the-earth (TTE) communication; or through-rock wireless communication for ground comprising mostly rock) includes communication by wireless signal transmission along wireless through-ground signal paths 118 through the ground 102, through the bulk explosive 116, through the primer unit 300 and into the IA 200 (Appleby - [0043]). These teachings of Appleby differ and fall short of the present application. Therefore claim 13 is considered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to APRIL GUZMAN GONZALES whose telephone number is (571)270-1101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm EST. The examiner’s email address is April.guzman@uspto.gov.
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, Wesley L. Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/APRIL G GONZALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648