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.
Claims1-20 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 line 10 calls for “at least one cable”; claim 1 line 7 calls for “at least one respective cable”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 8 line 4, “the drift”, “the chamber” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 13 line 1 calls for “the one or more winches”; claim 1 line 7 calls for “at least one winch”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
The remaining claims are solely rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,10,11,18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Korean document (KR 100743453).
Korean document discloses a modular platform system for vertical ore stope mining,
comprising: a top platform (see Fig. 2b,2c) having an access opening formed therein for accessing a raise opening of a raise above a stope of a mine; an equipment deck adapted to receive equipment (see Fig. 2b,2c); and, at least one winch (51) having at least one respective cable (52) coupled thereto, the at least one winch mounted on the
top platform, the at least one cable extendable through the access opening, the at least one cable having at least one respective cable end coupled to the equipment deck;
wherein the at least one winch is operable to move the equipment deck and the equipment between a raised position proximate a top of the raise at the top platform
and a lowered position proximate a bottom of the raise at a top of or within the stope.
Re claim 2, wherein the mine is an underground mine (see Figs.2b,2c).
Re claim 3, wherein the top platform (Figs. 2b,2c) is adapted to be moved between raises in a drift or chamber of the underground mine.
Re claim 5, comprising a control system (50, see machine translation describing Fig. 2b) for controlling components of the modular platform system, the at least one winch, and the equipment.
Re claim 10, wherein the equipment includes at least one of mobile or stationary
drilling equipment and mobile or stationary blasting equipment (C,D, Fig. 2b).
Re claim 11, wherein the equipment deck includes a power supply for providing power to the equipment (see machine translation description of Fig. 2b).
Re claim 18, wherein the power supply is an optional battery (this limitation is met since optional battery is not a required limitation).
Re claim 20, wherein the equipment includes mobile equipment and stationary equipment (see Figs. 2b,2c).
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean document ‘453 in view of Lepley et al. (US 3757701).
Korean document ‘453 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Korean document ‘453 is silent wherein the control system supports local and remote control of the components of the modular platform system, the at least one winch, and the equipment. Lepley et al. teaches a control system (see Figs 4,11) supports local and remote control of the components of the modular platform system, the at least one winch, and the equipment.
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 Korean document ‘453 to include
a control system to support local and remote control of the components of the modular platform system, the at least one winch, and the equipment as taught by Lepley et al. since such a modification provides protection of the user by enabling them to operate the system from a safe distance.
Re claim 7, Korean document ‘453 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Korean document ‘453 is silent wherein the control system has a local user interface or control panel mounted on the top platform for local control.
Lepley et al. teaches a control system has a local user interface or control panel mounted on the top platform for local control (see Figs. 4,11).
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 Korean document ‘453 to include
a control system that has a local user interface or control panel mounted on the top platform for local control as taught by Lepley et al. since such a modification
provides protection of the user by enabling them to operate the system from a safe distance.
Re claim 8, Korean document ‘453 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Korean document ‘453 is silent wherein the control system has a remote user interface or control panel located at a remote location at a distance from the raise,
drift, chamber, or mine for remote control. Lepley et al. teaches a control system has a remote user interface or control panel located at a remote location at a distance from the raise, drift, chamber, or mine for remote control (see Figs. 4,11).
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 Korean document ‘453 to include
a control system that has a remote user interface or control panel located at a remote location at a distance from the raise, drift, chamber, or mine for remote control as taught by Lepley et al. since such a modification provides protection of the user by enabling them to operate the system from a safe distance.
Re claim 9, Korean document ‘453 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Korean document ‘453 is silent wherein a wired or wireless network communicatively coupling the control system to the components of the modular
platform system, the at least one winch, and the equipment. Lepley et al. teaches
wherein a wired or wireless network communicatively coupling the control system to the components of the modular platform system, the at least one winch, and the equipment (see Figs. 4,11-13).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Korean document ‘453 to include
a control a wired or wireless network communicatively coupling the control system to the components of the modular platform system, the at least one winch, and the equipment as taught by Lepley et al. since such a modification enhances reliability, speed and security.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean document ‘453 in view of Jordaan (US 20160201396).
Korean document ‘453 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Korean document ‘453 is silent wherein the power supply is electrically coupled to the top platform via power cabling. Jordaan teaches wherein the power supply is electrically coupled to the top platform via power cabling (para 0024, 0038).
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 Korean document ‘453 to wherein the power supply is electrically coupled to the top platform via power cabling as taught by Jordaan since such a modification would reduce weight and increase space on the equipment deck.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13-17,19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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
3/7/2026