DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 related to the 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Labriola does not teach “collecting data solely during drilling of a first hole to determine drilling parameters used exclusively for a subsequent second hole.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the feature of using the collected data “exclusively” for a second hole is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner further notes that the term “data” has not been defined beyond it being data (i.e., information) collected from a drill rig solely during drilling of a first hole. Therefore, the data collected during drilling of a first hole is the “data” recited in the claims under BRI and the additional information of Labriola can be additional data as discussed below.
The claim language needs to more precisely define what the data is and what data/information is being used and/or how it is being used. Examiner further notes that Applicant should be careful not to introduce new matter.
The claim objections, 112(a) rejections, 112(b) rejections, and 101 rejections are withdrawn due to amendments.
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 10 and 21 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.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, it is unclear if “at least one drilling parameter” is the same drilling parameter recited in the independent claims or an additional drilling parameter for the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the at least one drilling parameter” (i.e., the same drilling parameter as previously recited).
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 15-18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Labriola (WO 2022/016207).
With respect to claims 1 and 12: Labriola discloses a method performed by a system for determining one or more parameters to use for drilling a second hole in a rock to approach a target, wherein the target is related to a subsequent blasting of the rock (¶ [0039, 0042-50, 0058-59, 0064]), the method comprising:
drilling a first hole in the rock (¶ [0042, 0059]; Fig. 1);
collecting data relating to the rock (¶ [0040, 0042]; Fig. 1), which data is collected from a drill rig solely during drilling of the first hole in the rock (¶ [0040, 0042, 0059]; Fig. 1);
determining at least one drilling parameter for the second hole, based on the collected data of from the first hole (¶ [0042, 0045-46, 0048-50]); and
drilling the second hole in the rock using the at least one drilling parameter, thereby approaching the target (¶ [0039, 0048, 0058-59, 0064]; Fig. 1).
Examiner notes that the claim language does not define the term “data.” Therefore, it is only the data collected while drilling a first hole that is considered “data” and the rest of the information used by Labriola is additional data that can be used in the determining step since the claim does not limit what data/information can be used.
Labriola further discloses a processor and memory storing instructions that can be executed by the processor (devices that store and use the data connected to the user interface and runs the trained model; ¶ [0045, 0047-48, 0065-66, 0069]).
With respect to claims 4 and 15: Labriola further discloses:
determining at least one charging parameter, based on the collected data of the rock (¶ [0045, 0048-50]);
determining at least one firing parameter, based on the collected data of the rock (¶ [0045]; “blast initiation timing”), and wherein the at least one charging parameter and/or the at least one firing parameter is used when blasting to approach the target (¶ [0048-50, 0059]).
With respect to claims 5 and 16: Labriola further discloses:
determining whether the target is achieved, based on whether a result of a blasting fulfils one or more criteria (¶ [0039, 0046, 0059, 0064-65]), wherein the result of the blasting is based on the determined first hole and the determined second hole (¶ [0039, 0046, 0059, 0064-65]; Fig. 1), and wherein the criteria is associated to a predicted blasting result (¶ [0039, 0046, 0059, 0064-65]; Fig. 1).
With respect to claims 6 and 17: Labriola further discloses:
when the result of the blasting does not fulfil the one or more criteria, adapting the at least one drilling parameter, until the one or more criteria are fulfilled (¶ [0039, 0046, 0059, 0064-65]; Fig. 1), and
when the result of the blasting does fulfil the one or more criteria, continuing drilling the rock by using the determined at least one drilling parameter (¶ [0039, 0046, 0059, 0064-65]; Fig. 1).\
Examiner notes that the results of the blasting are always used to improve the subsequent drilling/blasting (Fig. 1). Therefore, under BRI the results of the blasting always either adapt the at least one drilling parameter or maintain the at least one drilling parameter.
With respect to claims 7 and 18: Labriola further discloses:
when the result of the blasting does not fulfil the one or more criteria, adapting the at least one charging parameter and/or the at least one firing parameter, until the one or more criteria are fulfilled (¶ [0039, 0045-46, 0048-50, 0059, 0064-65]; Fig. 1), and
when the result of the blasting does fulfil the one or more criteria, continuing drilling the rock by using the determined at least one drilling parameter, and blasted with the at least one charging parameter and/or at least one firing parameter (¶ [0039, 0045-46, 0048-50, 0059, 0064-65]; Fig. 1).
Examiner notes that the results of the blasting are always used to improve the subsequent drilling/blasting (Fig. 1). Therefore, under BRI the results of the blasting always either adapt the at least one drilling parameter (i.e., charging parameter and/or firing parameter as discussed with respect to claims 4 and 15) or maintain the at least one drilling parameter (i.e., charging parameter and/or firing parameter as discussed with respect to claims 4 and 15).
With respect to claims 9 and 20: 9 Labriola further discloses the target is related to one or more of: a size and/or a size distribution of one or more fragmented rocks, a reduction of ground vibrations, a reduction of blasting movements, a reduction of fly-rocks and a reduction of carbon dioxide emission (¶ [0058-59]).
With respect to claims 10 and 21: Labriola further discloses the collected data of the rock and the target are used as input to a calculation model (¶ [0010, 0045, 0059, 0068-70]), and wherein the calculation model determines at least one drilling parameter to use when drilling the second hole (¶ [0010, 0049, 0059, 0069]).
With respect to claims 11 and 22: Labriola further discloses:
determining at least one second drilling parameter based on the collected data of the rock (¶ [0039, 0042, 0045-46, 0048-50]; Fig. 1); and
drilling a third hole in the rock using the at least one second drilling parameter (¶ [0039, 0048, 0058-59, 0064]; Fig. 1); and
wherein the result of the blasting is based on the determined first hole and the determined second hole (¶ [0039, 0059]; “subsequent drilled holes”; Fig. 1).
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, 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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labriola as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ayris (US 2024/0141775).
With respect to claims 2 and 13: Labriola discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for collecting supplemental data relating to the rock, which data is collected from the drill rig when pulling up a drill after drilling but before completing the first hole in the rock.
Ayris teaches it is known in the art to collect data relating to a rock, which data is collected from a drill rig when pulling up a drill after the drilling but before completing a first hole in the rock (¶ [0033]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the data collection while removing the drill of Ayris with the invention of Labriola with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow further surveying to improve survey accuracy (Ayris ¶ [0033]).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labriola as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Zagre (US 2021/0148214).
With respect to claims 3 and 14: Labriola further discloses collecting additional data relating to the rock (¶ [0040, 0042-43]), wherein the collected additional data comprises information about a shock wave propagation, a chemical analysis and/or one or more physical properties of material flow from the drilling (¶ [0040, 0042-43]) and wherein determining the at least one drilling parameter is based on the collected additional data of the rock (¶ [0042, 0045-46, 0048-50]). Labriola does not disclose additional data is probe data (i.e., data collected by a probe).
Zagre teaches collecting data (i.e., probe data) using a probe (¶ [0027]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to combine the use of a probe to collect data of Zagre with the invention of Labriola with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow the wellbore to be assessed further after the drill has been removed without the need to reinsert the drill into the wellbore.
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 KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights