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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 12-31 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 12 and 29, the claims recite releasing the wireless device at or to a “predefined operational location” in the borehole. The claims do not provide objective boundaries for determining what constitutes the predefined operational location. Specifically, the claims do not specify whether the predefined operational location corresponds to a particular depth, a range of depths, a spatial region within the borehole, or a tolerance relative to a target position, nor do the claims recite objective criteria by which the deploy control system determines that the predefined operational location has been reached. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty.
Any unspecified claim is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. In light of the above, the claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
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 12, 13, 17, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (WO 2021/080513 A1).
Regarding claim 12, D1 discloses a system for wireless electronic blasting, comprising: a deployment device configured to secure a wireless device while the wireless device is being deployed into or in a borehole (page 30, third paragraph; Fig. 7); and a deploy control system in operative communication with the deployment device (page 30, third paragraph; Fig. 7), the deploy control system configured to control (i) an extension control mechanism to guide the deployment device into or in the borehole (page 9, third paragraph; Fig. 7), and (ii) the deployment device to release the wireless device at or to a predefined operational location in the borehole (page 9, third paragraph; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, D1 discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the deployment device includes a securing arrangement to secure the wireless device in a secure position in or on the deployment device by applying a retaining force to the wireless device (page 9, third paragraph; Fig. 7), and wherein the securing arrangement includes (a) a passive securing arrangement that applies the securing force without requiring energy or power; and/or (b) an active securing arrangement that applies the securing force in response to an activation signal (page 9, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, D1 discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the deployment device is configured to release the wireless device from the deployment device by applying an ejection force to the wireless device to eject the wireless device to the predefined operational location (page 9, third paragraph; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19, D1 discloses the system of claim 12, further including a link configured to hold and guide the deployment device into or in the borehole substantially to the predefined operational location (page 30, third paragraph; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, D1 discloses the system of claim 19, further including a dispense system with (i) a delivery conduit configured to carry one or more bulk explosive materials into the borehole, (ii) and a dispense control system configured to control the dispense system to automatically dispense the bulk explosive materials into the borehole coordinated with the deployment of the wireless device at the predefined operational location (page 30, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 21, D1 discloses the system of claim 20, wherein the link includes the delivery conduit (page 30, third paragraph; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 22, D1 discloses the system of claim 12, further including a dispense system with (i) a delivery conduit configured to carry one or more bulk explosive materials into the borehole, (ii) and a dispense control system configured to control the dispense system to automatically dispense the bulk explosive materials into the borehole coordinated with the deployment of the wireless device at the predefined operational location (page 30, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 23, D1 discloses the system of claim 22, wherein the wireless device includes: a wireless initiation device configured to initiate the bulk explosive materials; or a wireless marker (page 30, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 24, D1 discloses the system of claim 23, wherein the wireless initiation device is in the form of a wireless primer with a booster explosive charge to initiate the bulk explosive materials (page 30, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 25, D1 discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the wireless device includes: a wireless initiation device configured to initiate the bulk explosive materials; or a wireless marker (page 30, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 26, D1 discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the wireless device is moved into or in the borehole at least partially to the predefined operational location, by way of the deployment device being moved into or in the borehole with the wireless device retained by the deployment device (page 30, third paragraph; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 27, D1 discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the deployment device is forced, driven, drawn, lowered, and/or raised into or in the borehole with the wireless device retained by the deployment device (page 30, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 28, D1 discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the deployment device is configured to secure the wireless device while the wireless device is being deployed along the borehole, and the deploy control system is configured to control the extension control mechanism to guide the deployment device along the borehole (page 9, third paragraph; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 29, D1 discloses a method for wireless electronic blasting, comprising: securing a wireless device in or to a deployment device while the deployment device is being moved in or into a borehole (page 30, third paragraph), controlling an extension control mechanism to guide the deployment device with the wireless device in or into the borehole (page 9, third paragraph), and controlling the deployment device to release the wireless device to a predefined operational location in the borehole (page 9, third paragraph; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 30, D1 discloses the method of claim 29 wherein the securing occurs while the deployment device is being forced, driven, drawn, lowered, and/or raised into or in the borehole (page 30, third paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over D1 (WO 2021/080513 A1) in view of D2 (WO 2022/099356 A1) or D3 (WO 2022/014530 A1).
Regarding claim 15, D1 teaches the system of claim 12, but does not explicitly teach further including a depth sensor system configured to provide a depth signal for the deploy control system to automatically determine that the wireless device is at the predefined operational location. D2 teaches a depth sensor system configured to provide a depth signal for determining the position of a device within a borehole (D2, paragraphs [00124]–[00126]; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the depth sensor system of D2 into the system of D1 in order to automatically determine when the wireless device reaches the predefined operational location, because depth-based automation of borehole operations improves placement accuracy, operational reliability, and timing consistency, and represents a known and predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 16, D1 further teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the deployment device is configured to release the wireless device from the deployment device by applying an ejection force to the wireless device to eject the wireless device to the predefined operational location (page 9, third paragraph; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, D1 in view of D2 teaches the system of claim 13, further including a depth sensor system configured to provide a depth signal for the deploy control system to automatically determine that the wireless device is at the predefined operational location (D2, paragraphs [00124]–[00126]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, D1 further teaches the system of claim 17, and D2 and D3 further teach wherein the deployment device includes an ejection mechanism to provide the ejection force, and wherein the ejection mechanism includes (a) a passive ejection mechanism that applies the ejection force with stored potential energy, and/or (b) an active ejection mechanism that applies the ejection force in response to an activation signal with energy from an energy source (D2, paragraphs [00124]–[00126]; D3, paragraph [0047]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D DAVID whose telephone number is (571)270-3737 and whose email address is michael.david@uspto.gov*. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
*Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Applicant is welcome to file an electronic communication authorization (sb439) form at any time if he/she would like to communicate via e-mail:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdfWithout a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL D DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641