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 § 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, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson (US 10329016 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson teaches, a method for installing irrigation lines on a heap of a heap leach pad,
the method comprising:
lifting (fig. 1 – shows cable (20) being lifted), via one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (30), an irrigation line;
transporting (fig. 1 – shows cable being transported), via the one or more UAVs (30), the irrigation line to the heap (Col. 3 – lines 25 – 30 – describes maneuvering the unmanned aerial vehicle to the location);
and positioning, via the one or more UAVs (30), the irrigation line on the heap (Col. 3 – lines 27-32 – positioning the distal end of the line tube guided by UAV)
Regarding the limitations associated with the use of the UAV system on a mining/irrigation system, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114 II
Regarding claim 2, The Jackson teaches, the method of claim 1,
wherein the positioning of the irrigation line includes releasing the irrigation line on a sloped surface of the heap ((Col. 3 – lines 27-32 – positioning the distal end of the line tube guided by UAV to desired location)
Regarding the limitations associated with the use of the UAV system on a mining/irrigation system, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114 II
Regarding claim 3, Jackson teaches, the method of claim 1,
wherein the transporting the irrigation line includes transporting a first end of the irrigation line from a staging area to a top surface of the heap (Col. 3 – lines 25 – 30 – describes maneuvering the unmanned aerial vehicle and line to desired location).
Regarding the limitations associated with the use of the UAV system on a mining/irrigation system, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114 II
Regarding claim 4, Jackson teaches, the method of claim 3,
wherein the positioning the irrigation line includes releasing the first end of the irrigation line from the one or more UAVs onto the top surface of the heap (Col. 5 – lines 37-47 – reel system releases line on desired surface).
Regarding the limitations associated with the use of the UAV system on a mining/irrigation system, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114 II
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1,
further comprising unwinding, the irrigation line from a spool (50) during the transporting the irrigation line (Fig. 2 – line (20) being unwound from spool (50)).
Regarding the limitations associated with the use of the UAV system on a mining/irrigation system, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114 II
Regarding claim 9, The method of claim 1,
wherein a first end of the irrigation line (20) is supported by a harness (40) during the transporting the irrigation line (fig. 2 – line supported on reel held by harness (40)).
Regarding the limitations associated with the use of the UAV system on a mining/irrigation system, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114 II
Regarding claim 18, Jackson teaches, the method of claim 1,
wherein the positioning of the irrigation line includes adjusting, via the one or more UAVs (30), a position of the irrigation line on the heap based on sensor data received from one or more sensors (sensors on controller (70)) of the one or more UAVs (Col. 7 – lines 1 – 10 – UAV position is adjusted based on sensor data received from controller).
Regarding the limitations associated with the use of the UAV system on a mining/irrigation system, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114 II
Regarding claim 19, Jackson teaches, the method of claim 1,
wherein the positioning further comprises unwinding (fig. 2 – line unwinding from spool (50)), via the one or more UAVs (30), the irrigation line on the heap.
Regarding the limitations associated with the use of the UAV system on a mining/irrigation system, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114 II
Regarding claim 20, Jackson teaches, an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) (30) configured for precise placement of irrigation lines on a heap, the UAV comprising:
a UAV body (36);
a propulsion system (fig. 2 – propellors are propulsion system) coupled to the UAV body;
an irrigation line support structure (32) coupled to the UAV body, the irrigation line support structure configured to couple one or more irrigation lines to the UAV body (Reel coupled to support structure);
a placement mechanism (50) configured to release one of the irrigation line support structure or the one or more irrigation lines (fig. 2 – Reel releases cable);
and one or more controllers (70) in operable communication with the propulsion system and the placement mechanism (Col. 6 – lines 60-68 – describes a controller/processing device in control of processing unit for system),
the one or more controllers (70) configured to: transport, via the propulsion system, the one or more irrigation lines to the heap (Col. 8 – lines 0-10 – controller processes signals UAV guided by operator);
place, via a positioning and navigation system (80), the one or more irrigation lines on the heap (Col. 7 – lines 30 - 40 – System uses GPS to place lines in desired location;
and release, via the placement mechanism, one of the irrigation line support structure or the one or more irrigation lines on the heap (Col. 5 – 38 - 48 –line can be freely released from the spool).
Regarding the limitations associated with the use of the UAV system on a mining/irrigation system, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114 II
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 5, 6, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 10329016 B1) in view of Lincoln (US 20240102582 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jackson fails to teach, the method of claim 4,
further comprising coupling, the first end of the irrigation line to an irrigation system
However, Lincoln teaches, the method of claim 4,
further comprising coupling, the first end of the irrigation line (216) to an irrigation system ([0015] [0019] – line is coupled to irrigation system made up of drainage (220) and fluid source (218).
Jackson and Lincoln are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of industrial cable/pipe laying. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson’s cable laying apparatus to be used to place irrigation piping as taught by Lincoln. Leach pad irrigation systems are well defined in the art, the combination of those systems with known UAV cable/pipe laying methods allow for simplified and cost-effective placement of leach pad irrigation lines through substitution of ground-based pulleys/spools with drone mounted systems.
Regarding claim 6, Jackson fails to teach, the method of claim 5, further comprising:
decoupling a second end of the irrigation line from an apparatus on a ground surface,
and coupling the second end to the irrigation system,
wherein the irrigation line is oriented along a sloped surface of the heap and extending from the first end to the second end along the sloped surface of the heap.
However, Lincoln teaches, the method of claim 5, further comprising:
decoupling a second end of the irrigation line from an apparatus on a ground surface ([0019] – second end of irrigation line decoupled from deployment apparatus on ground surface),
and coupling the second end to the irrigation system ([0019] – second end of line coupled to irrigation system made up of drainage (220) and fluid source (218),
wherein the irrigation line (216) is oriented along a sloped surface (110) of the heap (100) and extending from the first end to the second end along the sloped surface of the heap (fig. 2 – line extends from ground to top of heap.
Jackson and Lincoln are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of industrial cable/pipe laying. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson’s cable laying apparatus to be used to place irrigation piping as taught by Lincoln for the reasons disclosed above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, Jackson teaches, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
releasing a first end of the irrigation line from one of the one or more UAVs (30) (fig. 2- line is released from spool (50));
Jackson fails to teach,
decoupling a second end of the irrigation line from one of a second of the one or more UAVs or
an apparatus disposed on a ground surface;
coupling the first end of the irrigation line to an irrigation system of the heap leach pad;
and coupling the second end of the irrigation line to the irrigation system of the heap leach pad.
However, Lincoln teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
decoupling a second end of the irrigation line from one of a second of the one or more UAVs or an apparatus disposed on a ground surface ([0019] – second end of irrigation line decoupled from deployment apparatus on ground surface);
coupling the first end of the irrigation line to an irrigation system of the heap leach pad ([0015] [0019] – line is coupled to irrigation system made up of drainage (220) and fluid source (218);
and coupling the second end of the irrigation line to the irrigation system of the heap leach pad ([0019] – second end of line coupled to irrigation system made up of drainage (220) and fluid source (218).
Jackson and Lincoln are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of industrial cable/pipe laying. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson’s cable laying apparatus to be used to place irrigation piping as taught by Lincoln for the reasons disclosed above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, Jackson fails to teach the method of claim 16, wherein responsive to the coupling the first end and the second end of the irrigation line to the irrigation system,
the irrigation line extends from a top surface of the heap leach pad,
down a sloped surface of the heap leach pad,
to one of the ground surface or an intermediate level down the slope.
However, Lincoln teaches, the method of claim 16, wherein responsive to the coupling the first end and the second end of the irrigation line to the irrigation system,
the irrigation line (216) extends from a top surface (upper rim) of the heap leach pad, down a sloped surface (110) of the heap leach pad (100),
to one of the ground surface or an intermediate level down the slope (fig. 2 – leach line extends to ground).
Jackson and Lincoln are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of industrial cable/pipe laying. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson’s cable laying apparatus to be used to place irrigation piping as taught by Lincoln for the reasons disclosed above in claim 5.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 10329016 B1) in view of T&D world article published Feb. 17 2020.
Jackson fails to teach, The method of claim 7,
wherein the spool is disposed on a ground surface proximate the heap.
However, T&D teaches,
wherein the spool is disposed on a ground surface proximate the heap (Spool mounted on truck on ground surface for deposition of cables).
Jackson and T&D are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of industrial cable/pipe laying. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson’s cable laying apparatus to use the floor mounted spools as taught by T&D. Doing so allows for the drone apparatus to operate from a larger variety of locations, without relying on fixed ground anchor points, but moveable ground surface spools, and allows for the drone system to transport a longer length of cable/hose.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 10329016 B1) in view of CANDRONE video published April 26th 2023.
Regarding claim 10, Jackson fails to teach, the method of claim 9,
wherein the positioning the irrigation line further comprises releasing the harness onto a top surface of the heap.
However, CANDRONE teaches, wherein the positioning the irrigation line further comprises releasing the harness onto a top surface of the heap (video shows remote controlled release of harness after placement of wire at desired location).
Jackson and CANDRONE are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of industrial cable/pipe laying. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson’s cable laying apparatus to use the floor mounted spools as taught by CANDRONE. Doing so allows for more precise control of cable/hose deposition, dropping the entire harness rather than dropping the cable/hose once the full length has been unspooled allows for precise remote positioning of the drop site.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 10329016 B1) in view of CANDRONE video published April 26th 2023 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lincoln (US 20240102582 A1).
Regarding claim 11, neither Jackson or CANDRONE teaches, the method of claim 10, further comprising:
decoupling the first end of the irrigation line from the harness after the releasing the harness onto the top surface of the heap, and coupling the first end of the irrigation line to an irrigation system.
However, Lincoln teaches, the method of claim 10, further comprising:
decoupling the first end of the irrigation line from the harness after the releasing the harness onto the top surface of the heap ([0014] – line is decoupled from leaching line deployment apparatus at heap location),
and coupling the first end of the irrigation line to an irrigation system ([0015] [0019] – line is coupled to irrigation system made up of drainage (220) and fluid source (218).
Jackson, CANDRONE and Lincoln are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of industrial cable/pipe laying. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson’s cable laying apparatus and CANDRONE’s floor mounted spool to be used to place irrigation piping as taught by Lincoln for the reasons disclosed above in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 - 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Ishiwaka (US 2025/0319998 A1) – describes drone system with cable reeling mechanism
Goodnews network article – Firefighting Drone Can Douse Wildfires from Above the Hillsides Where Firefighters Can’t Go - published June, 12 2023 – describes a firefighting drone system that is able to transfer hoses/lines for fighting fires.
T&D World article – Save Time by Pulling Lead Lines with Drones – published February 17th, 2020 – describes a drone for transporting cable/lines with a ground-based spool mechanism
CANDRONE Video - Drone payload dropping system demonstration for power lines – Published April 26th, 2023 – describes a drone system for transferring cables/lines that drops a harness with remote control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights