DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-23, 31-33, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estival (US 20180357885 A1) in view of Xiong (“Study of simple plane wave generator with an air-metal barrier”, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 21, Estival teaches an explosive device (30) for a commercial blasting operation, comprising: a structure confining a set of explosive (30) compositions structurally organized for outputting a shock wave at a distal end of the body structure in response to explosive initiation thereof. (Paragraphs 89-90)
Estival also teaches a wireless control unit (the control unit of the source 30)) for coupling to the structure and configured for wirelessly receiving and executing commands for selectively controlling the explosive initiation of the explosive device. (Paragraphs 175, 174)
Estival does not explicitly teach a body structure confining a set of explosive compositions structurally organized for outputting a quasi-planar shock wave.
Xiong teaches a body structure confining a set of explosive compositions structurally organized for outputting a quasi-planar shock wave. (Fig.1, Sections. 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate a body structure confining a set of explosive compositions structurally organized for outputting a quasi-planar shock wave as taught by Xiong in order to obtain simplified fabrication processes, a lower cost, and a plane wave with higher precision.
Regarding claim 22, Estival teaches an initiation element coupled to the wireless control unit and the set of explosive compositions, the initiation element configured for programmably explosively initiating the set of explosive compositions. (Paragraphs 172-175)
Regarding claim 23, Estival teaches wherein: the wireless control unit is joined together with the body structure such that the wireless control unit and the body structure form a unified structure. (Paragraphs 174-175)
Regarding claim 31, Estival does not explicitly teach wherein the set of explosive compositions includes a donor explosive charge mass and a non-explosive wave shaper.
Xiong teaches wherein the set of explosive compositions includes a donor explosive charge mass and a non-explosive wave shaper. (Fig.1, Section 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate wherein the set of explosive compositions includes a donor explosive charge mass and a non-explosive wave shaper as taught by Xiong in order to obtain simplified fabrication processes, a lower cost, and a plane wave with higher precision.
Regarding claim 32, Estival does not explicitly teach wherein the donor explosive charge mass is configured for propagating the explosive shock wave radially from an initiation site, and the donor explosive charge mass includes a frustoconical section and a cylindrical section.
Xiong teaches wherein the donor explosive charge mass is configured for propagating the explosive shock wave radially from an initiation site, and the donor explosive charge mass includes a frustoconical section and a cylindrical section. (Figs.1-2, Sections 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate wherein the donor explosive charge mass is configured for propagating the explosive shock wave radially from an initiation site, and the donor explosive charge mass includes a frustoconical section and a cylindrical section as taught by Xiong in order to obtain simplified fabrication processes, a lower cost, and a plane wave with higher precision.
Regarding claim 33, Estival does not explicitly teach wherein the non-explosive wave shaper is configured for transforming the explosive shock wave from the donor explosive charge mass into the quasi-planar shock wave.
Xiong teaches wherein the non-explosive wave shaper is configured for transforming the explosive shock wave from the donor explosive charge mass into the quasi-planar shock wave. (Figs.1-2, Sections 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate wherein the non-explosive wave shaper is configured for transforming the explosive shock wave from the donor explosive charge mass into the quasi-planar shock wave as taught by Xiong in order to obtain simplified fabrication processes, a lower cost, and a plane wave with higher precision.
Regarding claim 37, Estival teaches providing at least one explosive device with a set of explosive compositions structurally organized for outputting a shock wave at a distal end in response to explosive initiation thereof. (Paragraphs 89-90)
Estival also teaches wirelessly receiving and executing commands for selectively controlling the explosive initiation of the set of explosive compositions. (Paragraphs 175, 174)
Estival does not explicitly teach outputting a quasi-planar shock wave.
Xiong teaches outputting a quasi-planar shock wave. (Fig.1, Sections. 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate outputting a quasi-planar shock wave as taught by Xiong in order to obtain simplified fabrication processes, a lower cost, and a plane wave with higher precision.
Regarding claim 40, Estival teaches wirelessly transmitting data to a destination external to the explosive device. (Paragraphs 85)
Claim(s) 24-29, 34 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estival in view of Xiong and Kotsonis (US 20170074630 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Estival teaches wherein the wireless control unit (32, 12) comprises: a set of power sources (58); a wireless communication unit (56) coupled to the set of power sources and configured for at least receiving commands and data. (Paragraphs 59-60, Fig.2, Claim 5)
Estival does not explicitly teach an initiation control unit coupled to the wireless communication unit, the initiation control unit comprising integrated circuitry including a processing unit and a memory and configured to control activation of an initiation element to programmably trigger the explosive initiation of the set of explosive compositions.
Kotsonis teaches an initiation control unit coupled to the wireless communication unit, the initiation control unit comprising integrated circuitry including a processing unit and a memory and configured to control activation of an initiation element to programmably trigger the explosive initiation of the set of explosive compositions. (Paragraphs 32, 35, 49-50)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate an initiation control unit coupled to the wireless communication unit, the initiation control unit comprising integrated circuitry including a processing unit and a memory and configured to control activation of an initiation element to programmably trigger the explosive initiation of the set of explosive compositions as taught by Kotsonis in order to provide a clear advantage for seismic prospecting of oil and gas which removes leg-wire damage as a cause for detonation failure.
Regarding claim 25, Estival does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless communication unit is further configured for wirelessly transmitting data to a destination external to the explosive device.
Kotsonis teaches wherein the wireless communication unit is further configured for wirelessly transmitting data to a destination external to the explosive device. (Paragraphs 49-50, 32, 35)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate wherein the wireless communication unit is further configured for wirelessly transmitting data to a destination external to the explosive device as taught by Kotsonis in order to provide a clear advantage for seismic prospecting of oil and gas which removes leg-wire damage as a cause for detonation failure.
Regarding claim 26, Estival does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for sending and/or receiving wireless communication signals by way of radio frequency (RF) communication signals.
Kotsonis teaches wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for sending and/or receiving wireless communication signals by way of radio frequency (RF) communication signals. (Paragraphs 28-29, Claim 8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for sending and/or receiving wireless communication signals by way of radio frequency (RF) communication signals as taught by Kotsonis in order to provide a clear advantage for seismic prospecting of oil and gas which removes leg-wire damage as a cause for detonation failure.
Regarding claim 27, Estival does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for receiving wireless communication signals by way of induction (MI) communication signals.
Kotsonis teaches wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for receiving wireless communication signals by way of induction (MI) communication signals. (Paragraphs 37, 81)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for receiving wireless communication signals by way of induction (MI) communication signals as taught by Kotsonis in order to provide a clear advantage for seismic prospecting of oil and gas which removes leg-wire damage as a cause for detonation failure.
Regarding claim 28, Estival does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for sending wireless communication signals by way of induction (MI) communication signals.
Kotsonis teaches wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for sending wireless communication signals by way of induction (MI) communication signals. (Paragraphs 37, 81)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for sending wireless communication signals by way of induction (MI) communication signals as taught by Kotsonis in order to provide a clear advantage for seismic prospecting of oil and gas which removes leg-wire damage as a cause for detonation failure.
Regarding claim 29, Estival does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for sending and/or receiving wireless communication signals by way of magnetic induction (MI) communication signals.
Kotsonis teaches wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for sending and/or receiving wireless communication signals by way of magnetic induction (MI) communication signals. (Paragraphs 37, 81)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate wherein the wireless communication unit is configured for sending and/or receiving wireless communication signals by way of magnetic induction (MI) communication signals as taught by Kotsonis in order to provide a clear advantage for seismic prospecting of oil and gas which removes leg-wire damage as a cause for detonation failure.
Regarding claim 34, Estival does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless control unit is electrically coupled to the body structure by way of a cord having a predetermined length and which establishes an intended physical separation distance between the wireless control unit and the body structure.
Kotsonis teaches wherein the wireless control unit is electrically coupled to the body structure by way of a cord having a predetermined length and which establishes an intended physical separation distance between the wireless control unit and the body structure. (Paragraphs 29, 78, 81, Claim 12)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate wherein the wireless control unit is electrically coupled to the body structure by way of a cord having a predetermined length and which establishes an intended physical separation distance between the wireless control unit and the body structure as taught by Kotsonis in order to provide a clear advantage for seismic prospecting of oil and gas which removes leg-wire damage as a cause for detonation failure.
Regarding claim 38, Estival does not explicitly teach providing two or more of the explosive devices, configured for wireless communication with each other by way of by way of MI or RF signals.
Kotsonis teaches providing two or more of the explosive devices, configured for wireless communication with each other by way of by way of MI or RF signals. (Paragraphs 28-29, 37, 81, Claim 8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate providing two or more of the explosive devices, configured for wireless communication with each other by way of by way of MI or RF signals as taught by Kotsonis in order to provide a clear advantage for seismic prospecting of oil and gas which removes leg-wire damage as a cause for detonation failure.
Regarding claim 39, Estival does not explicitly teach further configuration for wireless communication with each other by way of through-the-earth (TTE) signals.
Kotsonis teaches further configuration for wireless communication with each other by way of through-the-earth (TTE) signals. (Paragraphs 49, 94, Claims 1, 14)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate configuration for wireless communication with each other by way of through-the-earth (TTE) signals as taught by Kotsonis in order to provide a clear advantage for seismic prospecting of oil and gas which removes leg-wire damage as a cause for detonation failure.
Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estival in view of Xiong and Boer (CN 101512382 A, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 30, Estival does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless control unit further comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) unit configured for receiving GNSS signals corresponding to a geolocation of the explosive device.
Boer teaches wherein the wireless control unit further comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) unit configured for receiving GNSS signals corresponding to a geolocation of the explosive device. (Page.4, last paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate wherein the wireless control unit further comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) unit configured for receiving GNSS signals corresponding to a geolocation of the explosive device as taught by Boer in order to obtain the position or location parameter for navigation of the terrain and determining the accurate position coordinate.
Claim(s) 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estival in view of Xiong, Kotsonis and Boer.
Regarding claim 35, Estival teaches an explosive device (30) for a commercial blasting operation, comprising: a structure confining a set of explosive (30) compositions structurally organized for outputting a shock wave at a distal end of the body structure in response to explosive initiation thereof. (Paragraphs 89-90)
Estival also teaches a wireless control unit (the control unit of the source 30)) configured for wirelessly receiving and executing commands for selectively controlling the explosive initiation of the explosive device. (Paragraphs 175, 174)
Estival also teaches wherein the wireless control unit (32, 12) comprises: a set of power sources (58); a wireless communication unit (56) coupled to the set of power sources and configured for at least receiving commands and data. (Paragraphs 59-60, Fig.2, Claim 5)
Estival does not explicitly teach a body structure confining a set of explosive compositions structurally organized for outputting a quasi-planar shock wave and an initiation control unit coupled to the wireless communication unit, the initiation control unit comprising integrated circuitry including a processing unit and a memory and configured to control activation of an initiation element to programmably trigger the explosive initiation of the set of explosive compositions and a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) unit configured for receiving GNSS signals corresponding to a geolocation of the explosive device.
Xiong teaches a body structure confining a set of explosive compositions structurally organized for outputting a quasi-planar shock wave. (Fig.1, Sections. 1-2)
Kotsonis teaches an initiation control unit coupled to the wireless communication unit, the initiation control unit comprising integrated circuitry including a processing unit and a memory and configured to control activation of an initiation element to programmably trigger the explosive initiation of the set of explosive compositions. (Paragraphs 32, 35, 49-50)
Boer teaches a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) unit configured for receiving GNSS signals corresponding to a geolocation of the explosive device. (Page.4, last paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Estival to incorporate a body structure confining a set of explosive compositions structurally organized for outputting a quasi-planar shock wave as taught by Xiong in order to obtain simplified fabrication processes, a lower cost, and a plane wave with higher precision and further modify Estival to incorporate an initiation control unit coupled to the wireless communication unit, the initiation control unit comprising integrated circuitry including a processing unit and a memory and configured to control activation of an initiation element to programmably trigger the explosive initiation of the set of explosive compositions as taught by Kotsonis in order to provide a clear advantage for seismic prospecting of oil and gas which removes leg-wire damage as a cause for detonation failure and further modify Estival to incorporate a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) unit configured for receiving GNSS signals corresponding to a geolocation of the explosive device as taught by Boer in order to obtain the position or location parameter for navigation of the terrain and determining the accurate position coordinate.
Regarding claim 36, Estival teaches an initiation element coupled to the wireless control unit and the set of explosive compositions, the initiation element configured for programmably explosively initiating the set of explosive compositions. (Paragraphs 172-175)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights