DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed on 03/04/2026 have been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unsworth et al. (WO2015/121634A1).
Regarding claim 8, Unsworth discloses a system for drilling, the system comprising: at least one camera (108, 210) having a field of view of at least a portion of a pipe delivery system (drilling rig shown in fig 1) at a drilling site (fig 1); a computer vision processor (216) communicatively coupled to the camera (fig 9), wherein the computer vision processor is configured to: receive visual data from the camera ( fig 9); identify a plurality of control zones (110, 116) of the portion of the pipe delivery system within the field of view and relative to at least one piece of equipment (fig 1), the plurality of control zones comprising at least a first control zone (110) and a second control zone (116) (fig1 ,fig 9); identify a person in the field of view (fig 9); responsive to identifying the person, determine whether the person is in one of the plurality of control zones (fig 9); responsive to determining the person is in the first control zone (fig 9), implement a first safety control response (fig 9); and responsive to determining the person is in the second control zone, implement a second safety control response different from the first safety control response (fig 9).
Regarding claim 9, Unsworth further discloses that the first control zone is adjacent to the equipment and between the second control zone and the equipment (fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Unsworth further discloses that the first control zone is more proximate to the equipment than the second control zone is to the equipment (figs 1-6).
Regarding claim 11, Unsworth further discloses that the first safety control response comprises a control of operation of the equipment or other associated equipment, and wherein the second safety control response comprises an activation of an alarm (fig 9).
Regarding claim 12, Unsworth further discloses that the first safety control response comprises the activation of the alarm (fig 9, page 5 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claims 13, Unsworth further discloses that the processor is configured to maintain the first safety control response while the person is in the first control zone and to maintain the second safety control response while the person is in the second control zone (fig 9 shows a closed loop meaning that as long as the person is in the control zone the output audio will continue).
Regarding claim 14, Unsworth discloses a method for drilling, the method comprising: receiving, by a computer vision system (108), visual data from at least one camera (108, 210) having a field of view of at least a portion of a drilling site (fig 1); identifying, by the computer vision system, a plurality of control zones (110, 116) of the portion of the drilling site within the field of view and relative to at least one piece of equipment, the plurality of control zones comprising at least a first control zone (110) and a second control zone (116) (fig 1-9); identifying, by the computer vision system, a person in the field of view (fig 9); responsive, by the computer vision system, to identifying the person, determining whether the person is in one of the plurality of control zones (fig 9); responsive to determining the person is in the first control zone, implementing, by the computer vision system, a first safety control response (fig 9); and responsive to determining the person is in the second control zone, implementing, by the computer vision system, a second safety control response different from the first safety control response (fig 9).
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 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unsworth et al. (WO2015/121634A1) and Davis et al. ( “Real Time Human Detection in Uncontrolled Camera Motion Environments”, University of Maryland in Appendix of WO2015/121634A1 )
Regarding claim 1, Unsworth discloses a system for improving safety for drilling operations (page 1, lines 1-2), the system comprising: at least one camera (108, 210) having a field of view of at least a portion (116) of a drilling site (fig 1); a computer vision processor (216) communicatively coupled to the camera (page 3, second paragraph), wherein the computer vision processor is configured to: receive visual data from the camera (fig 2); identify a control zone (110) of the portion of the drilling site within the field of view (fig 2); identify a person in the field of view (fig 9); responsive to identifying the person, determine whether the person is in the control zone (fig 9); and responsive to determining the person is in the control zone, implement a safety control response (fig 9, page 9, second paragraph to page10 first paragraph).
Unsworthy appears to be silent regarding identifying a person in the field of view based on a detection of a head and a body of the person.
Davis (Appendix of Unsworthy reference) teaches identifying a person in the field of view based on a detection of a head and a body of the person (page 4, fig 2).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Unsworth and Davis before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Unsworth to include identifying a person in the field of view based on a detection of a head and a body of the person as taught by Davis in order to allow robustness and efficiency in human detection and tracking (Introduction, page 1).
Regarding claim 2, Unsworth further discloses that the safety control response comprises an activation of an alarm, and wherein the alarm is an auditory alarm, a visual alarm, a text message, a voice message, a video message, an email, or a combination of some or all of the foregoing (page 11, 1st paragraph, page 5, 2nd paragraph ).
Regarding claim 3, Unsworth further discloses that the safety control response comprises a control of equipment (222, 302) of the drilling site (page 4, 2nd and 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Unsworth further discloses halting or shutting down operation of the equipment (page 10, 1st paragraph, claim 3, page 4 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Unsworth further discloses maintaining the safety control response until the person exits the control zone (fig 9 shows a closed loop with a person in the second predefined volume).
Regarding claim 7, Unsworth discloses a method for drilling, the method comprising: receiving, by a computer vision system, visual data from at least one camera (108,210) having a field of view of at least a portion (116) of a drilling site (fig 1), wherein the portion of the drilling site comprises a portion of a pipe delivery system (drilling rig, fig 1) (fig 1); identifying, by the computer vision system, a control zone (110) of the portion of the drilling site within the field of view (fig 2); identifying, by the computer vision system, a person in the field of view (fig 9); responsive to identifying the person, determining, by the computer vision system, whether the person is in the control zone; and responsive to determining the person is in the control zone (fig 9), implementing, by the computer vision system, a safety control response (fig 9).
Unsworthy appears to be silent regarding identify a person in the field of view based on a detection of a head and a body of the person.
Davis (Appendix of Unsworthy reference) teaches identifying a person in the field of view based on a detection of a head and a body of the person (page 4, fig 2).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Unsworth and Davis before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Unsworth to include identifying a person in the field of view based on a detection of a head and a body of the person as taught by Davis in order to allow robustness and efficiency in human detection and tracking (Introduction, page 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unsworth et al. (WO2015/121634A1) and Davis et al. ( “Real Time Human Detection in Uncontrolled Camera Motion Environments”, University of Maryland in Appendix of WO2015/121634A1 ) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gleitman et al. (US 20170152729).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Unsworth and Davis is silent regarding an alert notification on a device located remote from the drilling site.
Gleitman teaches an alert notification on a device located remote from the drilling site ([0011]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Unsworth, Davis and Gleitman before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Unsworth and Davis to include sending a notification to a device remote from the drill site in as taught by Gleitman for storage, further processing, and/or analysis by remote personnel ([0011]).
Claims 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unsworth et al. (WO2015/121634A1) alone.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Unsworth discloses a computer vision system comprising: at least one camera (108, 210) having a field of view of at least a portion (110, 116) of a drilling site (fig 1); a computer vision processor (216) communicatively coupled to the camera, wherein the computer vision processor is configured to: receive visual data from the camera (figs 1-9); identify a control zone of the portion of the drilling site within the field of view (fig 9); identify a person in the field of view; responsive to identifying the person, determine whether the person is the control zone; and responsive to determining the person is in the control zone, implement a safety control response and maintaining the safety control response until the person exits the control zone (fig 9),
Unsworth discloses automatically halting operation when the person is in the control zone (fig 9) and restarting the operation when the person leaves the control zone (page 5 last 4 lines -page 6 lines 1-4). However, Unsworth discloses that the restarting is performed manually through the use of a manual reset (318) (page 5 last 4 lines -page 6 lines 1-4), instead of performing this step automatically by a processor as claimed by the Applicant.
However, before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Unsworth before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Unsworth to include automatically restarting the operation when the person leaves the controlled zone in order to reduce human error since it has been held that automating a manual activity is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (see MPEP 2144.04(III)).
Regarding claim 16, Unsworth further discloses that the safety control response comprises an activation of an alarm (fig 9).
Regarding claim 19, Unsworth further discloses that the safety control response based on a detected proximity of the person to equipment while the person is within the control zone (fig 9).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unsworth et al. (WO2015/121634A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Gleitman et al. (US 20170152729).
Regarding claim 18, Unsworth is silent regarding an alert notification on a device located remote from the drilling site.
Gleitman teaches an alert notification on a device located remote from the drilling site ([0011]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Unsworth and Gleitman before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Unsworth to include sending a notification to a device remote from the drill site in as taught by Gleitman for storage, further processing, and/or analysis by remote personnel ([0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant states that Unsworth’s identification of a person is not based on a detection of a head and a body of the person. The Examiner agrees with the applicant. However, the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant sates that Unsworth does not teach or suggest at least “at least one camera having a field of view of at least a portion of a pipe delivery system at a drilling site”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact , the monitoring system is used to control the entire drilling rig (see abstract, fig 1), which represents a pipe delivery system, including the rotary head. Also, it is important to note that claim 14 does not claim a pipe delivery system.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15 and 20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection using Davis et al. ( “Real Time Human Detection in Uncontrolled Camera Motion Environments”, University of Maryland in Appendix of WO2015/121634A1 )
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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 on (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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
05/26/2026
Prosecution Insights