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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 35 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35 recites “adjust feedback provided once new measurement data is provided following the power variation” which is suggested to be amended to “adjust feedback provided once new measurement data is provided following the power output variation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 43 is/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.
Claim 43 recites “the data” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to a new data or the previously recited measurement data in claim 42.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 24-32, and 36-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 24, and 36-42:
Claim 24:
A hole measurement system comprising: a sensor configured to take measurements when directed down a hole to provide measurement data, the sensor comprising: a radio frequency transmitter; and a receiver, and a processor for analyzing the measurement data and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the hole, or an anomaly.
Claim 36:
A hole measurement system comprising: a sensor configured to take measurements when directed down a blast hole to provide measurement data, and a processor for analyzing the measurement data and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the blast hole, or an anomaly.
Claim 37:
A hole measurement system comprising: a sensor configured to take measurements from a position at or above an entrance of a hole when directed down the hole to provide measurement data, wherein the hole is a drilled blast hole; and a processor for analyzing the measurement data and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the drilled blast hole, or an anomaly.
Claim 38:
A hole measurement system comprising: a transmission means configured to direct a radio frequency signal down a hole, a sensing means configured to receive radio frequency signals reflected from down the hole to provide measurement data, and a processing means for analyzing the measurement data and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback includes depth of the hole and identification of any anomalies.
Claim 39:
A hole measurement system comprising: a sensor configured to take measurements when directed down a hole to provide measurement data, and a processor for analyzing the measurement data and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback includes altitude of a toe of the hole with respect to a datum, wherein the datum is any one of: sea level, a toe of another hole in the same blast pattern, or a design altitude.
Claim 40:
A method comprising: aiming a sensor down a drilled blast hole; transmitting a signal with the sensor; receiving measurement data with the sensor; analyzing the measurement data with a processor; and providing feedback to an operator with the processor, wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the hole, or an anomaly.
Claim 41:
A method comprising: aiming a sensor down a hole; transmitting a signal with the sensor; receiving measurement data with the sensor; analyzing the measurement data with a processor; and providing feedback to an operator with the processor, providing feedback to the operator comprising: in the event that an affirmative depth measurement is determined, providing feedback of the affirmative depth measurement; or, in the event that anomalies are recorded, providing feedback that secondary measurements are required.
Claim 42:
A method comprising: aiming a radio frequency transmitting means down a hole, using a radio frequency receiving means to receive signals from down the hole to provide measurement data, using a processing means to analyze the measurement data to determine whether a depth of the hole is in accordance with a target depth.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
No. Claims 24, 36-39 recite a system and therefore fall under machine/ manufacture. Claims 40-42 recite a method and therefore fall under process.
Independent claim(s) 36-42 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 24 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes.
The focus of the claim (i.e., “a processor for analyzing the measurement data and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the hole, or an anomaly”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, mathematical functions, optimization, spatial relationships, geometry, etc.). MPEP § 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.” When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, the limitations are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate from an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) of “a sensor configured to take measurements when directed down a hole to provide measurement data, the sensor comprising: a radio frequency transmitter; and a receiver […] a processor” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. They are insignificant extra-solution activities, which are data gathering (i.e., pre-solution activity) and data outputting (i.e., post-solution activity) in conjunction with the abstract idea. The limitation(s) represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP § 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The additional limitation(s) of “a sensor configured to take measurements when directed down a hole to provide measurement data, the sensor comprising: a radio frequency transmitter; and a receiver […] a processor” do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of the claim and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in the claim (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 24, and 36-42 are ineligible.
Claim(s) 25-32, and 43:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
No. Claim(s) 25-32 recite a system and therefore fall under machine/ manufacture. Claim 43 recites a method and therefore falls under process.
Claim(s) 26-32, and 43 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 25 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. They are insignificant extra-solution activities, which are data gathering (i.e., pre-solution activity) and data outputting (i.e., post-solution activity) in conjunction with the abstract idea. The limitation(s) represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 25-32, and 43 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 24-26, 30, 36, 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winkel (US 2021/0310780 A1 “WINKEL”).
Regarding claim 24, WINKEL discloses a hole measurement system comprising: a sensor configured to take measurements when directed down a hole (a blasting borehole 1 [0046]); (drilling process to produce the blasting borehole 1 [0048]) to provide measurement data, the sensor comprising: a radio frequency transmitter; and a receiver (the radar units 12, 12′, 12″ located at the radar head 11 here, for example, only form the radar antennas and the electronics for operating the radar antennas are accommodated centrally in the radar head 11 [0061]), and a processor (the computer unit 18 [0058]) for analyzing the measurement data and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the hole, or an anomaly (the radar head 11 has radar units 12, 12′, and 12″, with the radar unit 12 serving the determination of the charge level h of the explosive 10 in the blasting borehole 1, starting from the blasting borehole base 16. For this purpose, the radar head 11 can first detect the base distance d without charged explosive 10 and the charge level distance d′ from the charge level h can be detected by the radar unit 12 on the charging of explosive 10 [0049 & FIG. 1]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the hole, or an anomaly” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the base distance d without charged explosive 10 and the charge level distance d′ from the charge level h corresponds to the claimed “wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the hole”.
Regarding claim 25, WINKEL discloses the hole measurement system according to claim 24, wherein the hole is a drilled blast hole (a blasting borehole 1 [0046]); (drilling process to produce the blasting borehole 1 [0048]).
Regarding claim 26, WINKEL discloses the hole measurement system according to claim 24, wherein the hole is substantially full of air (see at least FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 30, WINKEL discloses the hole measurement system according to claim 24, wherein the sensor comprises radar (the radar units 12, 12′, 12″ located at the radar head 11 here, for example, only form the radar antennas and the electronics for operating the radar antennas are accommodated centrally in the radar head 11 [0061]).
Regarding claim 36, WINKEL discloses a hole measurement system comprising: a sensor configured to take measurements when directed down a blast hole (a blasting borehole 1 [0046]); (drilling process to produce the blasting borehole 1 [0048]) to provide measurement data (the radar units 12, 12′, 12″ located at the radar head 11 here, for example, only form the radar antennas and the electronics for operating the radar antennas are accommodated centrally in the radar head 11 [0061 & FIG. 1]), and a processor (the computer unit 18 [0058]) for analyzing the measurement data and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the blast hole, or an anomaly (the radar head 11 has radar units 12, 12′, and 12″, with the radar unit 12 serving the determination of the charge level h of the explosive 10 in the blasting borehole 1, starting from the blasting borehole base 16. For this purpose, the radar head 11 can first detect the base distance d without charged explosive 10 and the charge level distance d′ from the charge level h can be detected by the radar unit 12 on the charging of explosive 10 [0049 & FIG. 1]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the blast hole, or an anomaly” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 40, WINKEL discloses a method comprising: aiming a sensor down a drilled blast hole (a blasting borehole 1 [0046]); (drilling process to produce the blasting borehole 1 [0048 & FIG. 1]); transmitting a signal with the sensor; receiving measurement data with the sensor (the radar units 12, 12′, 12″ located at the radar head 11 here, for example, only form the radar antennas and the electronics for operating the radar antennas are accommodated centrally in the radar head 11 [0061 & FIG. 1]); analyzing the measurement data with a processor (the computer unit 18 [0058]); and providing feedback to an operator with the processor, wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the hole, or an anomaly (the radar head 11 has radar units 12, 12′, and 12″, with the radar unit 12 serving the determination of the charge level h of the explosive 10 in the blasting borehole 1, starting from the blasting borehole base 16. For this purpose, the radar head 11 can first detect the base distance d without charged explosive 10 and the charge level distance d′ from the charge level h can be detected by the radar unit 12 on the charging of explosive 10 [0049 & FIG. 1]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the hole, or an anomaly” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 41, WINKEL discloses a method comprising: aiming a sensor down a hole (a blasting borehole 1 [0046]); (drilling process to produce the blasting borehole 1 [0048 & FIG. 1]); transmitting a signal with the sensor; receiving measurement data with the sensor (the radar units 12, 12′, 12″ located at the radar head 11 here, for example, only form the radar antennas and the electronics for operating the radar antennas are accommodated centrally in the radar head 11 [0061 & FIG. 1]); analyzing the measurement data with a processor (the computer unit 18 [0058]); and providing feedback to an operator with the processor, providing feedback to the operator comprising: in the event that an affirmative depth measurement is determined, providing feedback of the affirmative depth measurement; or, in the event that anomalies are recorded, providing feedback that secondary measurements are required (the radar head 11 has radar units 12, 12′, and 12″, with the radar unit 12 serving the determination of the charge level h of the explosive 10 in the blasting borehole 1, starting from the blasting borehole base 16. For this purpose, the radar head 11 can first detect the base distance d without charged explosive 10 and the charge level distance d′ from the charge level h can be detected by the radar unit 12 on the charging of explosive 10 [0049 & FIG. 1]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “in the event that an affirmative depth measurement is determined, providing feedback of the affirmative depth measurement; or, in the event that anomalies are recorded, providing feedback that secondary measurements are required” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the base distance d without charged explosive 10 and the charge level distance d′ from the charge level h corresponds to the claimed “in the event that an affirmative depth measurement is determined, providing feedback of the affirmative depth measurement”. Furthermore, claim 41 recites a method. Limitation “in the event that an affirmative depth measurement is determined, providing feedback of the affirmative depth measurement; or, in the event that anomalies are recorded, providing feedback that secondary measurements are required” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “providing feedback of the affirmative depth measurement”) if a first condition (i.e. “in the event that an affirmative depth measurement is determined”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
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.
Claim(s) 27-29, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKEL, in view of Loveland et al. (US 2021/0310349 A1 “LOVELAND”).
Regarding claim 27, WINKEL discloses the hole measurement system according to claim 24,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LOVELAND teaches that the apparatus includes energizing means configured to provide electrical energy to the LiDAR sensor, GNSS module and processor. In one example, the apparatus is automated and includes self-propelled locomotion to move between blast holes. Typically, the self-propelled locomotion comprises an aerial drone configuration. In one example, the apparatus is mounted to an explosive loading or charging truck (automated or human operated) operatively moving between blast holes for charging the blast holes with explosives [0054-0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of LOVELAND, because doing so would aid in careful planning for increased system efficiency and safety, as recognized by LOVELAND.
Regarding claim 28, WINKEL discloses the hole measurement system according to claim 24,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LOVELAND teaches a blast hole plan 4 showing a plurality of blast holes 8 drilled in a bench or ore body 6 [0093 & FIG. 1]. Furthermore, LOVELAND teaches that the apparatus includes energizing means configured to provide electrical energy to the LiDAR sensor, GNSS module and processor. In one example, the apparatus is automated and includes self-propelled locomotion to move between blast holes. Typically, the self-propelled locomotion comprises an aerial drone configuration. In one example, the apparatus is mounted to an explosive loading or charging truck (automated or human operated) operatively moving between blast holes for charging the blast holes with explosives [0054-0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of LOVELAND, because doing so would aid in careful planning for increased system efficiency and safety, as recognized by LOVELAND.
Regarding claim 29, WINKEL discloses the hole measurement system according to claim 24,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LOVELAND teaches a blast hole plan 4 showing a plurality of blast holes 8 drilled in a bench or ore body 6 [0093 & FIG. 1]. Furthermore, LOVELAND teaches that the apparatus includes energizing means configured to provide electrical energy to the LiDAR sensor, GNSS module and processor. In one example, the apparatus is automated and includes self-propelled locomotion to move between blast holes. Typically, the self-propelled locomotion comprises an aerial drone configuration. In one example, the apparatus is mounted to an explosive loading or charging truck (automated or human operated) operatively moving between blast holes for charging the blast holes with explosives [0054-0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of LOVELAND, because doing so would aid in careful planning for increased system efficiency and safety, as recognized by LOVELAND.
Regarding claim 37, WINKEL discloses a hole measurement system comprising: a sensor configured to take measurements from a position a blasting borehole 1 [0046]); (drilling process to produce the blasting borehole 1 [0048]) when directed down the hole to provide measurement data (the radar units 12, 12′, 12″ located at the radar head 11 here, for example, only form the radar antennas and the electronics for operating the radar antennas are accommodated centrally in the radar head 11 [0061 & FIG. 1]), wherein the hole is a drilled blast hole (a blasting borehole 1 [0046]); (drilling process to produce the blasting borehole 1 [0048]); and a processor (the computer unit 18 [0058]) for analyzing the measurement data and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the drilled blast hole, or an anomaly (the radar head 11 has radar units 12, 12′, and 12″, with the radar unit 12 serving the determination of the charge level h of the explosive 10 in the blasting borehole 1, starting from the blasting borehole base 16. For this purpose, the radar head 11 can first detect the base distance d without charged explosive 10 and the charge level distance d′ from the charge level h can be detected by the radar unit 12 on the charging of explosive 10 [0049 & FIG. 1]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “wherein the feedback indicates whether the measurement data represents a bottom of the drilled blast hole, or an anomaly” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LOVELAND teaches that the volumetric data is indicative of a lip, edge or start of the blast hole 8, allowing the distance data to be calculated irrespective of a position of the LiDAR sensor 14 above the blast hole [0101 & FIG. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of LOVELAND, because doing so would aid in careful planning for increased system efficiency and safety, as recognized by LOVELAND.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKEL, in view of Jain (US 2016/0327680 A1 “JAIN”).
Regarding claim 31, WINKEL discloses the hole measurement system according to claim 24,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JAIN teaches that the scheme compares the logging results of the LWD tool with the synthetic logging results [0196]. The scheme checks whether the logging results indicate that the downhole end of the borehole has reached a predetermined formation layer. Herein, the scheme may take into account certain threshold characteristics, such as depth, formation pressure, density, resistivity, etc. [0197]. Furthermore, JAIN teaches that synthetic logs are pre-calculated logging results, based on the expected properties of the expected formation layers. Said expected properties and expected formation layers are provided by specialized geological software, using the results of geological tests that were performed before the drilling of the borehole commences. The synthetic logs are pre-calculated at surface before the drilling commences, and stored in a storage medium coupled to the control unit 20 [0194].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of JAIN, because doing so would aid in real time subsurface navigation and safety, as recognized by JAIN.
Claim(s) 32 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKEL, in view of Guner et al. (US 2014/0032116 A1 “GUNER”).
Regarding claim 32, WINKEL discloses (Examiner’s note: What WINKEL does not disclose is ) the hole measurement system according to claim 24,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GUNER relates to a borehole tool that employs multicomponent radar to detect formation anomalies (such as bed boundaries or other well bores), along with systems, methods, and applications for such tools [0020]. GUNER teaches antennas positioned at different locations along the drill string to improve imaging range and resolution [0032]. Specifically, GUNER teaches that the system processes the tool measurements to determine formation permittivity, resistivity, and permeability, as well as the distance and direction of any anomalies in the formation such as a bed boundary, a fluid boundary, a fracture or other form of formation void, an existing well bore, or any other subterranean feature in the vicinity that produces an electromagnetic contrast. Electromagnetic properties of the anomaly (e.g., resistivity, permittivity, and permeability) may also be determined. Certain inversion strategies are described to demonstrate the case with which parameters can be extracted from the receive signals, but any standard formation property inversion may be employed, including library matching as well as iterative forward modeling [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of GUNER, because doing so would provide useful data to aid in safety improvement, as recognized by GUNER.
Regarding claim 38, WINKEL discloses a hole measurement system comprising: a transmission means configured to direct a radio frequency signal down a hole, a sensing means configured to receive radio frequency signals reflected from down the hole to provide measurement data (the radar units 12, 12′, 12″ located at the radar head 11 here, for example, only form the radar antennas and the electronics for operating the radar antennas are accommodated centrally in the radar head 11 [0061 & FIG. 1]), and a processing means (the computer unit 18 [0058]) for analyzing the measurement data and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback includes depth of the hole (the radar head 11 has radar units 12, 12′, and 12″, with the radar unit 12 serving the determination of the charge level h of the explosive 10 in the blasting borehole 1, starting from the blasting borehole base 16. For this purpose, the radar head 11 can first detect the base distance d without charged explosive 10 and the charge level distance d′ from the charge level h can be detected by the radar unit 12 on the charging of explosive 10 [0049 & FIG. 1])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GUNER relates to a borehole tool that employs multicomponent radar to detect formation anomalies (such as bed boundaries or other well bores), along with systems, methods, and applications for such tools [0020]. GUNER teaches antennas positioned at different locations along the drill string to improve imaging range and resolution [0032]. Specifically, GUNER teaches that the system processes the tool measurements to determine formation permittivity, resistivity, and permeability, as well as the distance and direction of any anomalies in the formation such as a bed boundary, a fluid boundary, a fracture or other form of formation void, an existing well bore, or any other subterranean feature in the vicinity that produces an electromagnetic contrast. Electromagnetic properties of the anomaly (e.g., resistivity, permittivity, and permeability) may also be determined. Certain inversion strategies are described to demonstrate the case with which parameters can be extracted from the receive signals, but any standard formation property inversion may be employed, including library matching as well as iterative forward modeling [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of GUNER, because doing so would provide useful data to aid in safety improvement, as recognized by GUNER.
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKEL, in view of Mason (WO 2011066624 A1 “MASON”).
Regarding claim 33, WINKEL discloses the hole measurement system according to claim 24,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MASON teaches that during the drilling process the increasing borehole length, the increasing number of drill rods and joints, and changes in the medium being drilled, among other factors, will lead to variations in the propagation conditions of the drill string waveguide. Signal energy carried in the at least one electromagnetic propagation mode present in constrictions of the drill string may be coupled into higher order modes and carried at different speeds through wider parts of the drill string, affecting the signal in a manner akin to multipath interference. Consequently, the present invention provides for the transmitted signal to exploit bandwidth expansion schemes such as adaptive frequency hopping techniques [pg. 8, lines 12-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of MASON, because doing so would ensure that spectral regions of least attenuation are substantially continually sought and used for data transmission, as recognized by MASON.
Regarding claim 34, WINKEL discloses the hole measurement system according to claim 24,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MASON teaches that during the drilling process the increasing borehole length, the increasing number of drill rods and joints, and changes in the medium being drilled, among other factors, will lead to variations in the propagation conditions of the drill string waveguide. Signal energy carried in the at least one electromagnetic propagation mode present in constrictions of the drill string may be coupled into higher order modes and carried at different speeds through wider parts of the drill string, affecting the signal in a manner akin to multipath interference. Consequently, the present invention provides for the transmitted signal to exploit bandwidth expansion schemes such as adaptive frequency hopping techniques [pg. 8, lines 12-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of MASON, because doing so would ensure that spectral regions of least attenuation are substantially continually sought and used for data transmission, as recognized by MASON.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKEL, in view of Troxler (US 2015/0268218 A1 “TROXLER”).
Regarding claim 35, WINKEL discloses the hole measurement system according to claim 24,
WINKEL further discloses that it can in particular also be determined by the sensor whether there is any water in the blasting borehole. The sensor is here in a fixed arrangement at the charging spout and can, for example, comprise a laser sensor or a radar sensor [0005].
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TROXLER teaches that the ground penetrating radar system 400 may be switched into a moisture mode or an asphalt mode. The moisture mode is used for making moisture measurements on soils and/or sub bases based on the dielectric constant measurements. Further, the ground penetrating radar system 400 may be switched into various material modes, such as, asphalt or roller compacted concrete mode, as non-limiting examples. The various modes will alter system parameters, such as frequencies fL to fH signal transmission strength, and number of sample data points as non-limiting examples [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of TROXLER, because doing so would improve system detection by fully accounting for surface features, as recognized by TROXLER.
Claim(s) 39, and 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKEL, in view of Nadeau et al. (US 2012/0103598 A1 “NADEAU”).
Regarding claim 39, WINKEL discloses a hole measurement system comprising: a sensor configured to take measurements when directed down a hole (a blasting borehole 1 [0046]); (drilling process to produce the blasting borehole 1 [0048]) to provide measurement data (the radar units 12, 12′, 12″ located at the radar head 11 here, for example, only form the radar antennas and the electronics for operating the radar antennas are accommodated centrally in the radar head 11 [0061]), and a processor for analyzing the measurement data (the computer unit 18 [0058]) and providing feedback to an operator, wherein the feedback includes altitude of a toe of the hole with respect to a datum, the radar head 11 has radar units 12, 12′, and 12″, with the radar unit 12 serving the determination of the charge level h of the explosive 10 in the blasting borehole 1, starting from the blasting borehole base 16. For this purpose, the radar head 11 can first detect the base distance d without charged explosive 10 and the charge level distance d′ from the charge level h can be detected by the radar unit 12 on the charging of explosive 10 [0049 & FIG. 1]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, NADEAU teaches that controller 32 may proceed by determining neighboring (planned) holes 54 for each planned hole 52 of pattern 50 (step 320). To determine neighboring holes 54, controller 32 may select a first planned hole from pattern 50 and select planned holes that surround the first hole. Planned holes that surround the first hole are selected if the surrounding holes are located within a set distance 56 from the first hole. Set distance 56 may be, for example, 1.9 times the minimum distance between any planned hole 52 and any neighboring hole 54 in the entire pattern 50. The distance of 1.9 allows the algorithm to encompass adjacent holes about the first planned hole without encompassing two holes in a row in a radial direction from the first planned hole. It is contemplated that set distance 56 may also be programmed by an operator via user interface 39 [0036]. Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “wherein the datum is any one of: sea level, a toe of another hole in the same blast pattern, or a design altitude” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of NADEAU, because doing so would achieve desired blast drilled hole characteristics, as recognized by NADEAU.
Regarding claim 42, WINKEL discloses a method comprising: aiming a radio frequency transmitting means down a hole (a blasting borehole 1 [0046]); (drilling process to produce the blasting borehole 1 [0048]), using a radio frequency receiving means to receive signals from down the hole to provide measurement data (the radar units 12, 12′, 12″ located at the radar head 11 here, for example, only form the radar antennas and the electronics for operating the radar antennas are accommodated centrally in the radar head 11 [0061]), using a processing means to analyze the measurement data (the computer unit 18 [0058]); (the radar head 11 has radar units 12, 12′, and 12″, with the radar unit 12 serving the determination of the charge level h of the explosive 10 in the blasting borehole 1, starting from the blasting borehole base 16. For this purpose, the radar head 11 can first detect the base distance d without charged explosive 10 and the charge level distance d′ from the charge level h can be detected by the radar unit 12 on the charging of explosive 10 [0049 & FIG. 1])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, NADEAU teaches that controller 32 may proceed by determining neighboring (planned) holes 54 for each planned hole 52 of pattern 50 (step 320). To determine neighboring holes 54, controller 32 may select a first planned hole from pattern 50 and select planned holes that surround the first hole. Planned holes that surround the first hole are selected if the surrounding holes are located within a set distance 56 from the first hole. Set distance 56 may be, for example, 1.9 times the minimum distance between any planned hole 52 and any neighboring hole 54 in the entire pattern 50. The distance of 1.9 allows the algorithm to encompass adjacent holes about the first planned hole without encompassing two holes in a row in a radial direction from the first planned hole. It is contemplated that set distance 56 may also be programmed by an operator via user interface 39 [0036]. Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “wherein the datum is any one of: sea level, a toe of another hole in the same blast pattern, or a design altitude” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of WINKEL to include the teachings of NADEAU, because doing so would achieve desired blast drilled hole characteristics, as recognized by NADEAU.
Regarding claim 43, WINKEL/ NADEAU discloses the method according to claim 42, wherein the target depth is the drilled depth of the hole, wherein the data is provided by a drilling apparatus (controller 32 may proceed by determining neighboring (planned) holes 54 for each planned hole 52 of pattern 50 (step 320). To determine neighboring holes 54, controller 32 may select a first planned hole from pattern 50 and select planned holes that surround the first hole. Planned holes that surround the first hole are selected if the surrounding holes are located within a set distance 56 from the first hole. Set distance 56 may be, for example, 1.9 times the minimum distance between any planned hole 52 and any neighboring hole 54 in the entire pattern 50. The distance of 1.9 allows the algorithm to encompass adjacent holes about the first planned hole without encompassing two holes in a row in a radial direction from the first planned hole. It is contemplated that set distance 56 may also be programmed by an operator via user interface 39 [NADEAU 0036], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alft et al. (US 2003/0056983 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of the computed location of the boring tool 24 is typically compared against a pre-planned boring route to determine 50 whether the boring tool 24 is progressing along the desired underground path [0087].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 August 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights