Detailed Action
The following is a non-final rejection made in response to an election received on May 15th 2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 21-39, in the reply filed on May 15th 2026, is acknowledged. The elected claims have been considered on their merits in this action.
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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 12,140,410 (hereinafter referred to in this section as “DETNET SOUTH AFRICA”, “DETNET”, or simply as “the reference”).
Regarding claim 21, Detnet teaches a vehicle (18) for holding, storing, carrying, transporting, and dispensing wireless devices into boreholes, such as at a mine site, including (the reference teaches that the blasting system may be conveyed by way of “an autonomously controlled vehicle”; see Summary of Invention, col. 1, ll. 50-65):
one or more magazines, each configured for holding and dispensing wireless devices, securely mountable or mounted to the vehicle for transport to a location near or at a borehole (a robotic means removes “a detonator from a store of a plurality of detonators”; see Summary of Invention, ibid., the reference also teaches that the detonator may be part of a wireless system, see col. 1, line 66 through col. 2, line 2),
a mobile platform for carrying and moving the one or more magazines (the reference teaches that the vehicle includes a load bed, as well as ground engaging drivers which support the load bed; see col. 2, ll. 17-22),
a deployment apparatus (via robotic means; see abstract) connected to the one or more magazines that is configured to receive a wireless device from the one or more magazines and to deploy the wireless device to an arm structure (via robotic arm 70) of the vehicle configured to load the wireless device from the deployment apparatus into the borehole; see col. 4, line 55 through col. 5, line 8),
an encoder for encoding the wireless device wirelessly (the reference teaches that each detonator is programmed with an appropriate time delay for the intended blast hole in to which the detonator is placed; ibid.), and
a control system (via processor 26 and sensors 48) for automatically controlling the one or more magazines, the deployment apparatus, and the encoder to provide dispensing, deployment and encoding of the wireless device.
Regarding claim 241, Detnet teaches that the wireless device passes the encoder when being loaded into the borehole (in Summary of Invention, 6th paragraph, the reference states that the system takes “a store of a plurality of detonators” and utilizes a robotic means, operable by the processor, “to remove from the store a detonator and to program the removed detonator with a delay time calculated for the respective blast hole and to place the programmed detonator into the blast hole”).
Regarding claim 25, Detnet teaches that the encoder is configured to send commands and data for establishing or modifying an operational status or state of the wireless device (the robotic arm programs the detonator with a time delay based on an algorithm that factors in historical data as well as the detonator’s specific location, see col. 4, ll. 35-54).
Regarding claim 26, Detnet teaches that the encoder is mounted on a support arm of the vehicle (via robotic arm 70).
Regarding claims 27-28, Detnet teaches one or more explosive composition formulation reservoirs; and a pump system connected to the reservoirs for pumping the compositions into the borehole2, including a channel through which one or more explosive composition formulations from the one or more explosive composition formulation reservoirs can be pumped into the borehole by the pump system3.
Regarding claim 29, Detnet teaches that the deployment apparatus is configured to deploy the wireless device into an essentially horizontal or essentially vertical borehole (the robotic arm 70 transfers a wireless detonator from storage into a blast hole that is vertically driven into the ground, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 30, Detnet teaches that one or more magazines are mounted for manual access by a person, for loading the one or more wireless devices into the one or more magazines (the detonators must be placed onto the vehicle from the onset, therefore the stores must be mounted onto the vehicle by a person).
Regarding claim 31, Detnet teaches that the wireless devices are wireless initiation devices or initiation device components (the reference teaches wireless detonators 38).
Regarding claim 39, Detnet teaches a plurality of the wireless devices in the magazine (the reference describes “a store of a plurality of detonators”, see Summary of Invention 6th paragraph).
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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 12,140,410 (hereinafter referred to in this section as “DETNET”), as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0053750 (hereinafter referred to in this section as “ORICA”).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Detnet teaches the vehicle and wireless device of claim 21, but fails to explicitly teach that the wireless device communicates by way of low frequency or very low frequency signals that can propagate through the Earth. Detnet further fails to teach that the wireless device communicates by way of radio frequency (RF) communications via top box or collar component.
Detnet teaches the wireless device limitation by teaching a series of wireless detonator devices that are installed within blast holes (see Summary of Invention, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs). While Detnet does not go into the specifics regarding the specific communications technology driving its wireless system, wireless detonators similar to that relied upon by Detnet (i.e. detonators that are installed within blast holes situated within the ground) are already known to utilize radio frequencies and/or low, or ultra-low, frequencies in order to overcome the Earth’s impedance on wireless signals.
Evidence of this assertion may be found in Orica, which discloses wireless detonators and teaches that “radio signals transmitted to wireless detonator assemblies positioned underground, low frequency or ultra-low frequency radio waves may be preferred, with the command signal receiving and processing module adapted accordingly.” (para. [0070])
Based on the facts presented by the prior art, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless detonators taught by Detnet to operate at low/ultra-low frequencies, similar to the wireless detonators of Orica, in order to operate initiation of those detonators on a bandwidth that accounts for the detonators being buried in the Earth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-38 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
While the Examiner is available via telephone to help resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, Applicants are encouraged to consider utilizing the USPTO’s Inventor Assistance Center for general administrative and/or procedural matters at 800-786-9199. Issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. In accordance with current USPTO policy, this form must be submitted on the record prior to internet communications being authorized. A written statement by the Applicant authorizing internet communications on the record is not sufficient. Once authorization is submitted, the Applicant may contact the Examiner at samir.abdosh@uspto.gov. In the event that a telephone conversation would be the easiest means of resolving issues related to the subject matter of a pending patent application, the Examiner may be reached by telephone at 303-297-4454. Interviews will not be granted after issuance of a final rejection unless it is to discuss an amendment that either places the application in condition for allowance or simplifies issues for appeal.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Samir Abdosh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
1 Applicant should note that the language of this claim presents itself as a product-by-process claim. Product-by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, in this case the step of the wireless device passing the encoder, but rather only by the structure implied by the steps; see MPEP 2113.
2 “A source of an explosive emulsion 60 is carried by the vehicle or is towed by the vehicle. The emulsion 60 can be delivered through a nozzle 62 by means of a pump 64 which is driven by energy from the power supply 50 and which is controlled by the processor 26.” Col. 3, ll. 56-60
3 “Once the detonator-booster assembly has been placed in position in a selected blast hole 12 a robotic arm 20 directs the nozzle 62 into a mouth of the blast hole and the pump 64 is operated under the control of the processor 26 to deliver a predetermined volume of emulsion from the source 60 into the blast hole. When the emulsion loading process is finished the processor 26 logs that the blast hole has been correctly established.” Col. 5, ll. 20-27
Prosecution Insights