DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claims 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the support force" in the last two lines. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the plurality of structural components" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Consequently, claim 14 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite since it includes all the limitation of rejected claim 13.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The language of claim 12 does not further limit the language of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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 USC 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.
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 USC 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mäkelä (WO 2014/191013 A1), alone.
Referring to claims 1, 12 and 13: Mäkelä teaches an apparatus and computer-implemented method for monitoring a rock drilling rig 1 including a plurality of structural components, the apparatus and method comprising:
at least one processor 18; and
at least one memory 28 comprising instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive information on positions of the plurality of structural components of the rock drilling rig in relation to each other (page 4, line 36 - page 5, line 17);
receive mass properties of the plurality of structural components (page 4, line 36 - page 5, line 17);
determine a total centre of gravity of the rock drilling rig based on dimensions of the plurality of structural components, the mass properties of the plurality of structural components and information on positions of the plurality of structural components of the rock drilling rig in relation to each other (page 4, line 36 - page 5, line 17);
receive information on ground support members supporting the rock drilling rig, the information comprising at least positions of the ground support members (page 15, lines 18-23);
compute a support pattern of the rock drilling rig based on the information on the ground support members supporting the rock drilling rig (FIG. 5);
determine information on stability of the rock drilling rig based on a position of the total centre of gravity with respect to the support pattern (page 6, line 31 - page 7, line 5);
detect a risk of instability based on the information on stability of the rock drilling rig (page 12, lines 27-34);
cause the rock drilling rig to at least one of limit velocity or stop when the risk of instability is detected (page 12, lines 27-34); and
output data on the stability of the rock drilling rig (page 10, lines 27-34; page 18, lines 31-35).
While Mäkelä teaches determining information about local structural components, Mäkelä does not specifically teach the apparatus determines a local centre of gravity of the plurality of structural components; and determines the total centre of gravity of the rock drilling rig based on the local centre of gravity of the plurality of structural components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Mäkelä to include determining a local centre of gravity of the plurality of structural components and determining the total centre of gravity of the rock drilling rig based on the local centre of gravity of the plurality of structural components with a reasonable expectation of success since the thrust of the disclosure of Mäkelä is related to balance and stability of the system, which necessarily depends on characteristics and parameters of each piece of the system.
Referring to claims 2 and 3: Mäkelä teaches the at least one memory further comprises instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive information on a change of position of at least one first structural component of the plurality of structural components relative to at least one second structural component of the plurality of structural components; and
update the total centre of gravity based on the information on the change of position,
wherein the information on the change in position indicates at least one of translation movement or rotational movement of the first component relative to the second component (page 12, lines 6-25).
Referring to claim 4: Mäkelä teaches the at least one memory further comprises instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive information on a change in position of at least one of the ground support members; and
update the support pattern based on the information on the change in position of the at least one ground support member (page 12, lines 6-25; page 15, lines 18-31).
Referring to claim 5: Mäkelä teaches the plurality of structural components includes at least one carrier 2 and at least one boom 4.
Referring to claim 6: Mäkelä teaches the plurality of structural components includes a carrier 2 that includes a plurality of ground support members 34; and wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
compute the support pattern of the rock drilling rig based on the information on the ground support members supporting the rock drilling rig and positions of the carrier (page 4, line 36 - page 5, line 17; FIG. 5).
Mäkelä does not specifically teach two carriers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Mäkelä to include two carriers with a reasonable expectation of success in order to perform the operation faster, and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Referring to claim 9: Mäkelä teaches the at least one memory further comprises instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to determine the information on stability of the rock drilling rig during operation of the rock drilling rig (last sentence of Abstract; page 6, line 31 - page 7, line 5).
Referring to claim 10: Mäkelä teaches the ground support members supporting the rock drilling rig comprises at least one of tracks, wheels 34, a rear oscillation axle or ground support cylinders.
Referring to claim 14: Mäkelä teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer program comprising instructions, which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method of claim 13 (page 18, line 22 - page 19, line 4; FIG. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yan et al. (US 11,242,746 B2) teaches a somewhat related method and system for determining wellbore stability (column 2, lines 1-24). Finley et al. (US 2024/0336463 A1) teaches there is a risk of tipping when a forklift is outside a triangle of stability [0004], such a vehicle could be used in subterranean environments [0104], and which is controlled by a controller 22A with a processing unit and memory [0055]. Joynt et al. (US 8,033,208 B2) teaches a mining vehicle whereby reducing the center of gravity of vehicle 10, the stability of vehicle may be increased and may have a reduced risk of rollover (column 4, lines 35-57).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
07 January 2026