Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 19/294,816

Method and System for Controlling a Plurality of Drill Rigs

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Aug 08, 2025
Priority
May 29, 2020 — nonprovisional of PCTAU2020050553 +1 more
Examiner
THOMPSON, KENNETH L
Art Unit
3676
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Technological Resources Pty Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
1032 granted / 1181 resolved
+35.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1197
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§102
52.5%
+12.5% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1181 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-14, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,410,659. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following. Patented claim 1 includes all the limitations of pending claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 17 including the controller coupled to all autonomous drill rigs, electromechanical switch(s), shutdown fuel supply module and surface mine sites. Patented claims 2 and 3 include all the claimed limitations of pending claims 2 and 3 respectively. Patented claim 4 includes all the claimed limitations of pending claim 7. Patented claim 6 includes all the claimed limitations of pending claims 8, 11 and 12. Patented claim 7 includes all the claimed limitations of pending claim 9. Patented claim 8 includes all the claimed limitations of pending claim 10. Patented claim 10 includes all the claimed limitations of pending claim 13. Patented claim 5 and/or 11 include all the claimed limitations of new pending claim 16. Patented claim 12 includes all the claimed limitations of pending claim 14. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(1) rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH L THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7037. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays; 9:00-5:00, 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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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. 1 September 2026 /KENNETH L THOMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 08, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Aug 18, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 03, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12742386
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DOWNHOLE FLUID MICROSAMPLE COLLECTION WITH STAGED HYDRAULIC ACTUATION
1y 3m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12742360
DEPTH ACTIVATED DOWNHOLE ADJUSTABLE BEND ASSEMBLIES
1y 2m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12735968
Hydraulic Fracturing Equipment With Non-Hydraulic Power
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12729624
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MEASURING STRESS IN A ROCK MASS
1y 5m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12698705
DOWNHOLE FRACTURING ZONE DATA LOGGER AND DOWNHOLE FRACTURING ZONE DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM
1y 2m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+6.7%)
2y 5m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1181 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month