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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwards et al., U.S. 8, 121, 971.
Regarding claim 1, Edwards et al. discloses an emergency shutdown (col. 33, lines 30-46; formulations of the interference engine 24 includes determining minimum and maximum limits of a drilling well W) control system (ADA_F; col. 8, lines 34-47), comprising: a deactivation control (col. 12, lines 3-12; the software agent provides recommendations for deactivation based on calibrations); a control center controller (IIE; col. 15, lines 12-23) coupled to the deactivation control (software agent; col. 8, lines 15-33) and storing an association between said deactivation control and a selected set of surface mine sites; a plurality of autonomous mining drill rigs (W1-W7), each drill rig having a drill shutdown module (agents T1-T7; col. 19, lines 35-42) adapted to disable a function of the respective drill rig upon receipt of a deactivation command; and a mine site controller (human machine interface, HMI; col. 12, lines 3-16) associated with each mine site (at W1-W7) in said selected set of surface mine sites, each said mine site controller being coupled to all autonomous drill rigs (W1-W7) located at the respective mine site with which the mine site controller is associated; wherein activating said deactivation control (the software agent recommendations) transmits a deactivation command from said deactivation control to said control center controller (IIE) and said control center controller forwards the deactivation command to a mine site controller (HMI) associated with each mine site in said set of surface mine sites for distribution to all of the autonomous drill rigs at that mine site.
As to claim 2, Edwards et al. discloses a drill control station (TDISP; col. 12, lines 2-34) coupled to said deactivation control (software agent), wherein said drill control station provides a user interface (display) for selecting drill rigs to be controlled by said drill control stations, wherein drill rigs available for selection are restricted to drill rigs located at said selected set of surface mine sites (W1-W7).
As to claim 3, Edwards et al. discloses the deactivation control includes a display region (TDISP) by which to associate the deactivation control with one or more mine sites.
As to claim 7, Edwards et al. discloses the deactivation control (software agent) is a region on a display (TDISP) of a computing device (IIE) adapted to receive a user input (HMI), said user input being selected from the group consisting of: mouse button clicks, keyboard input, and touch screen gesture (col. 12, lines 19-34).
Regarding claim 8, Edwards et al. discloses a method for controlling a set of autonomous mining drill rigs (col. 7, lines 20-30), each autonomous drill rig (W1-W7) having a drill shutdown module (24; col. 33, lines 30-46; formulations of the interference engine 24 includes determining minimum and maximum limits of a drilling well W) adapted (software agent; col. 8, lines 15-33) to disable a function of the respective drill rig upon receipt of a deactivation command (recommendations to the driller to carry out), the method comprising the steps of: selecting a set of surface mine sites (W1-W7) to be associated with a deactivation control (col. 12, lines 3-12; the software agent provides recommendations for deactivation based on calibrations); storing said association between said deactivation control and said set of surface mine sites at a control center controller (IIE); restricting selection of drill rigs by a drill control station (TDISP; col. 12, lines 2-34) coupled to said deactivation control to drill rigs located at said set of surface mine sites; sending a deactivation control (the recommendations) to said control center controller, upon activation of said deactivation control; and the control center controller transmitting the deactivation command (via HMI) to all drill rigs located at all mine sites (W1-W7) in said set of surface mine sites, wherein the drill shutdown module (24) on each drill rig disables a function (via the driller) of said respective drill rig on receipt of said deactivation command.
As to claim 9, Edwards et al. discloses the control center controller (IIE) transmits the deactivation command via a mine site controller (human machine interface, HMI; col. 12, lines 3-16) associated with each mine site in said set of surface mine sites, each said mine site controller being coupled to each drill rig (fig 2, W1-W7) at each mine site with which the mine site controller is associated.
As to claim 10, Edwards et al. discloses the deactivation control (col. 12, lines 3-12; the software agent provides recommendations for deactivation based on calibrations) includes a display (TDISP) region by which to select said set of surface mine sites.
Regarding claim 13, Edwards discloses a plurality of autonomous mining drill rigs (W1-W7), each drill rig including: a wireless receiver (col. 14, line 63 - col. 15, line 11) for coupling the respective drill to a wireless communications network for receiving control signals, and a drill shutdown module (24) for effecting shutoff of power to said drill rig; a remote control center coupled to said wireless communications network, said remote control center including: an interface (TDISP) for selecting a set of said plurality of autonomous mining drill rigs to be controlled by a drill controller, and a deactivation control (col. 12, lines 3-12; the software agent provides recommendations for deactivation based on calibrations) adapted to send, when activated, a shutdown command to each drill rig in said selected set of autonomous mining drill rigs; wherein when each drill rig in said selected set of autonomous mining drill rigs receives said shutdown command (the recommendations to the driller), said drill shutdown module (the driller) shuts off power to said drill rig.
Regarding claim 14, Edwards et al. discloses a method for effecting a shutdown of a set of autonomous mining drill rigs, comprising the steps of: allocating the set of autonomous mining drill rigs to a deactivation control (col. 12, lines 3-12; the software agent provides recommendations for deactivation based on calibrations) associated with a drill control station (TDISP; col. 12, lines 2-34), the drill control station being coupled to each of said autonomous mining drill rigs (W1-W&) via a communications network (fig 6), wherein each autonomous drill rig includes a drill shutdown module (24) adapted to shut off power to the respective drill rig, wherein activating said deactivation control sends a shutdown signal (via HMI) from said drill control station, via said communications network (fig 6), to the drill shutdown module on each autonomous drill rig in said set of autonomous mining drill rigs, and further wherein each drill shutdown module (agents T1-T7; col. 19, lines 35-42) shuts down power (via the driller) to the respective drill rig, on receipt of the shutdown signal.
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 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 and 6 including the controller coupled to all autonomous drill rigs, electromechanical switch(s), and shutdown fuel supply module.
Patented claim 2 and 3 includes all the claimed limitations of pending claim 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 12 includes all the claimed limitations of pending claim 14.
Conclusion
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.
6 February 2026
/KENNETH L THOMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676