DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claims 26-52 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. See the cite to PCT/US2021/064939 in paragraph [00122] and US6766869 in paragraph [00176].
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. The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, is the operator [Fig. 2], the controller 40,240-240C,340,340A,440-440, and an input device capable of determining if the estimated rotational position of the drill head substantially matches the measured rotational position of the drill head (for the “means for calibrating”), the operator and the controller (for the means for steering the drill head to a target steering position), and the operator and the controller (for the means for pushing the drill head to the target distance).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “locator tool” in claim 26 and “thrust mechanism” in claim 50. The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, is the identified by the applicant as 52,152,252-252B,352,452-452B for the locator tool and the structure 30,152 for the thrust mechanism.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines, numbers and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark and are not uniformly thick and well-defined [Figs. 5, 21, 24-26, 30, 31, 37, 38, and 46]. 37 CFR 1.84(l). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 26-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claims 26-28, 32, 34, 45-47, and 49-52 The scope of each of these claims encompass a human being, i.e., an operator, either directly, or by reciting means which include an operator. Claims 29-31, 33, 35-44, and 48 depend from at least claim 26.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35
U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 27 and 28 are directed to an apparatus. As such, these claims are is directed to a statutory category of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two- prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 27 and 28 each recite abstract limitations including (or substantially similar to), i.e., the underlined portions that follow:
27. The control system of claim 26, wherein the means for calibrating includes an operator confirming the reliability of the measured rotational position of the drill head with an input device on the horizontal directional drill.
28. The control system of claim 26, wherein the means for calibrating includes an operator confirming the reliability of the measured rotational position of the drill head with an input device remote from the horizontal directional drill.
These limitations, as drafted, are apparatus, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, thus the limitations include performance of the limitations in the mind and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 27 and 28 recite the additional elements of using an input device for the confirming the reliability, the claim 27 input device being on, and the claim 28 input device being remote from, a horizontal directional drill.
In both claims the input device and the horizontal directional drill are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality, the input device merely being a tool associated with the abstract idea.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
It is noted that claim 26 is not rejected under Section 101. Claims 27 and 28 merely confirm the elements of claim 26, such that claim 26 elements do not make claims 27 and 28 eligible.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional element in each claim of using an input device for the confirming the reliability, amounts to a mere tools associated with applying the abstract idea
The mere association of a device with the application of the exception cannot provide an inventive concept, particularly in this case, where no corresponding structure is describe in the specification as performing the claimed use of an input device, Section 112(f) having been invoked for “input device”.
Thus, nothing in either of claims 27 and 28 adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 27, 28, and 48 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 27 and 28 The term "reliability" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 48 This claim recites that the means for steering includes rotating an output spindle “until the estimated drill head position matches the target steering position”, and depends from claim 45 which recites that the means for steering includes occurs “when the estimated rotational position of the drill head matches the measured position of the drill head”, thus making it unclear whether the means is used before or at the matching.
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 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.
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 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 26-32, 35-37, 43-46, and 48-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenlee et al. (US20180171718) [Greenlee], in view of Jin et al. (US20030063013) [Jin].
Claim 26 Greenlee discloses a control system at least 15 for a horizontal directional drill 2 [Figs. 1,9; abstract; para. 0022,0023,0028,0050,0052,0058] comprising:
a user interface [e.g., the controller receives inputs from an operator, e.g., at the operator station about the controller, the operator inputs being used by the controller; para. 0022,0028] having a first display [e.g., the display of clock position of a drill head, i.e., the rotational position of a drill head, provided by the clock position sensor informed by the downhole sonde; para. 0050,0058,0016];
a locator tool configured to measure a rotational position of a drill head [para. 0016] of the horizontal directional drill [e.g., by using the downhole sonde and its associated clock position sensor; para. 0050,0058,0016]; and
a controller 15 configured to determine an estimated rotational position of the drill head [e.g., by using the rotational clock sensor 110 in the spindle assembly 12; para. 0021],
wherein the control system further includes means for calibrating the estimated rotational position of the drill head to substantially match the measured rotational position of the drill head [e.g., the controller reorienting the spindle to correct for error, i.e., the difference between the clock position indicated/estimated by the spindle rotation sensor 110 and the measured clock position measured by the sonde clock position sensor; para. 0050,0058].
Greenlee further discloses the use of a tracker system for providing information to the controller [para. 0023], generally, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (1) that the locator tool is of the walk-over type nor that the locator tool provides the above-described information about the measured rotational position of the drill head [this type being a required limitation in that Section 112(f) has been invoked with respect to the locator tool and only a walk-over type locator tool is disclosed by the applicant, a downhole sonde not being an equivalent of such a tool], (2) that the user interface includes the first display in communication with the locator tool and displaying information about the measured rotational position of the drill head [although it is arguable that the disclosed clock position sensor associated with the downhole sonde must display the clock position, this is not explicitly disclosed], nor (3) that the user interface discloses a second display in communication with the controller and displaying information about the estimated rotational position of the drill head [although it is arguable that the disclosed clock position sensor 110 associated with the spindle assembly must display the clock position, this is not explicitly disclosed] .
Jin discloses a control system [Figs. 1,2; para. 0041] for a horizontal directional drill 80 comprising: a locator tool 800B configured to measure a rotational position of a drill head [proximate 800C on Fig. 1] of the horizontal directional drill [walk-over type locator tool 800; para. 0040; abstract]; a user interface at least ECM200 having a first display at least 206 [para. 0046,0052,0049,0050,0031,0074; claims 11,12] and a second display [e.g., a second of the plurality of displays broadly suggested for “a wide variety” of drilling system components; para. 0017,0049]; and a controller [para. 0030,0041,0042], wherein the first display is in communication with the locator tool and displays information about the measured rotational position of the drill head 206 [para. 0034,0052,0049,0050,0062,0064,0074].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee to include a walk-over type locator tool, such tool’s measured drill head rotational position/clock face being displayed on an operator station display, the remote locator tool display, or both, as disclosed by Jin, and to further include an operator station display for the Greenlee estimated drill head rotational position clock face sensor, such a display being suggested by Jin, e.g., by Jin’s broad suggestion that a wide variety of drilling system components have an on-board display. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the Greenlee measurement of the drill head rotational position would be supplemented by acquiring such a measurement using a walk-over type locator tool, and that Greenlee’s use of the estimated and measured drill head rotational positions data would be readily viewable on displays, thus providing optimal access for the operator, during the Greenlee calibration.
Claim 27 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that the means for calibrating includes an operator confirming the reliability of the measured rotational position of the drill head with an input device on the horizontal directional drill [at least in that the operator confirms the reliability of the sonde signal to the walkover locator, in one example, by making a request that the control system be adjusted (necessarily requiring an operator inputted request receiving configuration) to make related changes in, e.g., the transmission frequency, the strength of signal, and the baud rate; para. 0072,0073].
Claim 28 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that the means for calibrating includes an operator confirming the reliability of the measured rotational position of the drill head with an input device remote from the horizontal directional drill [at least in that the operator requests to confirm the reliability of the sonde signal to the walkover locator, in one example, by manipulating, inputting into the remote unit a known actual clock position of the drill head for calibrating a clock position before sending to the display on the horizontal directional unit; Jin para. 0077,0072].
Claim 29 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that the means for calibrating includes the controller determining if the estimated rotational position of the drill head substantially matches the measured rotational position of the drill head [i.e., necessarily involved in either or both of determining the need for the claim 26 calibration and the success of the claim 26 calibration; para. 0050,0058].
Claim 30 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that the means for calibrating includes the controller updating the estimated rotational position of the drill head to substantially match the measured rotational position of the drill head [i.e., the actual claim 26 calibration activity; para. 0050,0058].
Claim 31 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that both the spindle clockface display and the locator tool clockface display are on-board displays seen at the operator station [the spindle clockface sensor display is at the operation station; Greenlee para. 0022,0028; displays at both the remote location and the operator station are provided re the locator tool clockface display; Jin Fig. 1; Jin para. 0031,0036,0037,0046,0052; Jin claims 11,12] and that a number of operator inputs are associated with the above-mentioned interface Jin ECM200, e.g., at least steering control inputs, data log inputs, and joystick inputs, which are associated with the locator tool guidance and tracking system 800, with some inputs being developed by the operator as a result of comparing the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display [Jin para. 0051,0052], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the means for calibrating includes determining if the estimated rotational position of the drill head substantially matches the measured rotational position of the drill head with an input device on the horizontal directional drill.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize the foregoing operator inputs at the horizontal directional drill to initiate, modify, and control, the spindle, the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display views in calibrating the spindle drill head rotational position information and viewing the calibration to determine whether the desired substantial match of drill head rotational position information was achieved. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator’s access at the horizontal directional drill to such displays during and after the calibration would enable the operator to successfully complete the calibration.
Claim 32 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses the operator updating the estimated rotational position of the drill head to substantially match the measured rotational position of the drill head [i.e., the actual claim 26 calibration activity; para. 0050], that both the spindle clockface display and the locator tool clockface display are on-board displays seen at the operator station [the spindle clockface sensor display is at the operation station; Greenlee para. 0022,0028; displays at both the remote location and the operator station are provided re the locator tool clockface display; Jin Fig. 1; Jin para. 0031,0036,0037,0046,0052; Jin claims 11,12], and that a number of operator inputs are associated with the above-mentioned interface Jin ECM200, e.g., at least steering control inputs, data log inputs, and joystick inputs, which are associated with the locator tool guidance and tracking system 800, with some inputs being developed by the operator as a result of comparing the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display [Jin para. 0051,0052], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the means for calibrating includes determining if the estimated rotational position of the drill head substantially matches the measured rotational position of the drill head with an input device on the horizontal directional drill.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize the foregoing operator inputs at the horizontal directional drill to initiate, modify, and control, the spindle, the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display views in calibrating the spindle drill head rotational position information and viewing the calibration to determine whether the desired substantial match of drill head rotational position information was achieved. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator’s access at the horizontal directional drill to such displays during and after the calibration would enable the operator to successfully complete the calibration.
Claim 35 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that both the spindle clockface display and the locator tool clockface display are on-board displays seen at the operator station [the spindle clockface sensor display is at the operation station; Greenlee para. 0022,0028; displays at both the remote location and the operator station are provided re the locator tool clockface display; Jin Fig. 1; Jin para. 0031,0036,0037,0046,0052; Jin claims 11,12] and that a number of operator inputs are associated with the above-mentioned interface Jin ECM200, e.g., at least steering control inputs, data log inputs, and joystick inputs, which are associated with the locator tool guidance and tracking system 800, with some inputs being developed by the operator as a result of comparing the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display [Jin para. 0051,0052], the foregoing thus disclosing that the user interface includes an input device configured to allow an operator to interact with the second display.
Claim 36 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that a transceiver at least 800A is configured to provide communication between the controller and the locator tool [Fig. 1; para. 0082].
Claim 37 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses a remote device in communication with the controller [the locator tool of the combination is in communication with the controller, as discussed at claim 26 above; also, Jin discloses at least an Application Service Provider which remotely communicates with at least the module 901 of the control network; Figs. 2,3; para. 0087,0088,0082-0086].
Claim 43 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses a lockout control in communication with the controller, the lockout control configured to initiate a command to shut off the horizontal directional drill [Jin 0035,0068; Jin Table 1].
Claim 44 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that the controller is further configured to simultaneously perform an automated rod addition sequence [para. 0066,0055,0057,0060; Table 1].
Claim 45 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that the control system further includes means for steering the drill head to a target steering position at least 5 [para. 0016,0049,0052-0054] when the estimated rotational position of the drill head matches the measured position of the drill head [e.g., the calibrating correction discussed at claim 26 herein; para. 0050,0058].
Claim 46 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 45, discloses that the means for calibrating includes an operator confirming the reliability of the measured rotational position of the drill head with an input device on the horizontal directional drill [at least in that the operator confirms the reliability of the sonde signal to the walkover locator, in one example, by making a request that the control system be adjusted (necessarily requiring an operator inputted request receiving configuration) to make related changes in, e.g., the transmission frequency, the strength of signal, and the baud rate; para. 0072,0073], thus disclosing that the means for steering the drill head to a target steering position includes an operator setting the target steering position using an input device on the horizontal directional drill [all operator input is through the input device and the operator’s rotational positioning of the drill head sets the target steering position].
Claim 48 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 45, discloses that the means for steering the drill head to a target steering position includes the controller of the horizontal directional drill rotating an output spindle of the horizontal directional drill until the estimated drill head position matches the target steering position [para. 0050,0058].
Claim 49 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 45, discloses that the control system further includes a means for pushing the drill head a target distance [para. 0014].
Claim 50 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 49, discloses that the means for pushing the drill head to the target distance includes the controller managing a thrust mechanism [para. 0014] of the horizontal directional drill to move the drill head the target distance [the controller manages all functions of the horizontal direction drill, as discussed at claim 26 herein].
Claim 51 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 49, discloses that both the spindle clockface display and the locator tool clockface display are on-board displays seen at the operator station [the spindle clockface sensor display is at the operation station; Greenlee para. 0022,0028; displays at both the remote location and the operator station are provided re the locator tool clockface display; Jin Fig. 1; Jin para. 0031,0036,0037,0046,0052; Jin claims 11,12] and that a number of operator inputs are associated with the above-mentioned interface Jin ECM200, e.g., at least steering control inputs, data log inputs, and joystick inputs, which are associated with the locator tool guidance and tracking system 800, with some inputs being developed by the operator as a result of comparing the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display [Jin para. 0051,0052], thus disclosing that the means for pushing the drill head to the target distance includes an operator setting a target distance [such operator input necessary to properly execute the pushing function], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose such setting using an input device on the horizontal directional drill.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize the foregoing operator inputs at the horizontal directional drill to initiate, modify, and control horizontal direction drill functions, e.g., setting the target distance for the claimed pushing. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator’s access at the horizontal directional drill to such displays would enable the operator to successfully complete the pushing to the target distance.
Claims 33, 34, 38, 40, 42, 47, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenlee, in view of Jin, and further in view of Alft et al. (U20020005297) [Alft].
Claim 33 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that both the spindle clockface display and the locator tool clockface display are on-board displays seen at the operator station [the spindle clockface sensor display is at the operation station; Greenlee para. 0022,0028; displays at both the remote location and the operator station are provided re the locator tool clockface display; Jin Fig. 1; Jin para. 0031,0036,0037,0046,0052; Jin claims 11,12] and that a number of operator inputs are associated with the above-mentioned interface Jin ECM200, e.g., at least steering control inputs, data log inputs, and joystick inputs, which are associated with the locator tool guidance and tracking system 800, with some inputs being developed by the operator as a result of comparing the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display [Jin para. 0051,0052], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the means for calibrating includes determining if the estimated rotational position of the drill head substantially matches the measured rotational position of the drill head with an input device remote from the horizontal directional drill.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize the foregoing operator inputs at the horizontal directional drill to initiate, modify, and control, the spindle, the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display views in calibrating the spindle drill head rotational position information and viewing the calibration to determine whether the desired substantial match of drill head rotational position information was achieved. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator’s access to such displays during and after the calibration would enable the operator to successfully complete the calibration.
Greenlee, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the foregoing determining with an input device remote from the horizontal direction drill.
Alft discloses a horizontal directional drill [Figs. 1-6,19a,20] having a boring system 12 for driving a drill head/boring tool 24,81 [para. 0010], a display with a graphical representation of a boring tool orientation [para. 0022], a universal controller 26,72 for assessing operational anomalies and either automatically addressing them or alerting an operator [Figs. 1,2,4,5; para. 0100,0103,0104,0129,0130,0075], a portable tracker unit 28,83,304,350 [i.e., a walk-over type locator tool; Figs. 1,2,4,5,19A,20; para. 0070,0080,0112,0250] for measuring at least drill head rotational position, the tracker unit 28,83,304,350 having two way wireless communication capability with the boring machine 12 [para. 0080,0081,0085,0099], the tracker unit 28,83,304,350 further being hand-held and capable of complete control of the boring system [abstract; para. 015,0058,0063, 0064,0250,0251,0257,0273].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize an input device remote from the horizontal direction drill for accomplishing the claimed determination, such a remote input device being disclosed by Alft. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator would have the ability to access, view, and control all drilling conditions and functions, while in a position other than at the horizontal direction drill/operator station, thus enhancing the operator’s ability to observe the surroundings during the drilling operation.
Claim 34 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 26, discloses that both the spindle clockface display and the locator tool clockface display are on-board displays seen at the operator station [the spindle clockface sensor display is at the operation station; Greenlee para. 0022,0028; displays at both the remote location and the operator station are provided re the locator tool clockface display; Jin Fig. 1; Jin para. 0031,0036,0037,0046,0052; Jin claims 11,12] and that a number of operator inputs are associated with the above-mentioned interface Jin ECM200, e.g., at least steering control inputs, data log inputs, and joystick inputs, which are associated with the locator tool guidance and tracking system 800, with some inputs being developed by the operator as a result of comparing the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display [Jin para. 0051,0052], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the means for calibrating includes determining if the estimated rotational position of the drill head substantially matches the measured rotational position of the drill head with an input device remote from the horizontal directional drill.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize the foregoing operator inputs to initiate, modify, and control, the spindle, the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display views in calibrating the spindle drill head rotational position information and viewing the calibration to determine whether the desired substantial match of drill head rotational position information was achieved. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator’s access to such displays during and after the calibration would enable the operator to successfully complete the calibration.
Greenlee, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the foregoing updating with an input device remote from the horizontal direction drill.
Alft discloses a horizontal directional drill [Figs. 1-6,19a,20] having a boring system 12 for driving a drill head/boring tool 24,81 [para. 0010], a display with a graphical representation of a boring tool orientation [para. 0022], a universal controller 26,72 for assessing operational anomalies and either automatically addressing them or alerting an operator [Figs. 1,2,4,5; para. 0100,0103,0104,0129,0130,0075], a portable tracker unit 28,83,304,350 [i.e., a walk-over type locator tool; Figs. 1,2,4,5,19A,20; para. 0070,0080,0112,0250] for measuring at least drill head rotational position, the tracker unit 28,83,304,350 having two way wireless communication capability with the boring machine 12 [para. 0080,0081,0085,0099], the tracker unit 28,83,304,350 further being hand-held and capable of complete remote control of the boring system [abstract; para. 015,0058,0063, 0064,0250,0251,0257,0273].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize an input device remote from the horizontal direction drill for accomplishing the claimed updating, such a remote input device being disclosed by Alft. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator would have the ability to have to access, view, and control all drilling conditions and functions, while in a position other than at the horizontal direction drill/operator station, thus enhancing the operator’s ability to observe the surroundings during the drilling operation.
Claim 38 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 37, discloses that both the spindle clockface display and the locator tool clockface display are on-board displays seen at the operator station [the spindle clockface sensor display is at the operation station; Greenlee para. 0022,0028; displays at both the remote location and the operator station are provided re the locator tool clockface display; Jin Fig. 1; Jin para. 0031,0036,0037,0046,0052; Jin claims 11,12] and that a number of operator inputs are associated with the above-mentioned interface Jin ECM200, e.g., at least steering control inputs, data log inputs, and joystick inputs, which are associated with the locator tool guidance and tracking system 800, with some inputs being developed by the operator as a result of comparing the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display [Jin para. 0051,0052], the foregoing thus disclosing that the user interface includes an input device configured to allow an operator to interact with the second display, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the remote device includes the second display and the input device.
Alft discloses a horizontal directional drill [Figs. 1-6,19a,20] having a boring system 12 for driving a drill head/boring tool 24,81 [para. 0010], a display with a graphical representation of a boring tool orientation [para. 0022], a universal controller 26,72 for assessing operational anomalies and either automatically addressing them or alerting an operator [Figs. 1,2,4,5; para. 0100,0103,0104,0129,0130,0075], a portable tracker unit 28,83,304,350 [i.e., a walk-over type locator tool; Figs. 1,2,4,5,19A,20; para. 0070,0080,0112,0250] for measuring at least drill head rotational position, the tracker unit 28,83,304,350 having two way wireless communication capability with the boring machine 12 [para. 0080,0081,0085,0099], the tracker unit 28,83,304,350 further being hand-held and capable of complete remote control of the boring system [abstract; para. 015,0058,0063, 0064,0250,0251,0257,0273].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize a remote device providing operator input and access to all displays, for accomplishing the claimed calibration, such a remote device being disclosed by Alft. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator would have the ability to access, view, and control all drilling conditions and functions, while in a position other than at the horizontal direction drill/operator station, thus enhancing the operator’s ability to observe the surroundings during the drilling operation.
Claim 40 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 37, discloses that the remote device is configured to wirelessly communicate with the controller via a wireless communication system [as discussed at claim 37 herein].
Claim 42 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 37, discloses a remote joystick that is configured to interact with the remote device [Alft Fig. 20; at least Alft 356; Alft para. 0257,0258].
Claim 47 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 45, discloses that both the spindle clockface display and the locator tool clockface display are on-board displays seen at the operator station [the spindle clockface sensor display is at the operation station; Greenlee para. 0022,0028; displays at both the remote location and the operator station are provided re the locator tool clockface display; Jin Fig. 1; Jin para. 0031,0036,0037,0046,0052; Jin claims 11,12] and that a number of operator inputs are associated with the above-mentioned interface Jin ECM200, e.g., at least steering control inputs, data log inputs, and joystick inputs, which are associated with the locator tool guidance and tracking system 800, with some inputs being developed by the operator as a result of comparing the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display [Jin para. 0051,0052], thus disclosing that the means for steering the drill head to a target steering position includes an operator setting the target steering position [the operator’s rotational positioning of the drill head sets the target steering position], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose exercising such means for steering the drill head to a target steering position includes an operator setting the target steering position using an input device remote from the horizontal directional drill.
Alft discloses a horizontal directional drill [Figs. 1-6,19a,20] having a boring system 12 for driving a drill head/boring tool 24,81 [para. 0010], a display with a graphical representation of a boring tool orientation [para. 0022], a universal controller 26,72 for assessing operational anomalies and either automatically addressing them or alerting an operator [Figs. 1,2,4,5; para. 0100,0103,0104,0129,0130,0075], a portable tracker unit 28,83,304,350 [i.e., a walk-over type locator tool; Figs. 1,2,4,5,19A,20; para. 0070,0080,0112,0250] for measuring at least drill head rotational position, the tracker unit 28,83,304,350 having two way wireless communication capability with the boring machine 12 [para. 0080,0081,0085,0099], the tracker unit 28,83,304,350 further being hand-held and capable of complete control of the boring system [abstract; para. 015,0058,0063, 0064,0250,0251,0257,0273].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize an input device remote from the horizontal direction drill for accomplishing the claimed target steering, such a remote input device being disclosed by Alft. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator would have the ability to access, view, and control all drilling conditions and functions, e.g. target steering, while in a position other than at the horizontal direction drill/operator station, thus enhancing the operator’s ability to observe the surroundings during the drilling operation.
Claim 52 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 49, discloses that both the spindle clockface display and the locator tool clockface display are on-board displays seen at the operator station [the spindle clockface sensor display is at the operation station; Greenlee para. 0022,0028; displays at both the remote location and the operator station are provided re the locator tool clockface display; Jin Fig. 1; Jin para. 0031,0036,0037,0046,0052; Jin claims 11,12] and that a number of operator inputs are associated with the above-mentioned interface Jin ECM200, e.g., at least steering control inputs, data log inputs, and joystick inputs, which are associated with the locator tool guidance and tracking system 800, with some inputs being developed by the operator as a result of comparing the spindle clock face display and the locator tool clock face display [Jin para. 0051,0052], thus disclosing that the means for pushing the drill head to the target distance includes an operator setting a target distance [such operator input necessary to properly execute the pushing function], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose exercising such means for pushing the drill head to the target distance includes an operator setting a target distance using an input device remote from the horizontal directional drill.
Alft discloses a horizontal directional drill [Figs. 1-6,19a,20] having a boring system 12 for driving a drill head/boring tool 24,81 [para. 0010], a display with a graphical representation of a boring tool orientation [para. 0022], a universal controller 26,72 for assessing operational anomalies and either automatically addressing them or alerting an operator [Figs. 1,2,4,5; para. 0100,0103,0104,0129,0130,0075], a portable tracker unit 28,83,304,350 [i.e., a walk-over type locator tool; Figs. 1,2,4,5,19A,20; para. 0070,0080,0112,0250] for measuring at least drill head rotational position, the tracker unit 28,83,304,350 having two way wireless communication capability with the boring machine 12 [para. 0080,0081,0085,0099], the tracker unit 28,83,304,350 further being hand-held and capable of complete control of the boring system [abstract; para. 015,0058,0063, 0064,0250,0251,0257,0273].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize an input device remote from the horizontal direction drill for accomplishing the claimed setting of a target distance for drill head pushing, such a remote input device being disclosed by Alft. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator would have the ability to access, view, and control all drilling conditions and functions, e.g. set target distances for drill head pushing, while in a position other than at the horizontal direction drill/operator station, thus enhancing the operator’s ability to observe the surroundings during the drilling operation.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenlee, in view of Jin and Alft, and further in view of Shim et al. (US20180050661) [Shim].
Claim 39 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 37, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the remote device is a wearable device that can be worn by an operator.
Shim discloses a terminal 200 useable for remotely controlling a machine that is having a body 201 and a display 251 mounted on the operator’s wrist using a wrist band 202 [Fig. 2; abstract; para. 0145].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to configure the hand held remote device of the combination to include a wrist band, a wrist band disclosed by Shim. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the operator by wearing the remote device on his wrist would have the convenience of transporting the remote device while the operator’s hands are free.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenlee, in view of Jin and Alft, and further in view of Jin et al. (US20220316325) [Jin325].
Claim 41 Greenlee, as modified with respect to claim 37, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the remote device is a cellular device and is configured to communicate with the controller via a cellular modem.
Jin325 discloses a horizontal direction drilling system 100, having at walk-over locator 108, that uses a cellular network for communicating among the drilling system components [Figs. 1A-3; para. 044,0017,0018,0021,0025,0026].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Greenlee, as modified, to utilize cellular devices and associated cellular modems for establishing the remote device wireless communications discussed at claim 37 herein, as disclosed by Jin325. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that a well-known form of wireless communication would be in place for the communications of the combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Payne et al. (US20040028476) discloses rotating a spindle to achieve a desired relationship between actual rotational position of the downhole tool and the spindle [Fig. 18; para. 0114]. Archambeault et al. (US5469155) discloses rotational position displays on a walkover locator and a drilling machine [24 and 34, respectively]. Hall (US20160076360) discloses an HDD system, using a walkover locator 40, the system receiving a battery status alert [Fig. 1; para. 0025,0044,0069,0077]. Mercer (US20010052426) discloses an HDD system having an operational parameter display 110 the drilling machine and also a display 140 at a walkover locator [Fig. 1-6; abstract; para. 0019,0022]. Slaughter et al. (US20210285291) discloses an HDD system, using a walkover locator 17, the system having a spindle 36 with an encoder for measuring its angular rotation position for correction [Figs. 1-3,9; para. 0057].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F.
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.
/GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676