TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES PTY LTD

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 22, 2020

2020003842 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/770,149 08/25/2015 Florian Oppolzer 008934.00002 9114
22908 7590 12/22/2020
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
71 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3600
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
QUAIM, LAMIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eofficeaction@bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FLORIAN OPPOLZER
____________

Appeal 2020-003842
Application 14/770,149
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 3, 6–11, 13–17, 19–21, 23, and 24.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed
August 25, 2015 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed June 21, 2019

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Technological
Resources Pty Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 18, and 22 are canceled. Appeal Br. 18–22 (Claims
App.).
Appeal 2020-003842
Application 14/770,149

2
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 31, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed February 21, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed April 20, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to drill operations. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 18
(Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of generating a drill hole sequence plan, the
method including
using a navigation unit, providing location information of
a mobile drill rig to a processing unit, the processing unit
providing the location information to a position determining
module, the position determining module automatically
determining an initial location of the mobile drill rig;
selecting a destination location of the drill rig via a user
interface and using a pre-loaded hole pattern;
establishing a corridor between the initial location of the
drill rig and its destination location, the corridor being based on
the initial location of the drill rig, the destination location of the
drill rig, and a selected width of the corridor, wherein the
selected width provides a known safe bound of a path of the
drill rig and the corridor covers a plurality of drill hole locations
of said pre-loaded hole pattern;
using the pre-loaded hole pattern, automatically selecting
a hole location of each hole within the corridor to be drilled by
the drill rig sequentially as it moves from its initial location to
its destination location; and
providing the drill hole sequence plan to a controller of
the drill rig so that the controller, using the location information
from the navigation unit, controls automated tramming of the
drill rig to the selected hole locations sequentially.
Appeal 2020-003842
Application 14/770,149

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Koivunen US 2004/0216922 A1 Nov. 4, 2004
Nadeau US 2012/0103598 A1 May 3, 2012
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 6–11, 13–17, and 19–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Nadeau.3
II. Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nadeau and Koivunen.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Anticipation by Nadeau
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
selecting a destination location of the drill rig via a user
interface and using a pre-loaded hole pattern; [and]
establishing a corridor between the initial location of the
drill rig and its destination location, the corridor being based on
the initial location of the drill rig, the destination location of the
drill rig, and a selected width of the corridor.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Nadeau discloses
selecting a destination location and then establishing a corridor based in part
on the selected destination location because “the corridor 58 has a plurality

3 Although the Examiner omits claims 6–10 from the statement of the
rejection (see Final Act. 9), the Examiner addresses these claims in the
detailed explanation of the rejection (see id. at 12–13). The statement of the
rejection also included claims 4 and 12 (see id. at 9), but these claims were
canceled in the amendment filed August 20, 2019, which the Examiner
entered per the Advisory Action dated January 13, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003842
Application 14/770,149

4
of planned holes 52 which [are] arranged in a pattern for drilling machine 12
which will inherently include an initial location and a destination location.”
Final Act. 9–10 (emphasis omitted) (citing Nadeau ¶¶ 29, 36, 45 Fig. 4).
The Examiner explains that,
Regardless of how the end point/ final destination of
Nadeau is determined, Nadeau still teaches a desired destination
location for the drill rig which is the last hole of the sequence
which the drill rig of Nadeau is to follow. Furthermore, the
sequence of Nadeau consists of planned hole patterns which
means that the holes are not just randomly chosen, which
includes the last hole . . . . Therefore, the desired destination of
Nadeau is also selected, which is the last planned hole of the
planned pathway containing the planned holes to be drilled.
Ans. 15–16 (emphasis omitted) (citing Nadeau ¶¶ 36, 38); see also id. at 17
(asserting that, in Nadeau, “a planned pathway is shown, which the drilling
machine 12 is to follow in a zig-zag manner. As shown, the last hole of the
planned pathway is known as it is selected to form this pathway. The last
hole is the destination location of the drilling machine 12.” (citing Nadeau
¶ 48 Fig. 5)).
Appellant persuasively asserts, however, that Nadeau’s “destination
hole is only known after the hole sequencing, which is contrary to claim 1
where the destination location is selected prior to establishing a corridor and
generating a sequence of holes.” Reply Br. 5; see also Appeal Br. 8
(“Nadeau looks at all the possibilities and then selects the sequence that is
most efficient (e.g. fewest turns) to drill all of the holes in the pattern. Thus,
only after the sequence is determined is the final destination hole known.”).
Nadeau discloses controller 32 commencing a sequencing algorithm for
pattern 50 of planned holes 52 to be drilled by machine 12. Nadeau ¶ 36.
Controller 32 selects a first planned hole from pattern 50, determines
Appeal 2020-003842
Application 14/770,149

5
neighboring holes within a set distance around the first planned hole, and
repeats the process until neighboring holes are determined for every planned
hole in pattern 50. Id. ¶¶ 36–37. Controller 32 searches for aligned
neighboring holes and generates planned pathways 58 until reaching the
edge of pattern 50. Id. ¶¶ 38–39. Controller 32 creates groups of planned
pathways 58 and selects the group having the fewest planned pathways 58.
Id. ¶¶ 45–46. Finally, controller 32 generates combined pathway 65, which
represents the pathway that machine 12 will follow to drill each planned
hole. Id. ¶ 47. To the extent that the last hole of Nadeau’s combined
pathway 65 may constitute a destination location for machine 12, as posited
by the Examiner (see Ans. 15–17), Nadeau appears to determine this
destination location as a result of generating combined pathway 65 (i.e., the
hole drilling sequence), as opposed first selecting a destination and then
generating the pathway. In other words, given that claim 1 recites that the
corridor is established “based on” the destination location, we agree with
Appellant’s interpretation that the claim requires selecting the destination
location prior to establishing the corridor and generating the sequence. See
Reply Br. 5. In short, the Examiner has not established a finding supported
by a preponderance of the evidence that Nadeau discloses, expressly or
inherently, selecting a destination location of the drill rig and establishing a
corridor based on the selected destination location.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1, or its dependent claims 3 and 6–10, as being anticipated by
Nadeau.
Independent claim 11 contains similar recitations as claim 1, and the
Examiner relies on the same deficient finding as for claim 1 in rejecting
Appeal 2020-003842
Application 14/770,149

6
claim 11. See Final Act. 14. Accordingly, for the same reasons as set forth
above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11, or its dependent claims
13–17 and 19–21, as being anticipated by Nadeau.
Rejection II – Obviousness based on Nadeau and Koivunen
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 24 relies on the same
findings as to the disclosure of Nadeau that we find deficient for the reasons
discussed above in connection with Rejection I. See Final Act. 19–20. The
Examiner relies on Koivunen for teaching additional recited features, but
does not articulate any findings or reasoning that would cure the
aforementioned deficiency in the anticipation rejection based on Nadeau.
See id. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 24 as being unpatentable over Nadeau
and Koivunen.
CONCLUSION
In summary,
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6–11,
13–17, 19–21
102(b) Nadeau 1, 3, 6–11,
13–17, 19–21
23, 24 103(a) Nadeau, Koivunen 23, 24
Overall Outcome 1, 3, 6–11,
13–17, 19–21,
23, 24
REVERSED