SANDVIK MINING AND CONSTRUCTION OY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2022

2020005526 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2022)

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. 13/911,182 06/06/2013 Tommi Heikkila 2011162SFUS 3091 78686 7590 01/04/2022 Sandvik Intellectual Property 3200 Highlands Parkway SE #200 Smyrna, GA 30082 EXAMINER HO, RUAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2022 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): corinne.gorski@sandvik.com patents@sandvik.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOMMI HEIKKILA, JUHA LASSILA, and HENRI SUVANEN Appeal 2020-005526 Application 13/911,182 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1,2 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-13. Final Act. 1. 1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed March 9, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Final Office Action mailed October 10, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 13, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed June 6, 2013 (“Spec.”). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sandvik Mining and Construction Oy. Appeal Br. 3 Appeal 2020-005526 Application 13/911,182 2 Claims 3, 10, 14, and 15 are withdrawn from consideration. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims are directed to defining a working area of a rock drilling rig including “displaying a graphical representation of [a] working area on [a] display by indicating one or more holes planned in [a] predefined drilling plan that can be drilled from a current position of the rock drilling rig without moving the rock drilling rig.” Appeal Br. 8-9. Claim 1, reproduced below with a dispositive disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for defining a working area of a rock drilling rig, the method comprising the steps of: providing a rock drilling rig including a movable carrier, at least one boom pivotally disposed on the carrier, a drilling unit arranged on the boom, at least one control unit and at least one display device connected to the control unit, the drilling unit including at least one rock drilling machine and a tool; determining at least one current input parameter that is variable during operation of the rock drilling rig, the at least one current input parameter being selected from a current orientation of the rock drilling rig with respect to a predefined drilling plan and a position and direction of at least one hole planned to be drilled in the predefined drilling plan without moving the rock drilling rig; determining a working area according to the predefined drilling plan, that defines a reach of the tool of the drilling unit arranged on the boom and boundaries of the movement range of the tool, in the control unit on the basis of said current orientation of the rock drilling rig, according to said position and direction of at least one hole planned to be drilled and according to at least one fixed reach parameter; Appeal 2020-005526 Application 13/911,182 3 re-determining said working area and updating said graphical representation of said working area dynamically in response to a change in said orientation of the rock drilling rig or in said direction of at least one hole planned to be drilled; and displaying a graphical representation of said working area on the display by indicating one or more holes planned in the predefined drilling plan that can be drilled from a current position of the rock drilling rig without moving the rock drilling rig. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name3 Reference Date Tucker US 2008/0125942 A1 May 29, 2008 DiSantis US 2013/0146358 Al June 13, 2013 Inkpen US 2014/0148808 A1 May 29, 2014 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tucker, Inkpen, and DiSantis. Final Act. 4-9. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of “displaying a graphical representation of said working area on the display by indicating one or more holes planned in the predefined drilling plan that can be drilled from a current position of the rock drilling rig without moving the rock drilling rig” as recited in claim 1? 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-005526 Application 13/911,182 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tucker, Inkpen, and DiSantis. Final Act. 4-9. The Examiner relies upon Tucker’s disclosure of ground-breaking equipment having a penetrating drill on a directional drilling apparatus that is controlled by an administrative module for teaching the step of (i) providing a rock drilling rig and portions of the steps of (ii) determining at least one current input parameter and (iii) determining a working area. Final Act. 4-6 (citing Tucker ¶¶ 28, 71, 93, 128). The Examiner finds Inkpen’s disclosure of a navigation unit for guiding tools, such as those used in surgical procedures, for teaching the entirety of the steps of (i) determining at least one current input parameter and (ii) redetermining the working area together with the portion of the step of (iii) determining a working area according to the position and direction of at least one hole planned to be drilled. Id. at 5-6 (citing Inkpen ¶¶ 320, 321, 375, 383, 407, 408). Finally, the Examiner relies on DiSantis’s disclosure of processes and systems for drilling a borehole for teaching the subject disputed step of displaying a graphical representation of said working area on the display by indicating one or more holes planned in the predefined drilling plan that can be drilled from a current position of the rock drilling rig without moving the rock drilling rig. Id. at 6-7 (citing DiSantis ¶¶ 15, 28). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to incorporate Inkpen’s and DiSantis’s teachings of determining a current orientation of a rock drilling rig and providing a “graphical representation indicating one or more holes that can be drilled from a current position” into the teachings of Tucker “to enhance [Tucker’s] displaying functions.” Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted). Appeal 2020-005526 Application 13/911,182 5 Appellant contends, inter alia, the combined teachings of Tucker, Inkpen, and DiSantis fails to render obvious the disputed limitation of displaying a graphical representation of said working area on the display by indicating one or more holes planned in the predefined drilling plan that can be drilled from a current position of the rock drilling rig without moving the rock drilling rig. Appeal Br. 8-9. Appellant argues Inkpen’s disclosure is deficient as follows. Inkpen merely discloses a medical drill having a positionable display screen illustrating a drill icon relative to a graphic of a target hole and a navigation system for detecting coaxiality of the drill to the hole within specific parameters, such as depth. The display includes a tip indicator 394 in relation to the hole graphic 388. Inkpen's coordinate system 130, 132 does not provide a working area of a drilling rig that can be displayed by indicating holes that can be drilled from a current position without moving the drill. Id. at 8. Appellant further argues DiSantis’s disclosure is also deficient, as follows: DiSantis discloses a control system that compares different energy terms to adjust the amount of energy required [to] destroy and remove a given volume of rock. DiSantis merely discloses displaying the working area by a control system that compares different energy terms to adjust the amount of energy required to destroy and remove a given volume of rock. DiSantis does not determine the reach and boundary area of a tool based on at least one current, variable input parameter “from a current position of the rock drilling rig without moving the rock drilling rig,” as recited in amended claim 1. Id. at 9. The Examiner responds, finding selection of a current input parameter “is based on two elements, a current orientation of the rock drilling rig and a Appeal 2020-005526 Application 13/911,182 6 position and direction of one planned hole. The ‘without moving the rock drilling rig’ phrase is redundant.” Ans. 9 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further calls into question the significance of the contested “without moving the rig” language: It is further unclear why the “without moving the rig” is an important technical feature? Because either the rig is moved before or after the variable parameter selection with respect to a predefined drilling plan, the rig has to be moved in front of a hole position before the actual drilling operation can happen. Even claim 1 recites “without moving the rig”, the final position of the rig has to be a result of moving after a parameter selection. Moreover, is this predefined drilling plan capable of drilling a second hole? If so, how does the rig move from the “current” position to the “next current” position? Clearly, “without moving the rig” is NOT a technical feature and is redundant, as indicated earlier. Id. We are persuaded the rejection is improper because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to show the combined teachings of Tucker, Inkpen, and DiSantis teaches or suggests claim 1’s displaying step. In particular, we find insufficient evidence that the applied DiSantis’s disclosure of a drilling parameter or a “real time [display of hydro- mechanical specific energy], manipulated variables, process variables and other information as such personnel may require” (Final Act. 6-7 (citing DiSantis ¶¶ 15, 28)) teaches or suggests displaying a graphical representation of a working area on the display by indicating one or more holes planned in the predefined drilling plan that can be drilled from a current position of the rock drilling rig without moving the rock drilling rig as required by the disputed limitation of claim 1. Appeal 2020-005526 Application 13/911,182 7 During examination, the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). In particular, “[t]he Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.” In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); see also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The disputed limitation at issue requires a display indicating planned holes that can be drilled from a current position of a rock drilling rig without moving the rig. In particular, Appellant’s Specification describes an advantage of the invention as follows. An advantage of the method and arrangement of the invention is that the use of the actual current input parameters gives a considerably more accurate definition of a working area to be displayed to an operator than that achieved by using a fixed working area approximation based on predefined parameters presented around a rock drilling rig. Thus, the operator can more accurately evaluate, whether a hole can be drilled without moving the drilling rig or not, for example. Spec. p. 3, ll. 19-24 (emphasis added). Appeal 2020-005526 Application 13/911,182 8 The portions of DiSantis relied upon by the Examiner for teaching the subject disputed limitation disclose (i) obtaining real-time data to determine a various energy requirements (DiSantis ¶ 15) and (ii) a graphical user interface displaying variable and other information (DiSantis ¶ 28.) However, we are unable to identify any disclosure teaching a display of planned holes that can be drilled from a current position of a rock drilling rig without moving the rig. Inkpen discloses the guidance and navigation of tools in which a target location may be hidden from view of the user. Inkpen ¶¶ 2, 3. Again, we are unable to ascertain a display of planned holes that can be drilled without moving an apparatus manipulating a drill (e.g., a drill rig), much less the drill itself. Therefore, we find insufficient evidence that the combined teachings or Tucker, DiSantis, and Inkpen render the disputed limitation obvious. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or the rejection of independent claims 7 and 13 which include language similar to the argued limitation of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 which stand with their respective base claim. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Tucker, Inkpen, and DiSantis. Appeal 2020-005526 Application 13/911,182 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13 103 Tucker, Inkpen, DiSantis 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13 REVERSED