US 10359265

I'll first check for any current litigation or docket references, then summarize the patent from the authoritative full text provided.

Search results / docket check

I ran targeted searches for "10359265" and for CAFC 2026 activity involving this patent.

• What I found: Only the patent itself (Google Patents, Justia, Patents-Review) and unrelated hits — including a German patent DE10359265B4 (water barrier/cladding panel module) that shares the digit string but is a completely different right, and PTAB/IPR notices for unrelated patents. I did not auto-correct or conflate these; DE10359265B4 is not US10359265.
• CAFC 2026 dockets / litigation: No Federal Circuit appeal, district-court case, or PTAB proceeding involving US 10,359,265 was found. Caveat: my tools are general web search, not a direct PACER/CAFC/USPTO docket API, so this is "not found," not a certified negative clearance.
• The only post-grant events in the record are routine: a 4th-year maintenance-fee payment (2023-01-18) and prior assignments. Legal status shown as Active, adjusted expiration 2036-09-03.

---

Bibliographic summary (US 10,359,265 B2)

Abstract (as issued): "A blasting system including a plurality of detonators located in respective boreholes, which is implemented through the use of a remotely controlled vehicle used for survey purposes and for locating geographical positions of the boreholes."

---

Plain-language overview of the claims

Independent claim 1 (the only independent claim)

A method of implementing a blasting system (detonators + boreholes at a blast site) in which at least one remotely controlled aerial vehicle (AV) is used to:

1. Survey the blast site to determine geographical parameters of the site;
2. In response to that survey, use custom-written software executed remotely or onboard the AV to determine positional data for each of a plurality of intended boreholes;
3. Use the positional data to identify a physical position of each intended borehole; and
4. Once the positional data is determined, use the AV itself to mark the physical position of each intended borehole on the site.

Two features are central: (a) the vehicle is an aerial vehicle (claims 1–14 are all AV-rooted), and (b) the AV both derives the borehole positions and physically marks them. Note the claim says "intended boreholes" — the marking occurs pre-drilling.

Dependent claims 2–14 (all depend from claim 1, directly or indirectly)

• 2 — Marker is a deposited transponder that can be interrogated to identify the marker location.
• 3 — AV makes an indelible ground mark (e.g., paint/dye) later used to position a drilling machine.
• 4 — After drilling, an AV re-surveys the site to determine geographical data of the actual boreholes (validation against plan).
• 5 — An RCV controls deployment of conductors between boreholes and to a blasting machine.
• 6 (dep. 5) — The RCV is a terrestrial vehicle (TV) that deploys the conductors itself.
• 7 — A TV delivers explosive material to each borehole.
• 8 — AV sensors detect whether each borehole has been loaded with explosive.
• 9 — AV acts as a repeater station between a blasting machine and each detonator.
• 10 (dep. 9) — The repeated information includes integrity-checking data/commands, borehole status, timing and identity data, and firing signals.
• 11 — AV transmitter broadcasts a signal induced into surface wires, relayed to borehole detonators.
• 12 — Surface receiver/transmitter transducers coupled by optical-fibre links to detonators; the AV communicates uniquely and directly with each as it overflies the site.
• 13 — Conductive material (e.g., conductive explosive) in each borehole relays signals between surface and detonator; firing is by a single signal broadcast from the AV to all boreholes simultaneously.
• 14 — AV performs remedial action for a faulty detonator or a faulty connection (detonator-to-detonator or detonator-to-blasting machine).

Key takeaway on claim scope

Because all 14 claims require an aerial vehicle, the asserted scope is narrower than the specification's disclosure, which repeatedly contemplates terrestrial vehicles (TVs) alone or TVs in combination with AVs. The specification's TV-only embodiments (e.g., TV deploying conductors or removing a faulty detonator) are not captured by the issued claims.

---

Uncertainty notes

• The full patent text above (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-24) is treated as authoritative and matches the Justia and Patents-Review renderings returned in search.
• I have no authoritative information on any litigation, license, or validity challenge involving this patent; my searches returned none, which is not a definitive negative.
• Inventor name spellings are given as they appear in the record (e.g., "Andre Koekemoer," "Riaan Van Wyk"); I have not normalized or corrected them.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10359265/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/10359265 ; https://www.patents-review.com/a/20180299240-remotely-controlled-vehicle-blasting-operation.html

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10359265.

These initial results are unrelated. Let me search more targeted litigation sources.

Litigation Search Results for US Patent 10,359,265

Bottom line: I found no known litigation — in the U.S. or elsewhere — asserting or challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,359,265.

What I searched

I ran targeted queries against public sources covering patent litigation (Unified Patents Portal, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia, CAFC opinion pages, and general web). The patent-specific searches for the exact number 10359265 returned no case hits. The results that did come back were for different patents (e.g., the "'265 Patent" hits were for U.S. 10,258,265 (Masimo v. Apple), a Reynolds/Altria tobacco patent, and others), which I excluded as non-matching, per your instruction not to return similar numbers.

Findings

1. No U.S. litigation identified.
I could not locate any complaint, docket, ITC investigation, or PTAB/IPR involving U.S. 10,359,265. This is consistent with its profile:

• Assignee: Detnet South Africa (Pty) Ltd — an operating explosives/detonator supplier, not a patent-assertion entity (NPE).
• Google Patents "Cited By" data lists only later patents citing it (e.g., EP3825514A1 and related Sandvik rock-drilling-charging family; US12024997B2 to Dyno Nobel), not litigation.
• Its USPTO record shows only routine prosecution events and a 4th-year maintenance-fee payment (Jan 18, 2023) — no reissue, no IPR, no adversarial proceeding.

2. One related non-U.S. proceeding involving the patent owner (not the U.S. patent, not litigation):

• Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Ltd and DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Orica International Pte Ltd, [2025] APO 8 (IP Australia, Australian Patent Office, 17 March 2025).
  This is an Australian patent opposition before IP Australia, not a U.S. court case, and I could not confirm from the sources that U.S. 10,359,265 was the patent at issue (the opposition would concern the corresponding Australian application/patent). It involves the same corporate family (DetNet/Dyno Nobel vs. Orica) in blasting technology, so it is worth flagging as related-party activity, but it should not be reported as litigation of U.S. 10,359,265.

Caveats and limitations

• I was unable to complete a fully exhaustive, docket-level search (e.g., comprehensive PACER/Unified Patents Portal queries for this exact number) before exhausting my search budget. My conclusion rests on the searches I was able to run and on the patent's public record.
• Federal district court complaints are not always discoverable via web search, and very recent (2025–2026) filings may not yet be indexed. A definitive negative should be verified against PACER (all district courts), the ITC EDIS, CourtListener/RECAP, and the Unified Patents litigation database (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation) using the exact number.
• I did not find any search result contradicting the patent's bibliographic data; nothing in the results suggested a case I should be reporting. I am not aware of litigation with the high confidence required, so I state explicitly: no litigation is known to me.

Suggested next verification steps

1. Unified Patents Portal → Patents → search 10359265 → "Litigation" tab.
2. CourtListener/RECAP docket search for the exact string "10,359,265" and "10359265."
3. USPTO Patent Assignment/Alerts and PACER "Patent/Trademark" case search for assignee Detnet South Africa.

If you'd like, I can attempt a more exhaustive follow-up if additional search steps are available.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before drafting.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,359,265: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web searches surfaced no PTAB proceeding, no Federal Circuit appeal, and no defensive-aggregator challenge that ODP might have missed. There is nothing to break down by status — no active trials, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained on the merits by the Board, no settlements, no institution denials. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore the opposite of "the patent has been hardened by surviving IPRs": the patent has never been tested at the PTAB at all. That cuts both ways for a defendant — there is no estoppel to exploit, no FWD to cite, and no free roadmap of invalidity grounds, but also no evidence that the patent owner has ever had to defend these claims in a contested AIA forum.

---

Proceedings

None to report. No entries are available for this section because the canonical source (USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file") is empty and no supplemental proceeding number could be located in public sources. I will not manufacture a proceeding number, petitioner, or paper to fill this section.

For completeness, the following was checked and is not a PTAB proceeding against this patent:

• The Google Patents "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" tables for US 10,359,265 list later-filed art (e.g., Sandvik EP3825514A1/US11965726B2; Dyno Nobel US12024997B2; Detnet's own US12140410B2). These are forward citations, not AIA trials.
• The "Citations (11)" table is the examiner/IDP prior art cited during prosecution of the '265 patent, not an IPR ground set.
• I found no IPR2020–IPR2026 number naming Detnet South Africa (Pty) Ltd as patent owner or 10,359,265 as the challenged patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 14 claims are UNTESTED before the PTAB. Claims 1–14 of US 10,359,265 remain exactly as issued on 2019-07-23 — none canceled, none narrowed by a certificate of correction or reexamination that I could locate, none confirmed by a Final Written Decision. Independent claim 1 recites a method of implementing a blasting system using an aerial vehicle (AV) to survey a blast site, determine positional data for intended boreholes via custom-written software, and then mark the physical position of each intended borehole. Claims 2–14 are dependent and add, among other things, transponder markers (claim 2), indelible ground marks (3), post-drilling resurvey (4), conductor deployment by RCV (5–6), terrestrial-vehicle explosive delivery (7), AV sensors for verifying explosive loading (8), AV-as-repeater (9–10), broadcast induction into surface wires (11), optical-fibre transducers interrogated by an overflying AV (12), conductive borehole material fired by simultaneous AV broadcast (13), and AV-implemented remedial action on faulty detonators/connections (14).

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR petition has ever been filed, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has never attached for anyone. A defendant is free to raise any § 102 or § 103 ground in district court or the PTAB, including art that would have been foreseeable in a petition. There is no petitioner privy chain to analyze and no "reasonably could have raised" bar constraining any party. Conversely, a defendant gets no benefit from an existing adjudication — every invalidity ground, including ones that look strong (e.g., the pre-2014 drone/survey art and the Examiner-cited references such as Schlumberger WO2015073687A1, "Unmanned aerial vehicles for well monitoring and control," which is already of record), must be proved from scratch. Note that art already before the Examiner during prosecution may face a harder time in an IPR under the Board's treatment of previously-considered references.

Pattern signals. There is no repeated-petitioner pattern because there is no petitioner. There is no evidence of Detnet South Africa aggressively defending this particular patent at the PTAB, and no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain. The real contested activity in this technology space is outside the US: Detnet South Africa participated as an opponent (with Dyno Nobel) in Australian opposition proceedings against an Orica application — Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Limited and DetNet South Africa (Pty) Limited v Orica International Pte Ltd [2025] APO 8 (2025-03-17), decided by Dr Leslie F. McCaffery — and Detnet is a party to the parallel Australian Federal Court litigation (Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Orica Explosives Technology Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 767, appealed). Those proceedings involve Orica's wireless-detonator patents, not the '265 patent, and do not create any US estoppel or preclusion. Counterpart protection for the '265 family exists as EP3218667B1, AU2015346052B2, CA2966518C, BR112017009913B1, and MX373082B, but I found no EPO opposition or other foreign validity ruling directed at the '265 subject matter.

---

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists — say so plainly, and treat the absence as a signal, not a shield. The lack of IPRs is unusual for a decade-old, commercially relevant patent in a litigious field (mining/explosives). It most plausibly means the patent has not yet been asserted against a party willing to fund an AIA petition, or that it is being held as portfolio/background rather than as a front-line assertion vehicle. Either way, there is no FWD to cite, no canceled claim to point at, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to borrow. Do not tell a client that claims are invalidated — they are not.
• If you have been served with a demand or complaint citing claim 1, the absence of PTAB history means the full invalidity attack is still on the table. The highest-value first step is a prior-art search centered on pre-2014-11-11 (the ZA priority date) drone/UAV site-survey and automated borehole-marking art, plus the references already of record (WO2015073687A1 to Schlumberger; US20100225155A1 to Spathis; WO2003042626A1 to Sandvik Tamrock). Consider whether an IPR is worth filing — with no prior estoppel and no pending FWD, you would be first to the Board, but you would also be building the record that a later defendant reaps.
• Watch for a first petition. If a competitor does file, the statutory clock matters: institution decision within ~6 months of the petition's filing date, and a Final Written Decision within 12 months of institution under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11). That FWD, if it cancels any of claims 1–14, becomes the most useful document in the world for every other defendant.
• Monitor the foreign front for ammo. The APO 2025-03-17 decision and the parallel FCA appeal (NSD1484/2026) contain detailed expert and prior-art treatment of wireless initiator/detonator art in the same commercial space. Nothing there binds the PTAB, but the prior-art references marshalled (e.g., US 7,778,006 to Stewart; US 2014/0053750 to Lownds; EP 86304992A2 to Abouav) are candidates for a US § 102/§ 103 attack on the broader Detnet portfolio, including the '265 patent's dependent claims.
• Verify fresh before relying. I could not confirm the absence of a very recently filed (post-ingest) petition through live sources. Before filing anything, re-run the ODP proceedings query for US 10,359,265 and check the PTAB E2E docket and the patent's file wrapper for any newly filed trial, reissue, or ex parte reexamination request.

Confidence note: I have high confidence that no AIA trial proceeding appears in the structured ODP data provided in this prompt. My confidence that no petition of any kind has ever been filed is moderate, not high, because I could not exhaustively query the PTAB E2E docket directly and my web searches returned only foreign (Australian) proceedings and unrelated patents. Treat the zero count as the correct working assumption but confirm against PTAB E2E before relying on it in a filing.

I'll verify the assignment record against public sources before finalizing.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,359,265 B2

Primary record reviewed: Google Patents Legal Events for US10359265B2 (exact copy of the USPTO assignment record metadata), cross-checked against AECI Ltd annual financial statements, the DetNet vendor record, and IP Australia decision [2025] APO 8.
Limitation up front: I could not retrieve the US Assignment Center record's correspondent-of-record field (my search budget was exhausted before I could pull the reel-level document image). Reel/frame, conveyance, assignors, assignee, and dates are as recorded; the correspondent is stated as not captured, not inferred. Do not treat any attorney name below as sourced.

---

Inventors

Evidence for employer. The six inventors are the assignors on reel 043263/0725 and conveyed to DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd, which is the classic employment/invention-assignment posture for a company that is simultaneously the applicant of record (PCT/ZA2015/050018 and US 15/525,996). Direct corroboration exists for one inventor only: in Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Pty Ltd and DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Orica International Pte Ltd, [2025] APO 8 (IP Australia, 17 Mar 2025), the primary expert for Dyno Nobel is identified as Riaan van Wyk, who "between 2002 and 2018 was employed in product development roles by DetNet," with a B.Eng. Electronics and B.Eng.(Hons) Computer Engineering background and experience in "design, testing and commercialisation of initiation systems" (AustLII text).

Caveat on the Van Wyk identification: name + employer + technical profile match is strong circumstantial support, but I have not confirmed it is the same natural person as the named inventor. Treat as "apparent," not established.

Unusual patterns — one flagged, one not:

• NOT a departing-inventor / fire-sale pattern. All six inventors assigned to the same operating employer, and none is recorded as retaining or transferring rights elsewhere. The assignment was executed 2017-02-23 to 2017-02-27, i.e. ~27 months after the 2014-11-11 priority date — which is simply the PCT national-stage timing (US entry under §371; US app. 15/525,996), not a distress signal.
• FLAGGED — adverse-side use of an inventor. An apparent co-inventor of this patent appears as the lead technical expert for Dyno Nobel — DetNet's 50/50 joint-venture partner — in an opposition against DetNet concerning related blasting/initiation subject matter. That is intra-family adverse positioning around the same technology space, and it is worth tracking. It is not an ownership event for US 10,359,265.

---

Original assignee

DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd (also rendered "DetNet South Africa (Proprietary) Ltd"), South Africa. Original assignee on the issued patent and the current assignee — no post-issuance transfer is recorded (see timeline).

• Does it ship products embodying the claims? Yes. DetNet designs and manufactures electronic initiation systems for mining, quarrying and construction; reported products include DigiShot Ranger, CE4 Commander, BlastWeb II, CyberDet (wireless detonator) and the ViewShot 3D blast design tool, with claims of tens of millions of detonators shipped and 80+ patents (Mining Software Reviews vendor profile; Dyno Nobel product brochure identifying DriftShot as a registered trademark of DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd). Claim 9/11/12/13 subject matter (AV repeater, broadcast-induced signal, transducer/fibre links, conductive-path firing) maps onto this electronic-initiation product line, and claim 1's survey-and-mark methodology maps onto DetNet's blast-establishment tooling.
• Primary line of business: electronic detonator / blast initiation hardware and companion blast-planning software. DetNet is not a licensor-only entity.
• Ownership structure: a 50:50 joint arrangement between AECI Limited (distributed via its subsidiary AEL Intelligent Blasting) and Dyno Nobel, a subsidiary of Incitec Pivot Ltd (now IPL/Incitec Pivot group). AECI's 2019 annual financial statements classify DetNet as a joint operation, proportionately consolidated, with AECI ownership of 50% for both 2018 and 2019 (AECI 2019 full AFS, p.70). The JV originated in the 2003 AECI/Dyno Nobel heads of agreement (Sharenet SENS, 2003-12-10).
• Current status: operating. No bankruptcy, receivership, or insolvency of DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd is indicated. One corporate-family event exists and is noted for completeness: DetNet International Ltd (Ireland) — liquidation proceedings finalised in 2016 (AECI Integrated Report and AFS 2016, note 6, p.160). That entity is not an assignee of this US patent, and no sale or transfer of US 10,359,265 arose from it.

---

Assignment timeline

There is exactly ONE recorded assignment in the entire chain. Everything else in the USPTO legal-events history is prosecution/administrative (STPP/STCF) or a maintenance-fee payment (MAFP) — no security agreement, no license recordation, no change of name, no release, no correction, no merger.

2017-02-23 → 2017-02-27 (executed; signing dates per recorded text) / recorded 2017-08-10 — Reel 043263 / Frame 0725

• Conveyance: Assignment (recorded free text: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
• Assignor: Van Wyk, Riaan; Venter, Francois; Watt, Trevor; Birkin, Chris; Koekemoer, Andre; Muller, Elmar Lennox (all six named inventors)
• Assignee: DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd, South Africa
• Correspondent: not captured in the sources I could reach. No attorney/firm name can be cited, and because this is the only link in the chain, the repeat-correspondent test cannot be run even in principle. Flagging as a data gap rather than a null result.
• Context: Routine employment/invention assignment taken in connection with entry of PCT/ZA2015/050018 into the US national stage (§371) — not a fire-sale, not a reorg, not a transfer to an asserter.

Subsequent record (no ownership change):

• 2019-07-23 — patent granted to DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd (assignee unchanged).
• 2023-01-18 — 4th-year maintenance fee paid, large entity (legal-event code MAFP). Fee paid by the original assignee, which is affirmative evidence that DetNet still held the patent in 2023.
• 2036-09-03 — adjusted expiration (with PTA).

If Assignment Center's correspondent field shows any post-2023 recording not reflected in the Google Patents legal-events copy, that would be a genuine update — but on the record I have, there is nothing after 2017-08-10.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10359265
    2014 : South African priority filed by DetNet
    2015 : PCT application filed
    2017 : Inventors assign to DetNet reel 043263 frame 0725
    2019 : US patent issued
    2023 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid
    2036 : Adjusted expiration

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The sole transfer (reel 043263/0725, recorded 2017-08-10) runs from six individual inventors to an operating manufacturer, not to a licensing LLC. The assignee name contains no "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix, and DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd demonstrably sells products (DigiShot, CyberDet, DriftShot, BlastWeb II) and is a proportionately consolidated 50/50 joint operation of two listed industrial groups (AECI Ltd; Incitec Pivot/Dyno Nobel). No single-member Delaware/Texas LLC anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee in the chain matches Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Erich Spangenberg entity. The complete ownership set is {six inventors} → {DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd}. Consistent with the prior sections' finding that no RPX/Unified asserter-directory listing exists for this patent.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT TESTABLE. Only one assignment exists, so recurrence cannot occur within this chain. The correspondent field itself was not retrieved from Assignment Center. I decline to name any attorney without the record. (This is the one item on the checklist that a fresh Assignment Center pull with the reel image could definitively close.)

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. One recorded conveyance in the ~11 years since the 2014 priority date; zero chained LLC hops; zero transfers within any 24-month window. The longest gap between the priority filing and the only assignment (~27 months) is explained by PCT §371 national-stage timing.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No US infringement suit, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding involving US 10,359,265 was found (see prior litigation section). The lone assignment (executed 2017-02-23/27, recorded 2017-08-10) predates issuance (2019-07-23) by roughly two years and predates any conceivable suit, so it cannot be a venue/standing-engineered transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT for the assignee, with one family-adjacent note. DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd is operating; its 4th-year maintenance fee was paid in 2023 and its JV parents continue to disclose it as a live joint operation. The only insolvency event in the corporate family is the liquidation of DetNet International Ltd (Ireland), finalised 2016 (AECI 2016 AFS, p.160) — an entity that is not an assignee of this patent and whose liquidation produced no recorded conveyance of this US right.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. There is no transfer of this patent to a third-party NPE to assert on DetNet's behalf. The only adversarial activity is DetNet asserting its own rights in its own name within its corporate family: Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Pty Ltd and DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Orica International Pte Ltd, [2025] APO 8 (IP Australia, 17 Mar 2025), an Australian patent opposition against competitor Orica — a genuine operating-company-versus-operating-company dispute, not privateering. Note the caveat carried over from the prior section: I could not confirm that the Australian right at issue corresponds to US 10,359,265, and this proceeding must not be reported as litigation of the US patent.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN entity appears anywhere in the chain. The patent has not been neutralized by defensive aggregation; it remains with its operating manufacturer-owner.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — applying the rubric's definition literally: the Assignment Center record contains only the original assignment (reel 043263/0725, executed 2017-02-23 to 2017-02-27, recorded 2017-08-10, inventors → DetNet South Africa (Pty) Ltd), with no post-issuance conveyance of any kind, and therefore no ownership chain to characterize as an NPE chain.

Justification: all eight NPE/troll signals resolve to "not present" on the only transfer that exists, and the assignee is verifiably an operating manufacturer (DigiShot/CyberDet/DriftShot product line; 50/50 AECI–Incitec Pivot joint operation per AECI's consolidated statements) that still owned the patent as of the 2023-01-18 maintenance-fee payment. The verdict is "insufficient data" rather than "operating-company assertion" solely because no US assertion of this patent was found — the affirmative ownership evidence points away from any NPE finding. Two residual gaps prevent a clean close: the correspondent-of-record field (not retrieved) and the possibility of an unindexed post-2023 recording.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center or Assignment Search — search patent number 10359265, and pull the reel 043263/0725 document image to capture the correspondent; cross-check Google Patents legal events.

---

Sourcing note

Findings above rest on: the authoritative patent text supplied (including the Google Patents legal-events block, which reproduces reel/frame and the assignment free text); AECI Ltd annual financial statements (2014, 2016, 2019) for DetNet's ownership and the DetNet International liquidation; the Dyno Nobel/DetNet product materials; the Mining Software Reviews DetNet vendor profile; and IP Australia [2025] APO 8 via AustLII. Where a fact is inferred rather than recorded (inventor employers, the Van Wyk identity match), it is labeled as such. No assignment has been fabricated, and the correspondent field is reported as missing rather than guessed.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 10,359,265, focusing on the 11 references listed on the patent's face. Let me pull details on the most substantive ones.

Let me pull the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,359,265 B2 ("Use of a remotely controlled vehicle in a blasting operation")

Source and method note

I retrieved the USPTO front-page citation data via the patent's Google Patents rendering (which mirrors the USPTO "References Cited" field) and cross-checked individual references against Google Patents / EPO / PubChem records. I did not have access to a direct USPTO Patent Full-Text (PatFT) or PatentCenter API query in this session, so the list below is the patent's own cited-art list, not a fresh examiner-style search. Two caveats up front:

• Critical date. US 10,359,265's earliest priority date is 2014-11-11 (ZA 2014/08222); the PCT was filed 2015-10-29. Because all relevant filings are after 2013-03-16, AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. So a reference is § 102(a)(1) art only if publicly available before 2014-11-11, or § 102(a)(2) art (US patent/application publication) if its effective filing date predates 2014-11-11.
• Anticipation is a strict test. A single reference anticipates a claim under § 102 only if it discloses every element, arranged as claimed. As shown below, none of the eleven cited references discloses the full claim-1 combination (an aerial vehicle that surveys the blast site, uses custom software to derive positional data for plural intended boreholes, and itself marks the physical position of each). Accordingly, the honest characterization is: these are § 103 obviousness/background references, not § 102 anticipation references. I flag below the few that get closest and the two that are not § 102 art at all.

---

The eleven cited references

---

Timing caveats worth flagging explicitly

• US 2018/0224262 A1 (Sanmina, #11) postdates the critical date. It appears in the "Citations" field but cannot serve as § 102 prior art against US 10,359,265. If it was relied on during prosecution, that reliance would have been misplaced (or it is a cited-by / later-family entry rather than an examiner citation). Treat it as non-art.
• EP 2 977 318 A1 (ATM S.r.l., #10) has a priority date (2014-07-23) before the critical date, but as an EP publication it is only § 102(a)(1) art from its publication date (2016-01-27), which is after the critical date. It becomes § 102(a)(2)-type art only if a US counterpart application was filed with that effective date. The citation as given (an EP document) is therefore not itself § 102 art against the '265 patent absent a US counterpart.
• WO 2015/073687 A1 (Schlumberger, #9) is effective prior art: an English-language PCT designating the US filed 2013-11-13 gives it a § 102(a)(2) date of 2013-11-13, comfortably before the critical date.

---

Claim-by-claim § 102 mapping (honest assessment)

Because § 102 requires all elements in one reference, the mapping is essentially negative:

• Claim 1 (independent): Not anticipated by any cited reference. No single reference discloses an aerial vehicle that (i) surveys the blast site, (ii) uses custom software to derive positional data for a plurality of intended boreholes, and (iii) marks the physical positions of those intended boreholes. Closest single references are Bannister (#1, AV + charge placement, but no survey/mark) and Schlumberger (#9, AV survey/relay, but no blasting, no marking). Anticipation would require improperly combining them → that is a § 103 argument, not § 102.
• Claims 2–3: Spathis (#7) discloses deposited/detectable markers, but post-blast and for ore mapping — not the claim-2 interrogable transponder identifying a pre-drill borehole location, nor claim 3's indelible mark for positioning a drill. § 103 reference only.
• Claim 4 (post-drill AV re-survey): No cited reference discloses re-surveying to validate drilled borehole positions. § 103/background only.
• Claim 5–6 (RCV/TV deploying conductors): No cited reference discloses conductor deployment by a vehicle (terrestrial or otherwise).
• Claim 7 (TV delivering explosive): Sandvik (#5) shows automated explosive charging, but not via a terrestrial vehicle. § 103 reference for the charging concept.
• Claim 8 (sensors detect borehole loaded): Sandvik (#5) is the closest (charge-insertion sensing), but no AV-based detection. § 103 reference.
• Claims 9–11 (AV as repeater; broadcast induced into surface wires): Schlumberger (#9) is the strongest reference (UAV as wireless relay between a control station and downhole devices). Still not full anticipation, since it lacks the blast-site/detonator/wire-induction context. This is the most likely § 103 combination target in the set.
• Claim 12 (surface transceiver transducers + optical fibre, AV communicates uniquely): No cited reference discloses the optical-fibre transducer-per-detonator architecture.
• Claim 13 (conductive explosive; single broadcast fires all boreholes): No cited reference discloses conductive explosive material used as a signal path with a single simultaneous firing broadcast.
• Claim 14 (AV remedial action for faulty detonator/connection): No cited reference discloses automated fault remediation.

Bottom line: None of the eleven references anticipates any claim of US 10,359,265 under § 102. They collectively establish the state of the art in (a) aerial vehicles used in/around blasting (Bannister), (b) automated/remote explosive charging (Sandvik), (c) post-blast detectable markers (Spathis), and (d) UAVs as airborne communication/surveillance/relay nodes (Schlumberger). The inventive weight of the '265 claims sits in the specific, integrated combination of aerial site survey → software-derived borehole layout → AV physical marking of intended borehole positions, which no cited reference shows or suggests.

---

Non-patent citations (prosecution documents, not prior art)

• International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/ZA2015/050018, dated 2016-11-07 (14 pages).
• International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT/ZA2015/050018, dated 2016-06-30 (10 pages).

These are the ISR/IPRP for the parent PCT, not § 102 art.

---

Limitations

• I could not run a fresh, exhaustive USPTO-classified prior-art search (e.g., full F42D/F42D1/08 text search) within this session; the analysis is confined to the patent's own cited-art list plus targeted verification of each reference.
• For the two references where timing matters (#10 EP 2 977 318 and #11 US 2018/0224262), a US-counterpart check would be needed to definitively fix their § 102(a)(2) status; I flagged my reasoning rather than asserting it.
• Any § 103 (obviousness) conclusion is a hypothetical prosecution position, not a legal determination.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10359265/en (citation list); https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015073687A1 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100225155 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2003042626A1 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US2717656 ; http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP2977318B1 ; https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/EP-[2977318](/patent/2977318)-A1 .

I'll ground the analysis by pulling what the cited references actually disclose, since the "Prior Art" section of this page gives only bibliographic data.

Good — I now have substantive disclosure for the two most important references. Let me pull the remaining cited references.

Now the drone/explosive-charge and avalanche references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,359,265 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Prepared: 2026‑04‑26 · Basis: the authoritative full text at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10359265](/patent/US10359265)/en plus the "Prior Art" (Citations) section of that record, with the cited references' own disclosures retrieved and quoted where available.

Cross‑reference note: This builds on the two prior sections (patent summary/bibliography and litigation summary) and does not repeat them. One contradiction to flag up front: the earlier sections treated the listed citations as "prior art" wholesale. §103 analysis cannot do that. Several of the 11 cited documents post‑date the critical date and are therefore not available as prior art. This is developed in Part 2 and materially changes the grounds.

---

1. Legal framework and the critical date

The only date that matters for reference qualification is 2014‑11‑11. Under AIA §102(a)(1) a reference must have been publicly available before that date; under §102(a)(2) it must be a U.S. patent, a U.S. application publication, or a PCT application "deemed published under §122(b)" (per 35 U.S.C. §374) that was effectively filed before that date.

---

2. Qualification of the Cited Prior Art (this is where the analysis first bites)

Non‑patent citations (the ISR/Written Opinion and the IPRP for PCT/ZA2015/050018) are prosecution documents, not prior art. They are useful only as evidence of what the examiner considered.

Consequence: Grounds of rejection must be built on references 1–8 (all solid) and, with the §102(a)(2) condition satisfied, reference 9. References 10 and 11 cannot be used; the commercially attractive "drone that carries explosive charges" reference (EP 2977318 A1) is unavailable as art against this patent. (A flagged lead, not established: Schlumberger's related US 9,405,533 B2 "Unmanned vehicle systems and methods of operation," per https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/35/cc/91/d4d389f238b516/US9405533.pdf, carries a provisional priority of 2014‑01‑07 — potentially qualifying §102(a)(2)/§102(e) art — but I have not verified its relationship to WO 2015/073687 A1 or its non‑provisional filing date.)

---

3. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA is a mining/blasting engineer (or an explosives‑services engineer working in open‑pit or underground blasting) with 2–5 years' experience, who is familiar with:

• blast design and hole layout; drill‑and‑blast workflow (survey → mark → drill → charge → connect → fire);
• blast‑site survey practice and GNSS/RTK positional surveying of boreholes;
• the safety imperative to remove personnel from the charged bench (recited in the '265 background itself); and
• the state of commercial autonomous/remote survey platforms as of late 2014.

Alternatively (and equally validly) a PHOSITA may be a robotics/UAV field‑operations engineer with working knowledge of blasting, because the claimed solution is essentially a matter of marrying a known aerial‑survey platform to a known blasting workflow.

Common knowledge at Nov 2014 (supporting, not substitutes for art): UAV photogrammetry/RTK survey of open‑pit benches for drill‑pattern as‑built reconciliation was commercially established well before 2014; blast design software (e.g., Orica SHOTPlus, Hexagon/Maptek, DetNet's own products) routinely computes and stores per‑hole coordinates; and marking a design hole position on the ground (paint, dye, pegs, flags, transponder beacons) was the ordinary first field step of every drill pattern.

---

4. What the cited references actually disclose (grounded)

US 2,717,656 A — Bannister (1955). Not merely "seismograph art." Bannister expressly teaches an aerial vehicle (preferably a helicopter) hovering over a predetermined ground position in a blasting operation, carrying an explosive charge to an accurate position and detonating it by remote control, expressly to obtain "economy of time, man power and equipment" versus moving ground crews and drilling equipment into the field. His claim 1 recites "an air‑borne vehicle capable of hovering over a predetermined ground position, an elongated earth stabbing and explosive‑placing tool…" (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/09/61/d4/0910ef2da642c0/US2717656.pdf). This is the earliest, and structurally the most important, teaching that an airborne platform can place blasting hardware at a precisely determined ground position — for the express purpose of reducing manpower at a blast site.

WO 2015/073687 A1 — Schlumberger. Teaches UAVs (drone, fixed‑wing, helicopter, multi‑rotor, balloon, dirigible, blimp, airship) for surveying/monitoring and controlling a well site; UAV is "autonomous in the sense of having no human aboard"; includes an onboard airborne controller/transceiver, sensor payloads (pressure, temperature, vibration, strain, proximity sensors, cameras), waypoint‑based automated tasks, and "application specific program" processing. Fig. 8 is expressly "an example method of wireless communication with a well system via one or more UAVs" and Fig. 9 "an example method of well surveillance and servicing via an UAV," with the UAV relaying data between the well site and a remote data hub (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015073687A1). The stated motivation is that many sites "are remotely located" so a UAV is deployed to avoid manned attendance.

US 2010/0225155 A1 — Spathis (Orica) / US 8,398,175 B2. Mining art, and directly about physical markers associated with blast‑hole locations. It teaches that markers are set at spaced pre‑blast locations, preferably in common blast holes with the charges; that markers may be "paints or powders", "locally coloured material such as coloured sand or concrete," "RFID tags both active and passive," "sufficiently robust electromagnetic beacons, either active or passive," and "radio transmitters placed within witness boreholes"; and that "the mapping may be carried out remotely, for example from an aircraft" (https://patents.justia.com/patent/20100225155 and https://www.patents-review.com/a/20100225155-post-blast-markers-mining-mineral-deposits.html). This supplies the "marking + interrogatable transponder/beacon at a blast‑hole location" elements of claims 2 and 3.

WO 2003042626 A1 — Sandvik Tamrock. Rock‑blasting art: a charging device that automatically inserts charges (with fuses/detonators) into drill holes on a rock‑drilling apparatus, expressly "well suited for unmanned use" with "remote control from the working platform without that charges have to be handled manually during blasting" (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2003042626A1/en). This supports claim 7 (automated delivery of explosive to each borehole) and the "blast‑site machinery" context of claim 1.

DE 102012020068 A1 — EADS. Positions explosive charges at predetermined fault lines on a large body (iceberg) — i.e., planned charge placement at predetermined geographical positions, relevant only as background.

WO 1980001511 A1 — Schroecksnadel; DE 3729140 A1 — Hense; DE 19502185 A1 — Rheinmetall; US 2008/0083320 A1 — Chang. Secondary background: controlled firing of explosive charges from a safe distance (avalanche triggering); mechanised underground mining systems; and sensor‑based detection of explosive devices. (Caveat: I have only titles/assignees/dates for these four; I did not retrieve full texts, so I characterise them at title level only — see Part 9.)

---

5. Element‑by‑element comparison — Claim 1

Conclusion on claim 1: No single available reference discloses all of (a)–(e). There is no anticipation. The only genuine distance between the claim and the art is the conjunction of (i) an AV‑performed site survey that derives intended‑borehole coordinates and (ii) AV‑performed physical marking of those coordinates. Both halves are individually known; the question is whether joining them is more than a predictable variation. Under KSR, it is not.

---

6. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 (primary): Bannister US 2,717,656 in view of Schlumberger WO 2015/073687 A1, further in view of Spathis US 2010/0225155 A1

• Bannister supplies (a) a blasting site, (b) an aerial vehicle working over a predetermined ground position at the blast site, and (d) precision determination of the physical position at which a blast element is to be placed — with the express motivation of saving time, manpower and equipment.
• Schlumberger supplies the modern AV platform: an unmanned, autonomous‑capable aerial vehicle carrying a sensor suite, waypoint navigation, an onboard processor running application‑specific software, and data relay — used precisely because the field site is remote and unattended and to avoid stationing personnel.
• Spathis supplies the missing element (e): physical markers placed at blast‑hole positions on a mining bench, in marker forms that read directly onto claims 2 and 3 (paint, coloured material, powdered material, active/passive electromagnetic beacons, RFID tags), and it even contemplates detecting/mapping them "from an aircraft."

Result: Claim 1 (and claims 2 and 3) obvious over Bannister + Schlumberger + Spathis.

Ground 2: Schlumberger WO 2015/073687 A1 in view of Spathis US 2010/0225155 A1 and Sandvik Tamrock WO 2003042626 A1

• Schlumberger gives the AV survey/sensor/processor/relay platform; Spathis gives borehole‑location marking; Sandvik Tamrock gives the automated, remotely‑operated borehole charging context that defines the "blasting system" being implemented and expressly teaches removing manual handling of charges.
• Result: Claim 1 obvious; supports claims 7, 8, 9, 10 (see Part 7).

Ground 3: Bannister in view of Spathis, optionally with Schroecksnadel WO 1980001511 A1

• Bannister = AV + blasting + precision ground positioning; Spathis = markers at blast‑hole positions; Schroecksnadel = controlled remote triggering of explosives to protect personnel. This ground is narrower (it relies on the common‑knowledge step of using an AV as the survey/marking platform) and is best presented as a secondary/backup articulation to Ground 1.

Not a viable ground: EP 2977318 A1 (ATM) or US 2018/0224262 A1 (Sanmina). Both fail the §102 threshold (Part 2). Do not plead these.

---

7. Dependent claims 2–14

Overall claim‑set assessment: Claims 1–4, 7, 8, 9 are the most exposed (each element having a clean, cited, same‑field counterpart). Claims 11–14 are the most defensible, because the cited art does not teach inductive coupling into surface wires, optical‑fibre surface transducers, conductive‑explosive signal relay, or tuned selection/TF, and because claim 14's aerial‑vehicle‑performs‑remediation limitation is not squarely met (both Schlumberger's maintenance tasks and the '265 specification's own remediation are directed to ground‑based execution).

---

8. Motivation to combine — why a PHOSITA would have done this (KSR rationales)

1. Problem‑driven motivation explicitly in the field (KSR; MPEP 2144.04(VI)). The '265 specification itself states the objective is to "reduce the number of personnel required on a blast site" because "blast personnel should not inadvertently be exposed to situations in which injury or death could occur." Bannister's stated object is "economy of time, man power and equipment"; Schlumberger's is to serve "remotely located" sites without manned attendance. All three converge on the same recognized need. Motivation is therefore not hindsight — it is the acknowledged design imperative of the art.

2. Known elements performing known functions, combined to yield predictable results (MPEP 2144.04(I)). An aerial survey platform with position sensors and waypoint software (Schlumberger) + a marking step at a design hole position (Spathis; and routine field practice) = a survey‑and‑mark method. Each element does exactly what it was known to do, and the combination's benefit (fewer people on the bench, more accurate coordinates) is precisely the expected one.

3. Use of a known technique to improve a similar device (MPEP 2144.04(III)). Ground surveying and hole‑position marking for a drill pattern already existed; moving the surveying/marking carriage from a person with a peg and a total station to a hovering AV is a substitution of one known positioning/marking modality for another to obtain a known benefit (removing personnel).

4. Design incentive / market forces (KSR; MPEP 2144.04(VI)). Personnel‑free and semi‑autonomous blasting was an active 2013–2014 commercial direction (automated charging — Sandvik Tamrock; remote/autonomous bench operations). Competitive pressure to minimise manning on charged benches, and the availability of low‑cost UAV platforms and RTK‑grade positioning, supplied a clear incentive.

5. Predictable combination from a finite set of identified options (KSR "obvious to try"). The artisan faces at most a small, enumerable set of platforms (walk‑over surveyor, ground robot/TV, aerial vehicle/AV) and marker types (paint/dye, peg, beacon, transponder). Selecting an aerial vehicle for the survey + mark steps — with the AV's advantage of covering a large site quickly without disturbing charged ground — is the predictable choice, not an inventive leap.

6. Reasonable expectation of success. Bannister demonstrates an AV can be placed at a precisely predetermined ground position at a blast site; Schlumberger demonstrates an AV can hold waypoints and execute an automated task at each. A PHOSITA would have had every reason to expect that an AV directed to a computed hole coordinate could deposit a mark there.

---

9. Weaknesses, counter‑arguments and secondary considerations

Where the obviousness case is weakest:

• The "marking" gap is the whole case. If the record lacks a reference that renders AV‑executed physical marking at a computed borehole position obvious (as opposed to AV survey and ground marking separately), a patentee can argue this is the point of novelty. Ground 1 is designed to close this with Spathis, but Spathis' markers are placed for a different purpose (post‑blast ore/waste boundary tracking, not pre‑drill positioning) and are specifically designed to survive a blast, whereas the claimed mark is designed to guide a drill and be consumed/obliterated by the drilling and blast. That difference in purpose is the patentee's best §103 rebuttal, and it should be met head‑on by arguing the difference is one of intended use only, not structure or the steps performed.
• Analogous art. Schlumberger is oilfield/wellsite monitoring. A patentee will argue it is not "reasonably pertinent" to hard‑rock blasting. Counter: Bannister already places an AV at a blast site in a blasting operation, so the pertinent prior art already includes AV‑plus‑blasting; Schlumberger is relied upon only for the not‑inherent AV survey/navigation/relay implementation, which is reasonably pertinent to any remote field operation and is analogous art at minimum for claims 9, 10 and 12.
• Qualification of Ground 1's key reference. Ground 1 depends on Schlumberger WO 2015/073687 A1, which is available only through §102(a)(2)/§374. If it does not designate the US, or if a challenger cannot establish its effective filing date, Ground 1 collapses to the narrower Ground 3 (Bannister + Spathis + common knowledge), which is materially weaker. This is the single most important factual verification item.

Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4):

• No evidence of record of unexpected results, industry praise, licensing attributable to the claims, long‑felt need that others failed to solve, or copying. No litigation was found (per the earlier litigation section), so no adjudicated nexus arguments exist.
• The patent is in force (4th‑year maintenance fee paid 2023‑01‑18; adjusted expiration 2036‑09‑03), but commercial status alone is not a §103 secondary consideration.

Claim‑construction point. "custom‑written software" is descriptive of provenance rather than structure/function; the operative limitation is software "executed remotely or on board the AV." Any programmed processor on an AV that navigates to computed coordinates reads on this. If the patentee tries to narrow the term, note the specification's own statement that the AV may run "control software of firmware in or on the RCV."

---

10. Conclusion

• No anticipation — no single available reference discloses all elements of claim 1.
• Claims 1–4 are prima facie obvious over Bannister US 2,717,656 + Schlumberger WO 2015/073687 A1 + Spathis US 2010/0225155 A1 (Grounds 1–3), with claims 2 and 3 particularly well supported by Spathis' express disclosure of paint/powder markers and active/passive RFID/electromagnetic beacons at blast‑hole locations.
• Claims 7, 8, 9 (and 10 as a telemetry‑content rider) are prima facie obvious with Sandvik Tamrock WO 2003042626 A1 (automated remote charging) and Schlumberger (UAV sensor payload; UAV relay between site and remote control).
• Claims 5 and 6 are marginal, and claims 11–14 are the least vulnerable, since the cited art does not disclose inductive coupling into surface wires, optical‑fibre surface transducers, conductive‑explosive signal paths, or aerial‑vehicle‑performed remediation.
• EP 2977318 A1 (ATM) and US 2018/0224262 A1 (Sanmina) must not be used — they post‑date the 2014‑11‑11 EFD and fail §102.

Verification required before any of this is relied on

1. Confirm WO 2015/073687 A1 designates the US (→ §102(a)(2)/§374 qualification) and pin down its effective filing date; alternatively locate the qualifying Schlumberger US counterpart (lead: US 9,405,533 B2, provisional priority 2014‑01‑07).
2. Obtain and read the full texts of DE 3729140 A1, DE 19502185 A1, DE 102012020068 A1, WO 1980001511 A1 and US 2008/0083320 A1 — I have only titles/dates for these, so my characterisation of them is provisional and may over‑ or under‑state their disclosure, especially for the conductor‑deployment claims 5–6.
3. Confirm Spathis (US 2010/0225155 A1 / US 8,398,175 B2) claim 1 family and its "mapping … from an aircraft" passage for the AV/marking nexus.
4. Plead the §103 ground with the AIA‑compliance dates table in Part 2 attached, so the record shows why references 10 and 11 are excluded.
5. The Australian Dyno Nobel/DetNet v Orica, [2025] APO 8 opposition flagged in the earlier section concerns the Australian counterpart (AU 2015346052 B2), not the US patent, and is not evidence on US obviousness — but the opponent's cited art there may be a useful lead for additional prior art.

Confidence: High on claim 1's element mapping and on the §102 disqualification of EP 2977318 A1 and US 2018/0224262 A1 (both are pure date questions). Moderate on the overall strength of Ground 1, because it turns on the §102(a)(2) availability of WO 2015/073687 A1 and on the analogy/purpose gap in Spathis — both of which require the verification steps above.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10359265/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015073687A1 · https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2003042626A1/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100225155 · https://patents.justia.com/patent/20100225155 · https://patents.justia.com/patent/[8955916](/patent/8955916) · https://www.patents-review.com/a/20100225155-post-blast-markers-mining-mineral-deposits.html · https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/09/61/d4/0910ef2da642c0/US2717656.pdf · https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/35/cc/91/d4d389f238b516/US9405533.pdf · http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP2977318B1 · https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/EP-2977318-A1