DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-20, as presented in the Reply of 23 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Int’l Pub. No. 2022/194358 A1 to Kotriwala et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kotriwala” (with an international filing date of 16 March 2021 and the US as a designated state), in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0223642 A1 to Prutu (hereinafter referred to as “Prutu”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kotriwala discloses the following limitations:
“A computerized system comprising: one or more computer processors; and computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising: ...” - Kotriwala discloses, “a computer hardware upgrade such as adding further memory and/or a further processor may be desired” (p. 4, ll. 9 and 10), and “The model is typically realized as a form of software for a computer, which can include, or be used together with, a database comprising data which is used by the software” (p. 9, ll. 14-16).
“... accessing, at a material processing engine, conveyance network data of a conveyance network, the conveyance network data comprising a plurality of source nodes, a plurality of sink nodes, and a plurality of network edges of the conveyance network; ...” - Kotriwala discloses, “Typically, a plurality of corresponding processing data and quality data are used for training or retraining the quality prediction model” (p. 7, ll. 6, and 7), “The processing data typically represent and/or include at least one parameter referring to a respective state of the processing device during operation and a material processing part of the processing device, respectively, more particular a respective state during processing the material” (p. 7, ll. 8-11), “a processing station and a processing device, respectively, can receive material, process the material, and dispense the processed material. In another example, a processing station/device can transfer material. In yet another example, a processing station/device can store the material. Combinations of such processes in one processing station are possible” (p. 8, ll. 18-21), “As already explained above, processing stations may include several processing devices for the material that operate in parallel and/or in a chain. For example, ore processing stations may include different processing devices referring to crushing, separating, concentrating and the like arranged in a chain” (p. 12, ll. 27 and 28), and “The process layout model can link (a number of) processing station layouts according to the material flow-paths between the processing stations. The linking of the processing stations according to the material flow-paths between the processing stations can result in a map of the network of material flow-paths. The processing stations can be nodes within the network of material flow-paths” (p. 20, ll. 27-31). Obtaining, by the model, processing data of processing stations that transfer material, wherein the processing stations are linked by material flow-paths, forming a map of a network where the processing stations are nodes, in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
“... based on the conveyance network data, identifying routing logic between the plurality of network edges of the conveyance network, ...” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. Kotriwala also discloses, “Material flow-paths can, in one example, include the type of expected material, the minimum or maximum amounts of material, the expected output material flow in dependence of the respective input material flow, the required time for processing the material or such. The representation of material flow-paths can be suitable for creating a material flow map of material between processing stations. The processing station layout enables a mapping of the material flow to and from each processing station. The mapped material flow typically does not represent the actual flow, i.e. transfer of material. The mapped material flow can be a mapped material flow-path, i.e. representing potential routes for the material, particularly between processing stations” (p. 15, ll. 9-17). Using the material flow-paths and related material flow data to identify and utilize potential routes for material between processing stations, in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
“... based on the routing logic, determining a surge flow routing logic corresponding to each of the plurality of network edges, ...” - Kotriwala discloses, “In particular, the information metamodel can utilize the process layout model for providing a map of the processing stations within the process, and the physical connections between the processing stations, particularly material flow-paths. The process layout model can be utilized for mapping a material flow within the industrial process, particularly all possible material flows” (col. 18, ll. 22-26), “The adaptive simulation model may be used to identify material blobs in the material flow and to export an event log file referring to the material blobs and representing the material flow” (col. 21, ll. 8 and 9), “Attributes of the material blobs can correlate to attributes of the material from which the material blobs are derived. In one example, attributes of a material blob can include information such as material quality, quantity, energy spent for processing, history of the material blob or such” (p. 21, l. 32 to p. 22, l. 2). Based on the material flow-paths, determining material blobs representing material flow through the material flow-paths, in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Kotriwala and Prutu (hereinafter referred to as “Kotriwala/Prutu”) teaches limitations below of independent claim 1:
“... wherein identifying the routing logic comprises: determining that a first network edge of the plurality of network edges corresponds to a first variable speed conveyer, ...” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. Kotriwala also discloses, “Processing stations / devices, in the sense of this disclosure, can perform physical operations with no permanent or stationary character, such as blasting for providing raw material, or the hauling or transport of material, e.g. via processing devices such as conveyors” (p. 10, ll. 7-10). While Kotriwala discloses conveyors, generally, Kotriwala does not disclose details about said conveyors. Prutu provides specifics. Prutu discloses, “an upstream conveyor 10” (para. [0058]), and “a variable frequency drive 12 (which drives conveyor 10)” (para. [0061]). Recognizing placement of the upstream conveyor, in Prutu, when applied in the context of the system in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
“... determining that a second network edge and a third network edges of the plurality of network edges correspond to a second conveyer and third conveyer of the plurality of conveyers, respectively, and ...” - See the aspects of Kotriwala and Prutu that have been cited above. Prutu also discloses, “a power turn belt conveyor 30” and “a downstream conveyor 20” (para. [0058]), and “induction conveyors 40 and 50” (para. [0060]). Recognizing placement of the combined turn belt and downstream conveyors, and the induction conveyors, in Prutu, when applied in the context of the system in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
“... determining that, during a non-surge period, (i) a flow of the first variable speed conveyer does not exceed a maximum set point (ii) the flow of the first variable speed conveyor is split between the second conveyer and the third conveyer; ...” - See the aspects of Prutu that have been mentioned above. See also, FIG. 2 of Prutu, showing flow paths from the upstream conveyor to the turn belt and downstream conveyors or the induction conveyors. See also, FIG. 4 of Prutu, showing operations associated with “JAMMING,” “OVERLOAD,” and “OVERFLOW.” According to Prutu, “object overflow includes a determination that the density of objects on said conveyor is higher than a predetermined upper value” (para. [0013]). Prutu also discloses, “Object jamming includes a determination (via sensors and predetermined rules described later) that one more objects not moving due to at least one parcel is stopped at a location that it should otherwise be moving” (para. [0052]), “Object overflow includes a determination (via sensors and predetermined rules described later) that the density of objects on conveyor is higher than a predetermined upper value” (para. [0053]), “Overload of a conveyor determined (via sensors and predetermined rules described later) by looking at amperage and how long the amperage draw goes above a threshold” (para. [0054]), “Vn—Nominal velocity of the conveying system. Under normal conditions, the same velocity Vn=Vct exits on all the conveyors and is constant velocity all over in the system” (para. [0071]), “NOC—normal operating condition (see the bloc diagram FIG. 4)” (para. [0075]), “To detect Jamming, object flow is monitored at the locations of the light curtains LC1 and LC2. If any portion of either of these light curtains is blocked for more than a preselected time period (T1), that light curtain is said to be in ND mode (nondynamic mode). If either of the light curtains LC1 and LC2 are in ND mode, then the system is considered to be in Jammed status” (para. [0080]), “Once in Jammed status, the system provides warning for a second preselected time period (T2), to give an assisting operator time to assess and “de-jam” object flow, while the conveyors are still moving” (para. [0082]), “If in the interval of time T2 the jamming situation is not eliminated, and the light curtains continue to be blocked for time T2, then the conveyors are stopped and are not restarted until the assisting operator restarts them” (para. [0084]), “Load on the power turn conveyor is monitored by monitoring the amperage draw by its drive motor. If the monitored amps reach a predetermined threshold A1 for a time period T4, warning signals (e.g., buzzers/strobes) are activated for a time period T5, while the power turn conveyor continues to operate. This gives time for the attending operator's intervention. If within this time period T5, the amperage draw falls below the predetermined threshold for a time period bigger than T4, then the warning signals are terminated and the power turn conveyor continues to operate” (para. [0102]), “If within this time period T5, the amperage draw does not fall below the predetermined threshold, power to both the power turn conveyor and the upstream conveyor 10 is interrupted until the attending operator remedies the problem” (para. [0103]), “Buffering is used to divert objects from the normal conveying path (upstream conveyor 10 to power turn conveyor 30 to downstream conveyor 20) to a buffering zone alongside the normal conveying path. This buffering zone is configured to occasionally accept surplus objects (buffer) in order that they may be introduced later (de-buffer) when lesser flows on the normal conveying path allow” (para. [0152]), “Buffering is initiated when the Power Turn Conveyor 30 has been stopped due to Jamming and/or Overload (see FIG. 5, Step 514). Buffering can also be initiated when Overflow has been detected (see FIG. 6, Step 631)” (para. [0153]), and “Buffering is performed by activating a flow diverter D1 which diverts flow from the upstream conveyor to an adjacent induction conveyor 40 (which is alongside the upstream conveyor). Flow is then sent from the induction conveyor 40 to the buffering conveyor 50” (para. [0154]). The NOC, jamming, and overload scenarios, in Prutu, reads on the recited “non-surge period” limitation (as only the overflow in Prutu can be interpreted as the later recited “surge period” limitation). FIG. 5 of Prutu shows scenarios involving “Activate D1 and D3” and “Start IC 40 and BC 50 in Buffering Mode,” corresponding to the flow traveling along the upstream conveyor, power turn belt conveyor, and downstream conveyor being split off by diverts (D1 and D3) to the induction conveyor and buffering conveyor. Recognizing the relationship between the upstream, power turn belt, downstream induction, and buffering conveyors and flows, during the NOC, jamming, and overload scenarios, of Prutu, in the context of the system in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
“... wherein determining the surge flow routing logic comprises: determining that, during a surge period, the flow of the first variable speed conveyer exceeds the maximum set point, and ...” - See the aspects of Kotriwala and Prutu that have been cited above. While Kotriwala discloses determining characteristics about material blobs moving through the process, Kotriwala does not appear to disclose determining whether the material blobs exceed thresholds. Prutu, on the other hand, discloses, “wherein object overflow includes a determination that the density of objects on said conveyor is higher than a predetermined upper value” (para. [0013]). Determining that the overflow condition is present based on the density of objects on the conveyor being higher than the predetermined upper value, in Prutu, reads on the recited limitation. Note, it is the overflow scenario in Prutu that corresponds to the claimed “surge flow,” not the NOC, jamming, or overload scenarios (which correspond to the claimed “non-surge period”).
“... responsive to determining that, during the surge period, the flow of the first variable speed conveyer exceeds the maximum set point, determining that the flow of the first variable speed conveyer in excess of the maximum set point is directed to a single one of the second conveyor or the third conveyer; ...” - See the aspects of Prutu that have been cited above. Prutu also discloses, “B) If during Step A, object overflow is detected on said conveying path, then conveyor speed along said path is modified such that the relative speed of a downstream portion of said conveyor is increased relative to the speed of an upstream portion of said conveyor, wherein object overflow includes a determination that the density of objects on said conveyor is higher than a predetermined upper value; C) If after Step B, a predetermined time passes and overflow continues, then objects along said conveying path are buffered to a separate overflow conveyor” (para. [0013]). Having logic to determine entry into the overflow condition, and direct all of the objects (normal and overflow) to the turn and belt and downstream conveyors, in Prutu, reads on the recited limitation.
“... generating, based on the surge flow routing logic, an overflow management configuration comprising overflow risk data for the plurality of source nodes; and ...” - See the aspects of Kotriwala and Prutu that have been cited above. Kotriwala also discloses, “The representation of material flow-paths can be suitable for creating a material flow map of material between processing stations. The processing station layout enables a mapping of the material flow to and from each processing station. The mapped material flow typically does not represent the actual flow, i.e. transfer of material. The mapped material flow can be a mapped material flow-path, i.e. representing potential routes for the material, particularly between processing stations” (p. 15, ll. 12-17). Generating, based on routing logic for material flows, a flow management configuration, wherein all data about flows between and among processing stations is necessarily indicative of some kind of risk associated with the flows, in Kotriwala, when expanded to include data about overflows, as in Prutu, reads on the recited limitation.
“... causing the conveyance network to operate in accordance with the overflow management configuration, wherein causing the conveyance network to operate in accordance with the overflow management configuration comprises: ...” - See the aspects of Prutu that have been cited above. Operating the conveyors in the overflow condition, in Prutu, reads on the recited limitation.
“... inputting the overflow management configuration into the conveyance network as at least one of a setting or control for the conveyance network, ...” - See the aspects of Prutu that have been cited above. Operational instructions or settings for operating the conveyors in the overflow condition, in Prutu, read on the recited limitation.
“... controlling the first variable speed conveyer according to the overflow management configuration, such that a material is conveyed by the first variable speed conveyer, ...” - See the aspects of Prutu that have been cited above. Controlling the variable frequency drive motor of the upstream conveyor to convey items, in Prutu, reads on the recited limitation.
“... determining that, during the surge period, the flow of the material on the first variable speed conveyer exceeds the maximum set point, and ...” - See the aspects of Prutu that have been cited above. Determining that there is object overflow on the upstream conveyor based on the density of objects on the conveyor being higher than the predetermined upper value, in Prutu, reads on the recited limitation.
“... responsive to determining that, during the surge period, the flow of the material on the first variable speed conveyer exceeds the maximum set point, controlling the second conveyor or the third conveyer according to overflow management configuration, such that the flow of the material in in excess of the maximum set point to be directed onto a single one of the second conveyor or the third conveyer.” - See the aspects of Prutu that have been mentioned above. After determining there is object overflow on the upstream conveyor, increasing the speed of the downstream conveyor to reduce the overflow by reducing the density of objects on the upstream conveyor, in Prutu, reads on the recited limitation.
Prutu discloses, “the use of belt conveyors, as well of methods and apparatuses for controlling said belt conveyors” (para. [0004]), similar to the claimed invention and to Kotriwala. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of conveyors, in Kotriwala, to include the overflow condition handling, of the system of conveyors in Prutu, for purposes of cost and time efficiencies, and for extending the lives of the conveyors, as taught by Prutu (see para. [0012]). Further, the combination would have been obvious as use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Kotriwala/Prutu teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the conveyance network data further comprises transshipment nodes, wherein the conveyance network data comprises design configurations and operational configurations of the conveyance network, wherein the conveyance network combines at least two source nodes of the plurality of source nodes to one sink node of the plurality of sink nodes.” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. The mapped network including nodes in the form of processing stations that transfer material, wherein processing data associated therewith includes processing station characteristics and processing parameters, and the nodes are part of parallel and chained nodes, in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Kotriwala/Prutu teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising determining an amount of expected ore from the plurality of sources based on formalizing ore delivery at the plurality of source nodes, wherein formalizing ore delivery comprises determining a fixed batch sizes that is either surging or at rest.” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. Determining potential material quantities based on material blobs (ores) being transported to/from processing stations, wherein the blobs can be set quantities as depicted in FIG. 7 of Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Kotriwala/Prutu teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, the operation further comprising determining an amount of expected ore from the plurality of sources as a function of fixed batch sizes associated with the plurality of source nodes.” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. Determining potential quantities of ores for the material blobs moving between processing stations, in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1 and 5, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1 and 5. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 5 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 11 and 12. Claims 11 and 12 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Kotriwala/Prutu.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1, 5, 11, and 12, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1, 5, 11, and 12. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1, 5, 11, and 12 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 16 and 17. Claims 16 and 17 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Kotriwala/Prutu/Walker.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotriwala, in view of Prutu, further in view of WIPO Int’l Pub. No. 2006/021052 A1 to Law et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Law”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kotriwala, Prutu, and Law (hereinafter referred to as Kotriwala/Prutu/Walker/Law”) teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the routing logic is identified as binary or variable, wherein the plurality of network edges correspond to a plurality of network arcs each labeled as an uninterrupted source-sink path or an interrupted source-sink path, wherein uninterrupted source-sink paths are configurable with fixed routing logic or variable routing logic; and ...” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. While Kotriwala discloses processing stations that act as nodes and material flow-paths that act as edges between the nodes, Kotriwala does not depict all possible combinations of processing stations (nodes) and material flow-paths (edges). Law discloses some examples. Law discloses, “The equipment control attributes specify the operational parameters of equipment included in the material handling facility. This includes, without limitation: downstream equipment - which equipment can it feed to downstream, upstream equipment - which equipment can feed burden onto it, feed point from upstream equipment (distance in metres), for example where there are multiple feed points along a conveyor, whether the equipment is capable of variable speed operation, whether the equipment is capable reverse operation, full speed (m/s), drive power (kW), and stopping distance (m) - distance it takes to stop after receiving a stop command” (p. 7, ll. 17-27). Material handling devices that are capable of forward operation and/or reverse operation, and also variable speed operation, and are configured to operate as such, in Law, when applied in the context of the processing stations of Kotriwala/Prutu, reads on the recited limitation.
“... wherein interrupted source-sink paths are configurable with variable speed routing logic.” - See the aspects of Law that have been cited above. Material handling devices having variable speed operation, in Law, reads on the recited limitation.
Law discloses a “material handling system” (abstract) similar to the claimed invention and to Kotriwala/Prutu. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processing stations for material transfer, of Kotriwala/Prutu, to include the variable direction and/or speed operative capabilities, as described in Law, for expanding control capabilities or possibilities, as taught by Law (see p. 7, ll. 17 and 18). Further, the combination would have been obvious as use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Regarding claim 4, Kotriwala/Prutu/Law teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein determining the surge flow routing logic is based on the following: if a network edge has a binary routing logic, the surge flow routing logic is such that surge only flows in a direction that ore is flowing; and ...” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. If a material flow-path routes material blobs representing ores in a forward direction from an upstream processing station to a downstream processing station, in Kotriwala, the arrangement reads on the recited limitation.
“... if a network edge has a variable routing logic, a binary direction is identified and the surge flow routing logic is such that surge risk flow is in the binary direction.” - See the aspects of Kotriwala and Law that have been cited above. If a material flow-path routes material blobs in a forward direction, as in Kotriwala, and then later in a reverse direction, as in Law, the arrangement reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 4.
Claim 6, 8-10, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotriwala, in view of Prutu, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0118066 A1 to Walker et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Walker”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kotriwala, Prutu, and Walker (hereinafter referred to as “Kotriwala/Prutu/Walker”) teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the overflow management configuration minimizes conveyor overflow risk due to inconsistent ore processing rates while meeting stockpile height requirements.” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. Kotriwala also discloses, “a conveyor 330 and a stockpile 340” (p. 35, ll. 9 and 10), with the stockpile having a height (see FIG. 7). Kotriwala does not appear to disclose how the stockpile height is established. Walker discloses, “Again, step 56 predicts the No-Material state based on the level 61 of ore 62 in surge bin 58, the crush out time, and the surge bin capacity. The crush out time is the time required by the crusher 16 to crush the excavated ore 14 discharged by a haul truck 18. The surge bin capacity is the capacity, typically measured in tons, of the surge bin 58. In this regard, the present invention establishes Low, Operating, and High limits, 84, 86, and 88, respectively, for the level 61 of crushed material 62 existing within surge bin 58. See FIG. 9. The Low limit 84 is that level 61 of crushed material 62 required to maintain a material bed 90 in the outlet end 82 of surge bin 58. If the level 61 of crushed material 62 drops below the Low limit 84, the crusher control system (not shown), will shut down the apron feeder (also not shown) to maintain the material bed 90, thereby protecting the apron feeder from damage” (para. [0082]). The handling of material blobs by conveyors, in Kotriwala, when operated in a way that keeps fluctuating amounts of material being delivered in a preferred range to ensure that material being processed is within low and high limits, as in Walker, reads on the recited limitation.
Walker discloses “material processing systems” (para. [0001]), similar to the claimed invention and to Kotriwala/Prutu. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the network of processing stations and material flow-paths, of Kotriwala/Prutu, to generate data about material flows relative to preferred maximums, as in Walker, to help ensure that operating limits are not exceeded, as taught by Walker (see para. [0084]). Further, the combination would have been obvious as use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Regarding claim 8, Kotriwala/Prutu teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: identifying an active network edge from the plurality of network edge; ...” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. Identifying potential routes between processing stations and designating them as actual material flow-paths, in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
“... identifying a respective surge flow routing logic for the active network edge; ...” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. Identifying material flow-paths with rising quantities of materials therein (including more material blobs), in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
“... based on the respective surge flow routing logic, determining one or more of the plurality of source nodes that pose a risk; and ...” - See the aspects of Kotriwala that have been cited above. Identifying material flow-paths having larger quantities of material blobs approaching, in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation.
“... determining a maximum overflow risk for the active network edge as a function of a simultaneous surge of the one or more of the plurality source nodes that pose the risk.” - See the aspects of Kotriwala and Walker that have been cited above. Determining routes in which the number of haul trucks is predicted to exceed preferred maximum numbers, and could overload downstream crushers, in Walker, when applied in the context of the material flow modelling in Kotriwala, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Kotriwala/Prutu/Walker teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising constraining, via the material processing engine, the conveyance network such that nodes of the conveyance network do not have a maximum overflow risk.” - See the aspects of Kotriwala and Walker that have been cited above. Walker also teaches, “if too many haul trucks 18 are predicted to be at the crusher 16 at some future time, the director 38 may redirect one or more haul trucks 18 to other locations so as to minimize the idle time for haul trucks 18 at the crusher 16” (para. [0085]). The model controlling material flowing through flow-paths between processing stations, in Kotriwala, such that flows exceeding preferred maximums can be re-directed, as in Walker reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Kotriwala/Prutu/Walker teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising constraining an amount of expected ore from the plurality of sources to meet stockpile height requirement associated with the plurality of sink nodes.” - See the aspects of Kotriwala and Walker that have been cited above. The model controlling ore material flowing through flow-paths to processing stations, in Kotriwala, such that ore amounts are within low and high limits, in Walker, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 10.
Regarding claims 13-15, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 8-10, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 8-10. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 8-10 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 13-15. Claims 13-15 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Kotriwala/Prutu/Walker.
Regarding claims 18-20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 8-10 and 13-15, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 8-10 and 13-15. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 8-10 and 13-15 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 18-20. Claims 18-20 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Kotriwala/Prutu/Walker.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 11-14 of the Reply, the applicant argues for reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 USC 103. More specifically, the applicant argues that the cited references (Kotriwala, Prutu, Walker, and Law) fail to disclose, teach, or suggest limitations of the pending claims. (Reply, pp. 12-14.) The limitations emphasized by the applicant appear on pp. 12 and 13 of the Reply. Those limitations were rejected primarily based on Prutu. But according to the applicant, Prutu discloses that when a conveyer is overloaded (the supposed non-surge mode), the conveyer is stopped, and flow is not split across two other conveyers when the flow does not exceed a maximum set point, as claimed. (See id. at pp. 13 and 14.) Further, according to the applicant, Prutu discloses adjusting conveyer speed when experiencing overflow (the supposed surge mode), and excess flow is not diverted to a single one of other conveyers, as claimed. (See id. at pp. 14 and 15.)
The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. According to one interpretation of Prutu, the upstream conveyor reads on the recited “first variable speed conveyer” limitation, the power turn belt conveyor and the downstream conveyor read on the recited “second conveyer” limitation, and the induction conveyor and buffering conveyor read on the recited “third conveyer” limitation. (See Prutu, Fig. 2, and para. [0154].) Also, the normal operating condition (NOC) state (see id. at paras. [0071] and [0075]), overload state (see id. at paras. [0054], [0102], [0103], and [0153]), and jammed state (see id. at paras. [0080], [0082], [0084], and [0153]), of Prutu, in combination, read on the recited “non-surge period” limitation. Only the overflow state in Prutu (see id. at paras. [0123] and [0125]) reads on the recited “surge period” limitation. During NOC, jamming, and overload states, flow sometimes goes to downstream and power turn belt conveyors (e.g., during NOC), and sometimes goes to induction and buffering conveyors (e.g., during jamming, and/or overload). During the overflow state, there are times when all flow (including excess flow) is directed to the downstream and/or power turn belt conveyors. These scenarios, in Prutu, read on the recited “non-surge period ... flow ... is split” and “surge period ... the flow ... is directed to a single one” limitation of the claims (see independent claim 1). While there are other instances where the conveyors in Prutu may operate differently, the examiner’s position is that if the operations in Prutu read on the claims limitations even once, then Prutu renders those limitations unpatentable. Prutu need not always operate in a manner that meets the claim limitations. For at least these reasons, the examiner is maintaining the claim rejections under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights