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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Nov 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks p. 11, Applicant contends that Lieber does not teach or suggest defining a material portion.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Lieber para 18 discloses monitoring the characteristics of the raw materials including measurement of the extensive properties including size, shape, and computed volume and weight of objects or materials on conveyor. A PHOSITA would recognize the measurement of these characteristics as being part of the definition of a material portion of the bulk material.
In Remarks p. 12, Applicant contends that Lieber does not teach or suggest determining a cost of processing the material portion.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Lieber para 25 discloses that AVPM 100 can use economic or business information such as unit cost information, demographics, or sales criteria to configure the objects or materials produced by finished processing unit 120. By sending a signal on line 132 and line 140 of the control line network, AVPM 100 can adjust the set quantity or configuration of finished products produced by finished processing unit 120. Again, AVPM 100 makes these adjustments based on a comparison between the economic or business information and the optimal characteristic definition 101. In this manner, the products produced by finished processing unit 120 will conform to a predefined set of economic or business criteria. It will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the additional information used by AVPM 100 may include information other than economic or business information. This other additional information may be used to configure a desired set of products in finished processing unit. A PHOSITA would recognize that the economic information is being used to determine the economic/cost of producing the products.
Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8, 19 each recite the limitation " the material portion is processed together with an other material portion in the physical action" in lines 1-3. It is unclear which of the “at least two physical actions” that each reference to "the physical action" refers to, or if it is meant to refer to both of the physical actions. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieber et al, US Patent Pub US 20020170367 A1 (hereinafter Lieber) in view of Watkins, US Patent Pub US 20160314421 A1 (hereinafter Watkins).
Claim 1
Lieber teaches a method of industrial processing of a bulk material, the industrial processing comprising a plurality of process steps (Lieber, para 7, Abstract - A control feedback system and method for industrial processing of bulk material.), the method comprising: defining a material portion of the bulk material (Lieber, para 18 - The AVPM monitors characteristics/”defining a material portion” including the size, shape, and computed volume and weight of objects or materials on conveyor, and a set of information describing a desired or optimal set of object or material characteristics on conveyor is stored.); generating a material portion identifier associated with the material portion (Lieber, para 18 - An optimal characteristic data set/”material portion identifier” can be a user-entered profile or automatically generated profile of desired or optimal characteristics of objects or materials on conveyor.); processing the material portion in at least two physical actions of the plurality of process steps (Lieber, para 18 – Processing the portion of the bulk material in multiple steps, including particle measurement, conveyor movement, and monitoring of the raw materials and the performance of the raw processing unit.); the method including for each physical action of the at least two physical action: determining a cost of processing the material portion in the process step. (Lieber, para 25 - AVPM can use economic or business information such as unit cost information, demographics, or sales criteria to configure the objects or materials produced by finished processing unit, and makes these adjustments based on a comparison between the economic or business information and the optimal characteristic definition.)
But Lieber fails to specify generating a history data set, wherein the history data set is indicative of the cost, the physical action, and the material portion identifier; and wherein the method further includes determining an aggregated cost based on the history data sets.
However Watkins teaches generating a history data set, wherein the history data set is indicative of the cost, the physical action, and the material portion identifier (Watkins, para 29-30, 35, 55 – Storing historical data relating to costs, processing steps/”physical action”, and material identification.); and wherein the method further includes determining an aggregated cost based on the history data sets. (Watkins, para 17, 64 – Collecting and aggregating a large set of operational and market/cost data. Mining optimization may be based on a past, current, or projected market price for a material.)
Lieber and Watkins are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to bulk material operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above bulk material operations, as taught by Lieber, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Watkins.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a market-driven optimization by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Watkins (para 5).
This rejection also applies to claim 13.
Claim 2
The combination of Lieber and Watkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lieber and Watkins further teaches generating the material portion identifier includes generating attributes of the material portion identifier, the attributes being indicative of properties of the material portion. (Lieber, para 18 - The AVPM monitors characteristics including the size, shape, and computed volume and weight of objects or materials on conveyor, and a set of information describing a desired or optimal set of object or material characteristics on conveyor is stored.)
Claim 3
The combination of Lieber and Watkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lieber and Watkins further teaches the attributes comprise an extensive attribute indicative of an extensive property of the material portion. (Lieber, para 18 - The AVPM monitors characteristics/”extensive attributes” including the size, shape, and computed volume and weight/”extensive properties” of objects or materials on conveyor, and a set of information describing a desired or optimal set of object or material characteristics on conveyor is stored.)
Claim 4
The combination of Lieber and Watkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lieber and Watkins further teaches updating the attributes based on the physical action. (Lieber, para 18 – Updating attributes based on processing steps/”physical action”.)
Claim 5
The combination of Lieber and Watkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lieber and Watkins further teaches the cost comprises at least one of an environmental cost, an energy consumption cost, a fuel cost, a carbon emission cost, a process efficiency cost and a monetary cost. (Lieber, para 25 - Economic or business information such as unit cost information, demographics, or sales criteria to configure the objects or materials produced by finished processing unit.)
This rejection also applies to claim 16.
Claim 6
The combination of Lieber and Watkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lieber and Watkins further teaches the cost is determined based on process sensor data of the physical action, and user input data of the physical action. (Lieber, para 18, 25 - The optimal characteristic data set can be a user-entered profile used to make a comparison between the economic or business information and the optimal characteristic definition so the products produced by finished processing unit will conform to a predefined set of economic or business criteria.)
This rejection also applies to claim 17.
Claim 7
The combination of Lieber and Watkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lieber and Watkins further teaches the at least two physical actions comprise at least one of transporting the material portion, storing the material portion, a process changing an intensive property of the material portion, and a process changing an extensive property of the material portion. (Lieber, para 18, 20, 22 - The processing steps include material being transported on a conveyor, and change various control dimensions within the crusher to produce smaller size output/”changing an extensive property of the material”, and to control various characteristics of objects or materials being processed in industrial system.)
This rejection also applies to claim 18.
Claim 11
The combination of Lieber and Watkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lieber and Watkins further teaches the industrial processing comprises mining or cement processing. (Lieber, para 2 - Convert raw quarry materials into finished products such as gravel, crushed rock, asphalt, or concrete materials.)
This rejection also applies to claim 14.
Claim 12
The combination of Lieber and Watkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lieber and Watkins further teaches the at least two physical actions comprise at least one process having a continuous material flux. (Lieber, para 25, Fig 1 refs(1-11) – The processing actions performed on a continuous material flow/flux.)
Claim 15
The combination of Lieber and Watkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lieber and Watkins further teaches a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor of a system for industrial processing of a bulk material. (Lieber, para 17-18 – Processor and memory with instruction to perform the processing of bulk material.)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieber et al, US Patent Pub US 20020170367 A1 (hereinafter Lieber) in view of Watkins, US Patent Pub US 20160314421 A1 (hereinafter Watkins) as applied to claims 1-7, 11-18 above, in view of Botich et al, US Patent Pub US 20090281677 A1 (hereinafter Botich).
Claim 20
The combination of Lieber and Watkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lieber and Watkins further teaches an energy consumption cost indicative of a consumed fuel energy and/or a consumed electrical energy (Watkins, para 37 – A consumed fuel cost.),
But the combination of Lieber and Watkins fails to specify a fuel cost indicative of an amount of fuel consumed, and/or a carbon emission cost indicative of an emission of carbon dioxide, wherein the cost is determined based on process sensor data of the physical action.
However Botich teaches a fuel cost indicative of an amount of fuel consumed, and/or a carbon emission cost indicative of an emission of carbon dioxide, wherein the cost is determined based on process sensor data of the physical action. (Botich, para 59, 79-80, 139 – Sensor data monitoring processes used to determine resource costs using a fuel consumption meter and track carbon emissions output.)
Lieber, Watkins, and Botich are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to bulk material operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above bulk material operations, as taught by Lieber and Watkins, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Botich.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Botich (para 60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8, 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and all the limitations of the claim itself.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach if the material portion is processed together with an other material portion in the physical action, determining the cost of processing the material portion in the physical action comprises: determining a combined cost of processing the material portion and the other material portion in the physical action; and determining the cost of processing the material portion in the process step and an other cost of processing the other material portion by proportionally allocating the combined cost to the cost and the other cost.
Claim(s) 9 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim, any intervening claims, and all the limitations of the claim itself.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach splitting of the material portion identifier into at least two split material portion identifiers, wherein splitting comprises: generating the at least two split material portion identifiers, each of the at least two split material portion identifiers being associated with a material sub-portion of the material portion; and associating each of the at least two split material portion identifiers with the history data sets of the material portion identifier.
Claim(s) 10 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim, any intervening claims, and all the limitations of the claim itself.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach merging the material portion identifier with a further material portion identifier into a merged material portion identifier, the further material portion identifier being associated with a further material portion of the bulk material, wherein merging comprises:
generating the merged material portion identifier, the merged material portion identifier being associated with the material portion and with the further material portion; and
associating the merged material portion identifier with the history data sets indicative of the material portion identifier and with further history data sets indicative of the further material portion identifier.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119