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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the only state that is detected is the idle state; however, the claims do not specify what state of the machine is identified or determined. Whether the device is idle or performing a crushing function, speaks to the operability (state/condition) of the device.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boerhout (WO 02/070137, hereafter referred to as Boerhout) in view of Shiraishi et al. (JP 2020/011160, hereafter referred to as Shiraishi).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5 and 14, Boerhout teaches an apparatus 104 comprising means for: receiving a first type of information 212 relating to operation of rock processing equipment from a first source of information 116; receiving a second type of information 220 relating to the operation of the rock processing equipment from a second source of information 112; determining, based on the first type of information and the second type of information, a state of the rock processing equipment (see figure 2: if high vibration is determined and the crusher is idling); and providing, in response to determining that the state of the rock processing equipment fulfills at least one criterion, an indication 224 relating to the state of the rock processing equipment; Boerhout further teaches wherein the second type of information includes data relating to visual inspection of the rock processing equipment (see page 3, lines 19-20, ‘the idle detector 112 detects an idle state by using an infra-red, optic, or ultrasonic level indicator to indicate the presence of material in the crushing device 104’).
Boerhout does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code.
Shiraishi teaches a similar device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code (see para. 0019, when the subject of operation is described as “XX section”, the central control section 11 reads “XX section” from the auxiliary storage device 15 and loads it into the main storage device 14, and then performs processing described below; and means to execute); and additionally includes means to predict occurrence of abnormality of the device (see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Boerhout with the teaching of Shiraishi in order to prevent further damage to corresponding adjacent parts.
Regarding claim 2, Boerhout further teaches wherein the first type of information comprises measurement data 208 relating to operation of the rock processing equipment.
Regarding claim 3, Boerhout further teaches wherein the first type of information includes substantially real-time data (see figure 2; the process is described as comparing a recorded data with a threshold).
Regarding claim 6, Boerhout further teaches wherein the first source of information comprises includes at least one sensor 116 associated with the rock processing equipment.
Regarding claim 7, Boerhout further teaches wherein the second source of information comprises includes a note received from a user (see page 5, line 10, ‘the alarm 120 alerts the user to the presence of a fault, e.g., high vibration or high temperature, and can also notify the user of the location of the fault’).
Regarding claim 8, Boerhout further teaches wherein the state of the rock processing equipment comprises includes a state of health of the rock processing equipment (see page 5, lines 9-11, ‘At this step, the alarm 120 alerts the user to the presence of a fault, e.g., high vibration or high temperature, and can also notify the user of the location of the fault. At this time, the idle detector 1 12 may automatically stop the operation of the crushing device 104, if so configured by the user’).
Regarding claim 9, Boerhout further teaches wherein the indication relating to the state of the rock processing equipment includes a service recommendation (see page 6, lines 22-25, ‘the monitoring system for the crushing device provides continuous and automatic monitoring of a crushing device. The monitoring system automatically identifies potential faults in the crushing system. The monitoring system can check for damage of roller bearings, gears, gear shim pack looseness, lack of lubrication, lubrication contamination, mechanical looseness, and unbalanced rotors in the crushing devices’).
Regarding claim 10, Boerhout does not explicitly teach wherein the indication relating to the state of the rock processing equipment includes a prediction of the state of the rock processing equipment.
Shiraishi teaches a similar device which includes means to predict occurrence of abnormality of the device (see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Boerhout with the teaching of Shiraishi in order to prevent further damage to corresponding adjacent parts.
Regarding claim 11, Shiraishi further teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus comprises means for communicating to communicate with rock processing equipment provided by different manufacturers (see para. 035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Boerhout with the teaching of Shiraishi in order to increase measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 12, Boerhout further teaches wherein the rock processing equipment comprises includes crushing 104 and/or screening equipment.
Regarding claim 13, Boerhout further teaches wherein the apparatus comprises means for receiving the first type of information and/or the second type of information relating to the rock processing equipment via a wireless connection (page 3, line 35).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boerhout as modified by Shiraishi, and further in view of Ikegami (JP 2004/202372).
Boerhout teaches an apparatus 104 comprising means for: receiving a first type of information 212 relating to operation of rock processing equipment from a first source of information 116; receiving a second type of information 220 relating to the operation of the rock processing equipment from a second source of information 112; determining, based on the first type of information and the second type of information, a state of the rock processing equipment (see figure 2: if high vibration is determined and the crusher is idling); and providing, in response to determining that the state of the rock processing equipment fulfills at least one criterion, an indication 224 relating to the state of the rock processing equipment.
However, Boerhout as modified by Shiraishi does not explicitly teach a computer program having computer executable code, which when executed, causes the apparatus to perform the steps above.
Ikegami does teach a system for monitoring crushing work, comprising a controller 91 provided with a determination unit 92 and a command unit 93 that are configured by software such as a computer program.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Boerhout as modified by Shiraishi with the teaching of Ikegami since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 10/22/25 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855