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 14-17 and 61-65 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 2/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 7/25/2023 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 5/4/2023 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 5/4/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-17 and 61-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 14 recites, “processing said collected first equipment criteria data with algorithm logic or artificial intelligence logic;” and “using the algorithm logic or artificial intelligence logic, estimating an operational failure of an item of equipment;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of utilizing algorithms in order to estimate failure of equipment, which involves the use of mathematical calculations and thus falls within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 14 further recites, “delaying said operational failure by varying one or more operating characteristics of said item of equipment;”, “displaying a warning related to said operational failure;”, and “recommending a maintenance action related to said estimated operational failure.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, simply adjusts an operating characteristic without providing further explanation how that action effects a component such that it’s failure is delayed and further provides limitations in which alerts/recommendations are displayed to a user, all of which just merely apply the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claim 14 recites, “monitoring the aggregate processing system;” and “collecting first equipment criteria data from a first equipment criteria sensor associated with the aggregate processing system;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, the limitation of, “varying one or more operating characteristics of the aggregate processing system;”, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, simply discloses a step of the procedure utilized during the data gathering step which just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering equipment criteria data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Dependent claims 15-18 and 61-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 15-17, each include limitations of processing various data collected by sensors associated with the system, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of utilizing algorithms in order process data, which involves the use of mathematical calculations and thus falls within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 15-17, further include limitations in which various data is collected by sensors, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, claims 61-65, each include limitations providing examples of operating characteristics that are varied, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering equipment criteria and product data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-17 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cella et al. (US PGPUB 20200133254).
Regarding Claim 14; Cella teaches; A method of controlling and monitoring an aggregate processing system, comprising: monitoring the aggregate processing system; (Cella; at least paragraphs [0010]-[0011]; disclose an industrial machine predictive maintenance system and method which monitors various parameters to predict failures and determine appropriate maintenance actions)
varying one or more operating characteristics of the aggregate processing system; (Cella; at least paragraph [0335]; disclose monitoring a machine while varying the operational speed from relatively slow to much higher speeds)
collecting first equipment criteria data from a first equipment criteria sensor associated with the aggregate processing system; (Cella; at least paragraph [0335]; disclose wherein the system and method includes monitoring vibration from a first sensor)
processing said collected first equipment criteria data with algorithm logic or artificial intelligence logic; (Cella; at least paragraph [0397]; disclose processing received equipment data utilizing machine learning/artificial intelligence algorithms)
using the algorithm logic or artificial intelligence logic, estimating an operational failure of an item of equipment; (Cella; at least paragraph [0290]; disclose using artificial intelligence to analyze a plurality of data from various sensors which are then used to predict failure of a piece of equipment)
delaying said operational failure by varying one or more operating characteristics of said item of equipment; (Cella; at least paragraph [0597] and [0647]; disclose wherein the system and method includes adjusting operating parameters of a piece of equipment in order to avoid failure)
displaying a warning related to said operational failure; and (Cella; at least paragraph [0429]; disclose providing an alert to a user related to detection of an operational failure)
recommending a maintenance action related to said estimated operational failure. (Cella; at least paragraph [0066]; disclose wherein the system and method includes recommending a service/maintenance action in order to help prevent/mitigate the failure).
Regarding Claim 15; Cella teaches; The method of claim 14, further comprising: collecting product quantity data from one or more product quantity sensors associated with the aggregate processing system; and processing said collected product quantity with algorithm logic or artificial intelligence logic. (Cella; at least paragraphs [0397] and [0731]; disclose using artificial intelligence algorithms to process data and wherein the data includes product output quantity).
Regarding Claim 16; Cella teaches; The method of claim 14, further comprising: collecting product characteristic data from one or more product characteristic sensors associated with the aggregate processing system; and processing said collected product characteristic data with algorithm logic or artificial intelligence logic. (Cella; at least paragraphs [0397] and [0731]; disclose using artificial intelligence algorithms to process data and wherein the data includes product output quality as characteristic data).
Regarding Claim 17; Cella teaches; The method of claim 14, further comprising: collecting second equipment criteria data from a first equipment criteria sensor associated with the aggregate processing system; and processing said collected second equipment criteria data with algorithm logic or artificial intelligence logic. (Cella; at least paragraphs [0397] and [0729]; disclose using artificial intelligence algorithms to process data, wherein the data includes a plurality of equipment criteria data considered (i.e. RPMs, component load, temperature, pressure, vibration, etc.)).
Regarding Claim 65; Cella teaches; The method of claim 14, wherein the aggregate processing system comprises a conveyor, wherein said varying one or more operating characteristics of the aggregate processing system comprises varying an operating speed of the conveyor. (Cella; at least paragraph [0677]-[0678]).
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 nonobviousness.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al. (US PGPUB 20200133254) in view of Anderson, JR. (US PGPUB 20140263777).
Regarding Claim 61; Cella teaches; The method of claim 14, wherein the aggregate processing system comprises a crusher, (Cella; at least paragraph [1767]).
Cella appears to be silent on; …wherein said varying one or more operating characteristics of the aggregate processing system comprises varying an operating speed of the crusher.
However, Anderson teaches; …wherein said varying one or more operating characteristics of the aggregate processing system comprises varying an operating speed of the crusher. (Anderson; at least paragraphs [0004]-[0007]; disclose a crusher system and method for receiving operating characteristics which require it to adjust the operating speed of the crusher based on received sensor readings, and wherein the detected sensor readings can be utilized by Cella to determine maintenance needs).
Cella and Anderson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, monitoring and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method for adjusting a crusher speed with the known system of a fault/maintenance monitoring and control system as taught by Cella in order to provide a system wherein the crusher experiences less downtime and lower power consumption as taught by Anderson (see paragraph [0004]).
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al. (US PGPUB 20200133254) in view of Meier et al. (US PGPUB 20220097076).
Regarding Claim 62; Cella teaches; The method of claim 14, wherein the aggregate processing system comprises a crusher, (Cella; at least paragraph [1767]).
Cella appears to be silent on; … wherein varying one or more operating characteristics of the aggregate processing system comprises varying a crushing gap of the crusher.
However, Meier teaches; … wherein varying one or more operating characteristics of the aggregate processing system comprises varying a crushing gap of the crusher. (Meier; at least paragraphs [0008]-[0014]; disclose a crusher system and method wherein the crushing gap of a crusher is adjusted and the impact of the gap change is sensed by sensors, and wherein the detected sensor readings can be utilized by Cella to determine maintenance needs).
Cella and Meier are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, monitoring and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method for adjusting a crusher gap with the known system of a fault/maintenance monitoring and control system as taught by Cella in order to provide a system wherein crusher wear can be reduced based upon measured readings as taught by Meier (see paragraph [0021]).
Claims 63-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al. (US PGPUB 20200133254) in view of Aqueveque (“Development of a Cyber-Physical System to Monitor Early Failures Detection in Vibrating Screens”).
Regarding Claim 63; Cella appears to be silent on; The method of claim 14, wherein the aggregate processing system comprises a vibratory classifier, wherein said varying one or more operating characteristics of the aggregate processing system comprises varying an operating speed of the vibratory classifier.
However, Aqueveque teaches; The method of claim 14, wherein the aggregate processing system comprises a vibratory classifier, wherein said varying one or more operating characteristics of the aggregate processing system comprises varying an operating speed of the vibratory classifier. (Aqueveque; at least page 3 of 20; section II; page 13 of 20, section A. Anomaly detection; disclose a system and method for providing various adjustments to parameters, including velocity, of a vibrating classification screen, and using the data to detect anomalies).
Cella and Aqueveque are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, monitoring and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of simulating various characteristics of a vibratory screen with the known system of a fault/maintenance monitoring and control system as taught by Cella in order to provide a system which can avoid unplanned downtime and increase operational availability as taught by Aqueveque (see Introduction).
Regarding Claim 64; the combination Cella and Aqueveque teach; The method of claim 14, wherein the aggregate processing system comprises a vibratory classifier, wherein said varying one or more operating characteristics of the aggregate processing system comprises varying an angle of a classifying deck of the vibratory classifier. (Aqueveque; at least section B. Dem data-generating process; discloses modeling the adjustment of the inclination angle of the screen and its effects on the vibrating screen system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cella et al. (US PGPUB 20190129409): disclose an industrial monitoring system and method for creating intelligent data bands for monitoring and predicting faults in industrial systems.
Cella et al. (US PGPUB 20200096993): disclose a system and method for monitoring an industrial production line, including product data, and wherein the system can predict and react to system failures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117