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 .
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.
Claims 16-24, and 27-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibancos et al. (WO 2022/099294) in view of Kadali (US 2014/0183103).
Regarding claims 16 and 32, Bibancos et al. disclose a rock processing apparatus for crushing and/or for sorting granular mineral material according to size (see especially the embodiment of Fig. 7; Paragraphs 0023-0024), the rock processing apparatus comprising:
a material feeding apparatus (500a) having a material buffer for loading starting material to be processed (apparent on left end of apparatus in Fig. 7);
at least one working unit comprising at least one crushing apparatus and/or at least one screening apparatus (screen 300, crusher 400);
at least one conveyor apparatus (e.g., 500b) configured to convey material between apparatus components,
at least one discharge conveyor apparatus (500c) configured to convey processed material out of the rock processing apparatus onto a discontinuously reducible stockpile (Paragraph 0063);
at least one stockpile sensor (e.g., 490, 690) configured to detect at least one stockpile parameter, which represents a change over time of a spatial size of the stockpile (e.g., an amount of material discharged from the crusher represents an increase in volume of the stockpile; Paragraphs 0051, 0060, 0063), and to transmit a detection signal representing the at least one detected stockpile parameter (Paragraph 0062); and
a control unit (control and monitoring system 120, in particular system 600) configured to control apparatus components of the rock processing apparatus (Paragraph 0061).
Bibancos et al. further disclose at least one output device (the components of network 140, including gateway 130; Paragraph 0020) connected to the control unit and configured to transmit output information to a receiving device (e.g., 120 communicates with computing devices 160 via network 140), but do not explicitly disclose that the control unit is configured to ascertain, in an operation with a discontinuous reduction of the at least one stockpile, reduction time information based on the at least one detection signal. Bibancos et al. also do not explicitly disclose that the receiving device is situated on a removal apparatus.
Kadali teaches a similar control unit (Paragraph 0034) that can ascertain, in an operation with a discontinuous reduction of at least one stockpile (212, 219; Paragraphs 0038, 0048), reduction time information based on at least one detection signal, which represents an execution time of a future reduction of the stockpile by removing material from the stockpile (Paragraphs 0097-0101), as well as at least one output device connected to the control unit and configured to transmit output information comprising the ascertained reduction time information to a receiving device (provided to an operator via graphical user interface; Paragraphs 0074, 0085). Kadali teaches this control unit configuration as a means to alert an operator to potential future events affecting operations of the apparatus (Paragraph 0124). Kadali further teaches a removal apparatus provided for the discontinuous stockpile reduction (trucks 202), and describes the combined system as a means for achieving a target throughput of mined ore (Paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the rock processing apparatus of Bibancos et al. with the control unit configuration taught by Kadali in order to improve operations by alerting an operator to potential future events. Though Kadali describes an embodiment in which the reduction time information is received by an operator in a control room, when implementing the control unit configuration of Kadali in the mobile rock processing apparatus represented in Fig. 7 of Bibancos et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the receiving device on the removal apparatus so that an operator of the removal apparatus would be apprised of the actions needed to achieve a target throughput of material, thus arriving at the claimed machine combination of claim 32. This implementation would be consistent with the mobile devices and wireless communication network described by Bibancos et al. (see Paragraph 0020).
Regarding claims 17 and 20-21, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the rock processing apparatus of claim 16. Kadali further teach at least one stockpile sensor that is configured to detect at least one shape dimension of the stockpile as at least one stockpile parameter (laser or camera continuously measures stockpile height, which is correlated to a measured mass estimate of the stockpile; Paragraphs 0072, 0078), and that the control unit is configured to ascertain, based on the at least one detected shape dimension, a change over time of the height of the stockpile top of the stockpile as a growth parameter of the stockpile (“a near real-time measured mass estimate” is calculated based on the measured height; Paragraph 0072; simple mathematical functions would convert these values to a growth rate). Kadali teach that this measurement can be used as one input in the calculation of the reduction time information (Paragraphs 0097-0098).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention with at least one stockpile sensor configured to detect at least one shape dimension of the stockpile and to configure the control unit to use this measurement, as taught by Kadali, in order to calculate the estimated mass of the stockpile as an input in the associated reduction time information calculations.
Kadali further teach that the control unit is configured to retrieve a lower height threshold value of the stockpile from a data memory (control unit may increase feed rate when calculated mass is low; Paragraph 0075) and an upper height threshold value of the stockpile from a data memory (user interface displays alert when mass value is above a pre-determined threshold; Paragraph 0124). When the control unit of the combined invention is configured as described above, it would be capable of ascertaining, starting from the growth parameter, reduction time information for both an earliest and a latest future reduction of the stockpile, thus arriving at the claimed inventions of claims 20 and 21.
Regarding claims 18-19, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the rock processing apparatus of claim 16. Kadali further teach at least one stockpile sensor that is configured to detect a height of a stockpile top as at least one stockpile parameter (laser or camera continuously measures stockpile height, which is correlated to a measured mass estimate of the stockpile; Paragraphs 0072, 0078), and that the control unit is configured to ascertain, from at least two detections of the at least one stockpile parameter, which occurred with a time interval, and the time interval between the at least two detections, at least one growth parameter of the stockpile (“a near real-time measured mass estimate” is calculated based on the measured height; Paragraph 0072; simple mathematical functions would convert these values to a growth rate). Kadali teach that this measurement can be used as one input in the calculation of the reduction time information (Paragraphs 0097-0098).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention with at least one stockpile sensor configured to detect a height of a stockpile top and to configure the control unit to use continuous measurements, as taught by Kadali, in order to calculate the estimated mass of the stockpile as an input in the associated reduction time information calculations.
Regarding claim 22, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the rock processing apparatus of claim 16. Bibancos et al. further disclose an input device connected to the control unit (graphical user interface display 800), wherein the control unit is configured to receive user input for various purposes (Paragraph 0064). Kadali teaches that user input may be used, in the operation with a discontinuous stockpile reduction, to ascertain the reduction time information based on the at least one detection signal and information input into the input device (user interface configured to allow user to override settings, Paragraph 0119; information may be derived from a combination of measurements and other inputs such as an operator override value to correct the calculated values, Paragraphs 0098-0100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, when modifying the control unit of Bibancos et al. with the configuration taught by Kadali, to include the capability of ascertaining the reduction time information based on both the detection signal and user input, as taught by Kadali, in order to enable correction of calculated values in the information.
Regarding claims 23-24, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the rock processing apparatus of claim 16. Bibancos et al. further discloses that at least one stockpile sensor is situated as an apparatus-supported stockpile sensor on the rock processing apparatus, which heaps the stockpile detected by the stockpile sensor (e.g., “material sensor 490 may be disposed remotely from the crusher 400 and/or on the crusher 400” to “sense material discharged onto belt B or other location”; Paragraph 0051). This meets the limitations of claim 23 and suggests additional sensors and/or alternate locations for a sensor, but Bibancos et al. does not explicitly disclose at least one stockpile sensor situated on the discharge conveyor apparatus. Kadali teaches a laser sensor to measure the height of a stockpile (212) located below a discharge conveyor apparatus (210; Paragraphs 0097-0098; see Fig. 2), but also does not explicitly disclose that the sensor is on the discharge conveyor apparatus.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide either the sensor disclosed by Bibancos et al. or the laser sensor taught by Kadali to the discharge apparatus of the combined invention in order to have a clear pathway for the sensor to measure the stockpile (considering that in both cases, the stockpile is located below the discharge conveyor apparatus).
Regarding claim 27, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the rock processing apparatus of claim 16. Bibancos et al. further disclose that the at least one stockpile sensor is configured to detect the at least one stockpile parameter acoustically (sensor 490 may be ultrasonic; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 28, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the rock processing apparatus of claim 16. Bibancos et al. further disclose that the apparatus may include sensors to evaluate a type and/or composition of the stockpile material (e.g., moisture, etc.; Paragraph 0051) and that this information is output via an output device (130 transmits information from sensors; Paragraph 0020). Thus the at least one output device of the combined invention would be capable of outputting both the information about a type and/or composition of the stockpile material and the reduction time information taught by Kadali.
Regarding claim 29, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the rock processing apparatus of claim 16. Bibancos et al. further disclose the at least one output device is configured to output information independently of a receiver in a spatial area surrounding the rock processing apparatus at least partially and/or adjoining the rock processing apparatus (via wireless transmission; Paragraph 0020).
Regarding claims 30-31, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the rock processing apparatus of claim 16. Bibancos et al. further disclose a portable receiving device developed separately of a machine body of the rock processing apparatus and movable relative to the machine body and separable or separated from the machine body (computing devices 160, e.g., a mobile device, communicate with control unit 120 via network 140; Paragraph 0020). Thus, the output device of the combined invention is configured to transmit output information comprising the reduction time information to the portable receiving device.
Regarding claim 33, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the machine combination of claim 32. Bibancos et al. further disclose that the receiving device is configured to output information from the control unit graphically (graphical user interface display 800 displays measurements, predictions, indicators, etc.; Paragraph 0064; Fig. 8) to a display device (e.g., 160 may be implemented as a mobile device that would include both a receiving device and a display device; Paragraph 0020). Thus, the receiving device of the combined invention is configured to output the reduction time information graphically to a display device of the removal apparatus.
Regarding claim 34, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the machine combination of claim 32. Kadali further teaches that the removal apparatus can be controlled via the control unit (the controller can re-direct the trucks without operator intervention; Paragraph 0095). Since the removal apparatus of the combined invention communicates with the control unit via the receiving device, the receiving device of the combined invention would be configured to control a transport-relevant operating component (i.e., a driving and/or navigation system) of the removal apparatus.
Regarding claim 35, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the machine combination of claim 32. Bibancos et al. further disclose a weighing device (scale 610) on the processing side, configured to weigh processed material (on at least a portion of belt B, e.g., on discharge conveyor apparatus 500c; Paragraph 0059; Fig. 5).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibancos et al. in view of Kadali, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Miljak et al. (US 2023/0034745).
Regarding claim 25, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the rock processing apparatus of claim 16. Bibancos et al. further disclose that a stockpile sensor may be located remotely (Paragraph 0051), but do not explicitly disclose a stationary, ground-supported stockpile sensor at a spatial distance from the rock processing apparatus.
Miljak et al. teach a sensor platform (200; Figs. 1-2) for measuring a stockpile (201) of mined ore (see the Abstract) having at least one stockpile sensor (300, as well as ultrasonic or laser sensors for distance measurements; Paragraph 0160) secured in position as a stationary, ground-supported stockpile sensor (the platform is a mechanical structure supporting the sensor; Paragraph 0104). Miljak et al. further teach that the platform may be associated with a separate machine or structure, and that control systems for the platform and sensors may be tethered to the platform (Paragraphs 0044-0045) or connected by communication links (Paragraph 0068). Miljak et al. teach this system as a means for measuring the physical, chemical or mineralogical characteristics of ore stockpiles to identify valuable materials using a magnetic resonance sensor (Paragraph 0009).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the rock processing apparatus of the combined invention with a stationary, ground-supported stockpile sensor, as taught by Miljak et al., in order to identify valuable materials in the stockpile using additional sensors that may be too large or complex to attach directly to the rock processing apparatus. It would have further been obvious to incorporate the control systems of the platform and sensors into the control unit of the rock processing apparatus, resulting in the at least one stockpile sensor being secured in position in surroundings of the rock processing apparatus at a spatial distance from the rock processing apparatus, but connected to the rock processing apparatus in signal-transmitting fashion via the tether or communication link taught by Miljak et al.
Regarding claim 26, Bibancos et al.-Kadali in combination disclose the rock processing apparatus of claim 16. Bibancos et al. further disclose that a stockpile sensor may be located remotely (Paragraph 0051), but do not explicitly disclose a mobile stockpile sensor movable relative to the rock processing apparatus.
Miljak et al. teach a sensor platform (200; Figs. 1-2) for measuring a stockpile (201) of mined ore (see the Abstract) having at least one stockpile sensor (300, as well as ultrasonic or laser sensors for distance measurements; Paragraph 0160) mounted to the platform structure (Paragraph 0104). Miljak et al. further teach that the platform may be self-motorized and capable of autonomous movement (Paragraph 0044), and that control systems for the platform and sensors may be separately located and connected by communication links (Paragraphs 0045, 0068). Miljak et al. teach this system as a means for enabling the platform/sensors to be positioned at different locations over the stockpile and/or follow a preprogrammed path (Paragraphs 0044, 0047).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention with a mobile stockpile sensor, as taught by Miljak et al., in order to enable coverage of a variety of stockpile shapes without requiring corresponding movement of the rock processing apparatus. It would have further been obvious to incorporate the control systems of the platform and sensors into the control unit of the rock processing apparatus, resulting in the at least one stockpile sensor being movable relative to the rock processing apparatus, but connected to the rock processing apparatus in signal-transmitting fashion via the communication link taught by Miljak et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. According to Examiner’s best understanding, Applicant suggests that the Bibancos and Kadali references relied upon in the Office Action dated 1/7/2026 cannot be combined to render obvious the instant invention because neither represents a solution to “the problem of the management of the “discontinuous reduction” of a stockpile of processed material” (Remarks, Page 12).
In support of this assertion, Applicant first argues that: “The Office Action mistakenly refers to the sensors 490 or 690 of Bibancos as "stockpile sensors", but they are not. The sensors 490 or 690 only detect flows of material on or off of a conveyor [. . . ] this does not provide sufficient information from which the size of the stockpile can be determined.” (Remarks, Page 12).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a sensor providing sufficient information from which the size of the stockpile can be determined) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, Bibancos et al. describe a variety of sensors configured to detect size-related parameters of the material being processed at various locations on the apparatus. For example, sensor 690 is “configured to detect [. . .] an amount, [. . .] height, width, pile shape [. . .] of material M on at least a portion of belt B)” (Paragraph 0059). In the embodiment of Fig. 7, this amount would be a parameter representing “a change over time of a spatial size of the stockpile”, as it would determine the volume of material being added to the stockpile (see Paragraph 0023) over a certain range of time. Thus, Bibancos et al. disclose at least one sensor having the claimed configuration.
Examiner agrees that additional information would be required to determine the actual size of the stockpile at any particular point in time, but this functionality is not claimed (i.e., a direct measurement of the stockpile itself or of material removed therefrom is not required by the claim). It is also noted that Bibancos et al. further suggest such a direct measurement (e.g., “product quantity sensors and product characteristic sensors may be associated with [. . .] product storage arrangements (e.g., stockpile, container, etc.)”, Paragraph 0018; and, more generally, collected data may be used to calculate stockpile volume, Paragraph 0020).
Applicant further argues that the Kadali reference does not address the discontinuous reduction of a stockpile, since stockpile 212 is “depleted continuously”, stockpile 219 is “for temporary storage and then conveyance for disposal”, and trucks 202 are only described as “delivery vehicles [. . .], not for removing material from the system” (Remarks, Pages 12-14). Examiner agrees that Kadali does not appear to explicitly describe the discontinuous reduction of a stockpile, or the use of trucks for removing material (i.e., “conveyance for disposal”) from stockpile 219.
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Kadali is cited for its teachings of a control unit configured to perform calculations related to stockpile size, and for the inclusion of a removal apparatus, not for the particular processes disclosed. The above rejections demonstrate how one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply these teachings in the apparatus of Bibancos et al.
Furthermore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Examiner notes that the claims require “ a control unit configured to ascertain, in an operation with a discontinuous reduction of the at least one stockpile, reduction time information based on the at least one detection signal”. The control unit disclosed by Kadali is capable of doing this, even if it is described in the context of a continuously depleted stockpile, since the method of removing material from the pile would not impact the structure of the control unit described by Kadali. With respect to the “removal apparatus provided for the discontinuous stockpile reduction” of claim 32, the trucks of Kadali are described generally as a means for receiving, conveying, and dumping materials (see Paragraph 0109), and a truck is shown in Fig. 2 next to stockpile 219. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the trucks could be used for the stated purpose.
Finally, Applicant argues that: “Neither reference even suggests the existence of "reduction time information" for a discontinuous reduction process” (Remarks, Page 15). The applicability of the teachings of Kadali is generally addressed above with respect to the intended use of the control unit. For clarity of the record, however, Examiner notes that the passages of Kadali cited in the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 (in particular Paragraph 0101) describe a “time to empty” calculation that uses sensor data including input and output rates to estimate the size of the stockpile at a future point in time (in particular, to project a time when the size would reach a lower threshold). A control unit capable of performing this calculation would also be capable of expressing the information in terms of any other size threshold (i.e., determining when a stockpile will reach an upper threshold requiring removal of material).
Thus, the combined invention of Bibancos et al.-Kadali includes all of the structures required by the claim, with each structure having a configuration capable of performing the recited functions. If Applicant wishes to distinguish the instant invention from the prior art via an apparatus claim, the relevant structures should be further delineated in the claim language. Alternatively, a process for managing the “discontinuous reduction” of a stockpile of processed material could be more appropriately claimed in the form of a method claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights