DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claim 1; and dependent claims 2-20
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-4 and 8-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 8 recite “determining . . . and a sorting hierarchy structure of a plurality of intelligent sorting devices…”. Claim 1, from which these claims depend, recites “a sorting hierarchy structure of a plurality of intelligent sorting devices” Are the dependent claims referring to the same claim element recited in claim 1?
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bamber et al. (US 2013/0292307).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bamber discloses a method for conduction ore presorting based on hierarchical arrayed intelligent sorting, comprising: acquiring parameter information of ores to be processed, and determining, according to the parameter information, the number of intelligent sorting devices and a sorting hierarchy structure of a plurality of intelligent sorting devices for hierarchical arrayed intelligent sorting, wherein the sorting hierarchy structure comprises at least two sorting hierarchies, and each of the sorting hierarchies comprises at least one intelligent sorting device (see at least para. 0027); determining, according to the sorting hierarchy structure of the plurality of intelligent sorting devices, a granularity hierarchy structure for conducting multi-hierarchy granularity processing on the ores to be processed, wherein the granularity hierarchy structure comprises at least two granularity hierarchies (see at least paras. 0025-0028); associating each sorting hierarchy in the sorting hierarchy structure with a corresponding granularity hierarchy in the granularity hierarchy structure to form a multi-hierarchy ore processing structure comprising at least two processing hierarchies (see at least paras. 0025-0028); and conducting ore presorting on the ores to be processed based on the multi-hierarchy ore processing structure so as to acquire ores that meet a predetermined granularity (see at least para. 0045).
Regarding dependent claims 8, 12, 13, and 14 Bamber discloses that the sorting hierarchy structure of the plurality of intelligent sorting devices for hierarchical arrayed intelligent sorting comprises a first sorting hierarchy, a second sorting hierarchy and a third sorting hierarchy (see Fig. 4 and at least paras. 0045-0046); and the granularity hierarchy structure comprises a first granularity hierarchy, a second granularity hierarchy and a third granularity hierarchy (see at least paras. 0045-0046). Each processing hierarchy comprises a granularity hierarchy and a sorting hierarchy (see at least paras. 0045-0046). After deterring, according to the parameter information, the number of intelligent sorting devices and a sorting hierarchy structure of a plurality of intelligent sorting devices for hierarchical arrayed intelligent sorting, the method further comprises: configuring each of the intelligent sorting devices, wherein a plurality of intelligent sorting devices in the same sorting hierarchy are configured to sort ores within the same crushing granularity range, and intelligent sorting devices in different sorting hierarchies are configured to sort ores within different crushing granularity ranges (see at least paras. 0060 and 0063). The configuring each of the intelligent sorting devices comprises: determining a current sorting hierarchy of an intelligent sorting device to be configured (see at least para. 0027); determining a current crushing granularity range corresponding to the current sorting hierarchy (see at least paras. 0024 and 0027); determining, according the current crushing granularity range, a selected spectral band of X-rays (see at least paras. 0046 and 0048); and setting a spectral band of a radiation source of the intelligent sorting device to be configured as the selected spectral band (see at least para. 0048).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bamber (US 10,857,568) discloses method of determining the number of intelligent sorting machines to sort a material based on measured parameters. Guo et al. (US 2024/0132990) is the U.S. Patent Application Publication of a related method by the same Assignee.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653