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 .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 5/20/2026, where claims 1, 4, 9-11, 13, 19, and 22 are amended, claims 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 23 are canceled, and claims 1-11, 13, 16, 19, and 22 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed on 5/20/2026, with respect to previous rejections of independent claims 1 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the instant claims are currently rejected under new grounds.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, with respect to previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-8, that dependent claims 2-11, 13-19, and 21 are patentably distinguished over the cited prior art at least in view of the dependency from their respective independent claims, and requests that the rejections for all dependent claims be reconsidered and withdrew for the reasons argued above. However, their respective independent claim is now rejected under new grounds in view of the amendment and thus the dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al., (US 20200384506 A1) (hereinafter Hunt), in view of Shumway, (US 20220297133 A1) (hereinafter Shumway), and further in view of Dalm et al., (“Ore–Waste Discrimination in Epithermal Deposits Using Near-Infrared to Short Wavelength Infrared (NIR-SWIR) Hyperspectral Imagery”) (hereinafter Dalm).
Referring to claim 1, Hunt teaches a system for characterizing earthen material in an earthen material processing system having…at least one controllable operational parameter affecting processing of the earthen material, the system comprising:
a spectral imager positioned in view of earthen material moving within the earthen material processing system, the spectral imager configured to acquire spectral image data of a spatial scene of the earthen material (¶ [0051], fig. 1A, “In one implementation the ore composition imaging system 100 is integrated after the ore is initially crushed, while it is being transported for further processing. The ore composition imaging system 100 can include an image capture system 102, which records video and/or still images of ore fragments 110 as they travel between two locations in an ore processing facility.” ¶ [0052], “The image data can include, but is not limited to…hyperspectral images”);
a processor in communication with the spectral imager…of the earthen material processing system, the processor programmed with a machine learned model that is configured to process the spectral image data to determine at least one earthen material characteristic…of the earthen material based on the spectral image data, the processor outputting a signal based on the earthen material characteristic so determined to…the earthen material processing system (¶ [0051], fig. 1A, “The images from the image capture system can then be used as input to a computing system 108 that includes a machine learning model. The machine learning model can determine, using measured parameters of the ore fragments 110 ore characteristics, which can be used to adjust or modify the operation of the processing facility.”); and
in response to receiving the signal,…the earthen material processing system will adjust at least one of the operating parameters… (¶ [0011], “the operations further include based on the determined one or more characteristics of the ore fragments, adjusting an operation of the ore processing facility.” ¶ [0012], “In an aspect combinable with any one of the previous aspects, adjusting an operation of the ore processing facility includes at least one of…causing a change to an ore processing parameter in the ore processing facility”.)
Hunt teaches the system that identifies characteristics of the earthen material and provides signal to adjust at least one operation parameter of the processing facility. However, Hunt does not explicitly teach the processing facility includes at least one mill, a processor in communication with the at least one mill, and in response to receiving a signal, adjust at least one of the operating parameters of the at least one mill.
Shumway teaches the processing facility includes at least one mill (¶ [0002], “The present invention relates generally to a system to control parameters of a grinding mill.”), a processor in communication with the at least one mill (¶ [0004], “A master controller with a master control processor…is connected to the network…and transmit a plurality of setpoints to the distributed control system of the mill.”), and in response to receiving a signal, adjust at least one of the operating parameters of the at least one mill (¶ [0004], “A master controller with a master control processor and a master control data storage is connected to the network and to a distributed control system to receive and use process variables from the distributed control system and the mill process signals to compute and transmit a plurality of setpoints to the distributed control system of the mill.”)
Hunt and Shumway are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with facilities for processing ore (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Hunt and Shumway before them to modify the processing facility of Hunt to incorporate the function of a mill by Shumway. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Shumway (¶ [0033]), because the function of a mill does not depend on the processing facility. That is the function of a mill performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to provide total control of processing of the ore.
Hunt in view of Shumway teach the limitations above. However, Hunt in view of Shumway do not explicitly teach determine at least one earthen material characteristic including mineral alteration.
Dalm teaches determine at least one earthen material characteristic including mineral alteration (Pg. 1 lines 24-40, “Near-infrared (NIR) and short-wavelength infrared (SWIR) hyperspectral imagery can be used to detect certain alteration minerals…it was investigated if NIR-SWIR hyperspectral imagery can be used to distinguish between ore and waste particles by characterizing the alteration mineralogy. Maps were produced from the NIR-SWIR hyperspectral images of 827 drill core samples that show mineral occurrences…The results showed that NIR-SWIR hyperspectral imagery could be used to segment a population of waste samples”.)
Hunt, Shumway, and Dalm are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interfaces related to ore material (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm before them to modify the processing facility of Hunt in view of Shumway to incorporate the function of identifying alteration mineral by Dalm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Dalm (pg. 4 line 58-pg. 12 line 8), because the function of identifying alteration mineral does not depend on the processing facility. That is the function of identifying alteration mineral performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to reduce cost and resources in searching for desired mineral(s) as suggested by Dalm (pg. 2 lines 11-60).
Referring to claim 2, Hunt further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the spectral imager is configured to acquire the spectral image data while the earthen material is moving (¶ [0051], fig. 1A, “In one implementation the ore composition imaging system 100 is integrated after the ore is initially crushed, while it is being transported for further processing.”)
Referring to claim 3, Hunt further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the earthen material processing system includes a conveyor, and the spectral imager is mounted over the conveyor (According to figure 1A, the imaging capture system 102 is mounted over the transport system 114).
Referring to claim 5, Hunt further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the spectral imager captures successive captures of spectral data that are aggregated by the spectral imager or the processor to form the spectral image data (¶ [0051], “The images from the image capture system can then be used as input to a computing system 108 that includes a machine learning model. The machine learning model can determine, using measured parameters of the ore fragments 110 ore characteristics”).
Referring to claim 6, Hunt further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the machine learned model includes a convolutional neural network (¶ [0076], “the machine learning model 204 is a convolutional neural network.”)
Referring to claim 9, Hunt further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one earthen material characteristic further includes a moisture content of the earthen material (¶ [0010], “In an aspect combinable with any one of the previous aspects, the one or more characteristics includes at least one of…fragment moisture content”).
Referring to claim 10, Hunt teaches the system of claim 9. Hunt further teaches adjusting operation of the ore processing facility based on determining characteristics of the ore fragments (¶ [0011]). However, Hunt does not explicitly teach the operational parameter adjusted in response to the signal includes a flow rate of water delivered to the at least one mill and/or a dewatering rate of the at least one mill.
Shumway further teaches the operational parameter adjusted in response to the signal includes a flow rate of water delivered to the at least one mill and/or a dewatering rate of the at least one mill (¶ [0019], “The present embodiments generally relate to a system to monitor parameters of ball, AG, and SAG mills for grinding particulates, such as ores, while the mill is in operation.” ¶ [0033], “The present invention is designed to provide real time monitoring, real time alarms, and real time information to the distributed control system of the mill, along with client devices connected to a network, enabling the mill to automatically adjust the water feed rates”.)
Referring to claim 13, Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm teach the system of claim 10. However, Hunt does not explicitly teach the operational parameter automatically adjusted in response to the signal includes a grinding media volume of the at least one mill, a rotational speed of the at least one mill, a flow rate of water delivered to the at least one mill, and/or a dewatering rate of the at least one mill.
Shumway further teaches the operational parameter automatically adjusted in response to the signal includes a grinding media volume of the at least one mill, a rotational speed of the at least one mill, a flow rate of water delivered to the at least one mill, and/or a dewatering rate of the at least one mill (¶ [0006], “computer instructions to instruct the master control processor to provide commands to the distributed control system for the mill to automatically alter at least one of: a speed of the rotatable mill shell rate”).
Referring to claim 16, Hunt further teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising one or more illumination sources positioned and oriented to direct illumination toward the earthen material for reflection by the earthen material to the spectral imager (¶ [0051], fig. 1A, “The ore composition imaging system 100 can optionally include an illumination system 104”).
Referring to claim 19, Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm teach the system of claim 1. However, Hunt in view of Shumway do not explicitly teach the mineral alteration includes clay composition and abundance, mineralogical composition of the gangue material, and/or mineralogical composition of copper minerals.
Dalm further teaches the mineral alteration includes clay composition and abundance, mineralogical composition of the gangue material, and/or mineralogical composition of copper minerals (Pg. 2 lines 41-45, “Recent studies by Dalm et al. (2014, 2017) showed that NIR-SWIR spectral sensors can be used to segment sub-economic particles from ore samples obtained from a porphyry copper deposit. This was based on detecting the occurrence of specific alteration minerals of which the formation is related to the mineralisation of copper.”)
Regarding claim 22, these claims recite the method performed by the system of claim 1; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Brogger et al., (US 20220334054 A1) (hereinafter Brogger).
Referring to claim 4, Hunt further teaches the system of claim 3, wherein a second spectral imager is mounted on a…route to scan a top surface… (¶ [0056], “The ore can be transported via a number of techniques, such as…train/cart and rail, barges”).
Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm teach the limitations above. However, Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm do not explicitly teach haulage truck.
Brogger teaches a haulage truck (¶ [0170], figs. 13-14b, “Imaging device 234 captures visual images and multispectral, preferably hyperspectral, images of each truck 222 and 230 as each truck respectively enters the field of view 236 of the imaging device.”)
Hunt, Shumway, Dalm, and Brogger are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with equipment for carrying objects (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm and Brogger before them to substitute the truck as taught by Brogger for the generic carrier of Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm. Because both Hunt and Brogger teach methods of transporting objects, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one known method for the other to achieve the predictable result of object transportation technology. The motivation would have been to pick the mode of transporting objects that best suited for the user’s needs.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coen et al., (US 20220307971 A1) (hereinafter Coen).
Referring to claim 7, Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm teach the system of claim 1. Hunt further teaches performing image enhancement prior to recording of the plurality of images (¶ [0023]). However, Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm do not explicitly teach preprocess the spectral image data to perform radiometric or geometric corrections prior to processing by the machine learned model.
Coen teaches preprocess the spectral image data to perform radiometric or geometric corrections prior to processing by the machine learned model (¶ [0194], “Preprocessing may include lighting and/or measurement correction step 240. Step 240 may comprise radiometric correction”).
Hunt, Shumway, Dalm, and Coen are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for capturing and processing spectral images (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm and Coen before them to modify the processing facility of Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm to incorporate the function of performing radiometric correction preprocessing by Coen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Coen (¶ [0185]-[0196]), because the function of performing radiometric correction preprocessing does not depend on the processing facility. That is the function of performing radiometric correction preprocessing performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to normalizing image values to create uniform basis for spectral signatures as suggested by Coen (¶ [0220]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qiu et al., (CN 114639009 B) (hereinafter Qiu).
Referring to claim 8, Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm teach the system of claim 1. However, Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm do not explicitly teach perform dimensionality reduction on the spectral image data prior to processing by the machine learned model.
Qiu teaches perform dimensionality reduction on the spectral image data prior to processing by the machine learned model (Abstract, “The invention discloses a longan dry variety classification method and device based on hyperspectral image and machine learning, the method comprises: taking multiple different samples of the same variety of longan as a group to perform hyperspectral imaging to obtain a hyperspectral image set; pre-processing the images of all high-spectrum image sets to obtain a longan dry high-spectrum sample set; marking the types of different types of longan dry images in the high spectrum sample set; performing data dimension reduction on the hyperspectral sample set to obtain a data set after dimension reduction; respectively leading the data set after dimension reduction into SVM and KNN learning models to supervise and learn”).
Hunt, Shumway, Dalm, and Qiu are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for processing captured images (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm and Qiu before them to modify the processing facility of Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm to incorporate the function of performing dimension reduction by Qiu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Qiu (pg. 10 lines 7-32), because the function of performing dimension reduction does not depend on the processing facility. That is the function of performing dimension reduction performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to reduce training difficult of model as suggested by Qiu (pg. 10 lines12-14).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Xu et al., (CN 113310949 A) (hereinafter Xu).
Referring to claim 11, Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm teach the system of claim 9. However, Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm do not explicitly teach a second spectral imager is located within a reclaim tunnel of the earthen material processing system.
Xu teaches a second spectral imager is located within a reclaim tunnel of the earthen material processing system (Pg. 2 lines 61-65, “The invention claims a TBM tunnel carrying type rock slag mineral identification system and method based on high spectrum imaging, comprising a conveying belt; the conveying belt is orderly provided with…a high spectrum imaging device”).
Hunt, Shumway, Dalm, and Xu are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with facilities for processing ore (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm and Xu before them to modify the processing facility of Hunt in view of Shumway and Dalm to incorporate the function of providing a high spectrum imaging device in the tunnel by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Xu (pg. 2 lines 61-75), because the function of providing a high spectrum imaging device in the tunnel does not depend on the processing facility. That is the function of providing a high spectrum imaging device in the tunnel performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to ensure quick analyze mineral content information as suggested by Xu (pg. 2 lines 61-75).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20130026263 (Bamber) – discloses method for extracting and sorting mined ore.
US 20180024062 (Santori) – discloses method of providing hyperspectral scanning.
US 20130201481 (Bamber) – discloses method of using pattern recognition to sort material.
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 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 MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights