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 Amendment
The amendment filed May 21st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 13, 15-16 and 18 have been amended. Claims 10 and 14 have been canceled. Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15-20 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the objections and some of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 26th, 2026.
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 3, 8 and 15 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.
The term “about” in claims 3 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the first trona ore feed and the second trona ore feed are in parallel”, however it is unclear how the two different ore feeds with different particle diameters may be arranged “in parallel”. For examination purposes, this limitation is being interpreted as the first beneficiation system and the second beneficiation system are arranged in parallel.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) in view of Zhou et al. (CN 111495790). English translations of Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 1, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches an ore-sorting system (Col. 1 lines 12-16), comprising:
a trona ore screen system (Col. 5 lines 3-17) comprising an ore crusher (Fig. 1 #3) and a filter (Fig. 1 #5, 7), the screen system configured to produce an ore feed comprising ore particles having a predetermined size (Col. 5 lines 17-21);
a beneficiation system (Col. 5 lines 17-29) to receive the ore particles having a predetermined size (Col. 5 lines 17-21), the beneficiation system configured to increase an economic value of the ore particles by removing gangue material (Col. 5 lines 43-62), resulting in a high-grade trona ore product (Col. 5 lines 51-62), the beneficiation system comprising a sensor and a separator (Fig. 1 #13, Col. 5 lines 24-50), wherein the separator comprises an identification system configured to accept or reject the ore particles (Col. 5 lines 44-50), wherein accepted ore particles are deposited in a bin and rejected ore particles are ejected with a high-pressure air jet (Col. 5 lines 44-50),
Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks teaching wherein the sensor comprises an XRT source configured to analyze the ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations, and wherein the beneficiation system is configured to: determine a trona concentration of the ore particles based on the X-ray signal attenuations, and identify ore particles as accepted ore particles based on the trona concentration for said ore particles being at or above a threshold trona concentration.
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) teaches an ore-sorting system (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2) wherein the sensor comprises an XRT source (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0048 lines 8-11) configured to analyze the ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-5), and wherein the beneficiation system is configured to:
determine a material concentration of the ore particles based on the X-ray signal attenuations (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-8), and
identify ore particles as accepted ore particles based on the material concentration for said ore particles being at or above a threshold material concentration (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13).
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) explains that the particle size distribution is very wide, and thickness, shape and size vary making it difficult to accurately distinguish between material by comparing grey values alone, therefore the material property related to the equivalent atomic number may more accurately distinguish between materials (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13). Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) explains that experimental data shows that the material property R value, which is only related to the equivalent atomic number of the material, is between 1.30 and 1.35 for coal materials, and the material property R value of gangue is less than 1.20, such that R values above 1.30 are judged as coal and R values below 1.30 are judged as gangue (Paragraph 0049 lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include wherein the sensor comprises an XRT source configured to analyze the ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations, and wherein the beneficiation system is configured to: determine a trona concentration of the ore particles based on the X-ray signal attenuations, and identify ore particles as accepted ore particles based on the trona concentration for said ore particles being at or above a threshold trona concentration as taught by Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) in order to more accurately distinguish between materials based on the atomic number thereof.
Regarding claim 2, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches the ore sorting system of claim 1, wherein the trona ore comprises trona interbedded with at least one of a marlstone, limestone, oil shale, sandstone, or mudstone (Col. 1 lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 3, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches the ore sorting system of claim 1, wherein the ore crusher (Fig. 1 #3) pulverizes a raw ore into an ore particle comprising a diameter between 1/8 inch and about 4 inches (Col. 5 lines 17-21).
Regarding claim 5, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches the ore sorting system of claim 1, wherein the beneficiation system comprises a dry separation including at least one of density, magnetic, electrostatic, optical, X-ray, or infrared separation (Col. 5 lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 6, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks teaching the ore sorting system of claim 1, wherein the separator comprises a first trona ore feed including a first ore particle diameter and a second trona ore feed including a second ore particle diameter that is less than the first ore particle diameter, wherein the first ore feed is fed to a first beneficiation system and the second ore feed is fed to a second beneficiation system.
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) teaches an ore-sorting system (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2) wherein the separator comprises a first trona ore feed including a first ore particle diameter (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-3, material on “fourth conveyor belt”) and a second trona ore feed including a second ore particle diameter (Paragraph 0014 lines 5-6, material on “third conveyor belt”) that is less than the first ore particle diameter (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-6), wherein the first ore feed is fed to a first beneficiation system (Paragraph 0017 lines 1-8, Paragraph 0025 lines 1-5) and the second ore feed is fed to a second beneficiation system (Paragraph 0021 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0025 lines 1-5).
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) explains that the x-ray emission source used for the larger ore particle diameter has stronger penetrating power, is connected to a second computer, and a second high-pressure gas tank (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-5). Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) states that the density of the material has a significant impact on the attenuation of x-ray intensity (Paragraph 0046 lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include wherein the separator comprises a first trona ore feed including a first ore particle diameter and a second trona ore feed including a second ore particle diameter that is less than the first ore particle diameter, wherein the first ore feed is fed to a first beneficiation system and the second ore feed is fed to a second beneficiation system as taught by Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) in order to provide a beneficiation system adjusted for the density of the material being separated.
Regarding claim 8, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks teaching the ore sorting system of claim 6, wherein the first trona ore feed and second trona ore feed are in parallel.
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) teaches an ore-sorting system (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2) wherein the first trona ore feed (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-3, material on “fourth conveyor belt”) and second trona ore feed (Paragraph 0014 lines 5-6, material on “third conveyor belt”) are in parallel (Fig. 1 see parallel feed of material on third and fourth conveyor belts).
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) explains that the x-ray emission source used for the larger ore particle diameter has stronger penetrating power, is connected to a second computer, and a second high-pressure gas tank (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-5). Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) states that the density of the material has a significant impact on the attenuation of x-ray intensity (Paragraph 0046 lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include wherein the first trona ore feed and second trona ore feed are in parallel as taught by Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) in order to provide a beneficiation system adjusted for the density of the material being separated.
Regarding claim 9, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches an ore-sorting system (Col. 1 lines 12-16), comprising:
a feed intake comprising a hopper configured to receive trona ore particles (Col. 5 lines 36-39);
a conveyer belt that receives the trona ore particles from the hopper (Col. 5 lines 39-43) and carries the trona ore particles to be evaluated (Col. 5 lines 39-43), wherein the trona ore particles are configured as a monolayer on the conveyer belt (Col. 5 lines 36-43);
a sensor configured to examine the trona ore particles on the conveyor belt (Col. 5 lines 40-48) to evaluate the concentration of trona in the trona ore particles and identify a high-grade ore product (Col. 4 lines 29-48); and
an ore separator to divide the high-grade ore product from a waste material based on the results of the sensor (Col. 5 lines 44-50).
Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks teaching wherein the sensor comprises an XRT source configured to analyze the trona ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations, and wherein the beneficiation system is configured to: determine a trona concentration of the trona ore particles based on the X-ray signal attenuations, and identify trona ore particles as accepted trona ore particles based on the trona concentration for said trona ore particles being at or above a threshold trona concentration.
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) teaches an ore-sorting system (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2) wherein the sensor comprises an XRT source (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0048 lines 8-11) configured to analyze the trona ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-5), and wherein the beneficiation system is configured to:
determine a material concentration of the material ore particles based on the X-ray signal attenuations (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-8), and
identify material ore particles as accepted material ore particles based on the material concentration for said material ore particles being at or above a threshold material concentration (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13).
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) explains that the particle size distribution is very wide, and thickness, shape and size vary making it difficult to accurately distinguish between material by comparing grey values alone, therefore the material property related to the equivalent atomic number may more accurately distinguish between materials (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13). Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) explains that experimental data shows that the material property R value, which is only related to the equivalent atomic number of the material, is between 1.30 and 1.35 for coal materials, and the material property R value of gangue is less than 1.20, such that R values above 1.30 are judged as coal and R values below 1.30 are judged as gangue (Paragraph 0049 lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include wherein the sensor comprises an XRT source configured to analyze the trona ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations, and wherein the beneficiation system is configured to: determine a trona concentration of the trona ore particles based on the X-ray signal attenuations, and identify trona ore particles as accepted trona ore particles based on the trona concentration for said trona ore particles being at or above a threshold trona concentration as taught by Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) in order to more accurately distinguish between materials based on the atomic number thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches the ore sorting system of claim 9, wherein the ore separator comprises an identification system configured to accept or reject each trona ore particle (Col. 5 lines 44-50), wherein an accepted trona ore particle is deposited in a bin and a rejected trona ore particle is ejected with a high-pressure air jet (Col. 5 lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 13, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches a method for purification of trona (Col. 1 lines 12-16), the method comprising:
screening trona ore (Fig. 1 #5, 7) to produce an ore feed comprising ore particles having a predetermined size (Col. 5 lines 17-21);
identifying an impurity content of the ore particles by a beneficiation system (Col. 5 lines 17-29, 40-48) to receive the ore particles having a predetermined size (Col. 5 lines 17-21), the beneficiation system configured to increase an economic value of the ore particles by removing gangue material (Col. 5 lines 43-62), resulting in a high-grade ore product (Col. 5 lines 51-62); and
separating the ore particles using air-jet diverters (Col. 5 lines 44-50) based on a purity threshold (Col. 5 lines 51-62);
wherein an accepted ore is deposited in a bin and rejected ore is ejected with a high-pressure air jet (Col. 5 lines 44-50).
Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks teaching a purity threshold determined by a sensor that is configured to detect a concentration of trona in the ore particles and identify the high-grade ore product; wherein the sensor comprises an XRT source configured to analyze the ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations, and wherein the beneficiation system is configured to: determine a trona concentration of the ore particles based on the X-ray signal attenuations, and identify ore particles as accepted ore particles based on the trona concentration for said ore particles being at or above a threshold trona concentration.
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) teaches a method for purification of material (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2) comprising: separating the ore particles based on a purity threshold (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13) determined by a sensor that is configured to detect a concentration of material in the ore particles and identify the high-grade ore product (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0048 lines 8-11);
wherein the sensor comprises an XRT source (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0048 lines 8-11) configured to analyze the ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-5), and wherein the beneficiation system is configured to:
determine a material concentration of the ore particles based on the X-ray signal attenuations (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-8), and
identify ore particles as accepted ore particles based on the material concentration for said ore particles being at or above a threshold material concentration (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13).
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) explains that the particle size distribution is very wide, and thickness, shape and size vary making it difficult to accurately distinguish between material by comparing grey values alone, therefore the material property related to the equivalent atomic number may more accurately distinguish between materials (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13). Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) explains that experimental data shows that the material property R value, which is only related to the equivalent atomic number of the material, is between 1.30 and 1.35 for coal materials, and the material property R value of gangue is less than 1.20, such that R values above 1.30 are judged as coal and R values below 1.30 are judged as gangue (Paragraph 0049 lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include a purity threshold determined by a sensor that is configured to detect a concentration of trona in the ore particles and identify the high-grade ore product; wherein the sensor comprises an XRT source configured to analyze the ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations, and wherein the beneficiation system is configured to: determine a trona concentration of the ore particles based on the X-ray signal attenuations, and identify ore particles as accepted ore particles based on the trona concentration for said ore particles being at or above a threshold trona concentration as taught by Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) in order to more accurately distinguish between materials based on the atomic number thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the ore feed comprises ore particles having a diameter between 1/8 inch and about 4 inches (Col. 5 lines 17-21).
Regarding claim 17, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising crushing the trona ore prior to screening trona ore (Fig. 1 #3 prior to #5, 7, Col. 5 lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 18, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks teaching the method of claim 13, wherein the ore feed comprises a first ore feed including a first ore particle diameter and a second ore feed including a second ore particle diameter that is less than the first ore particle diameter, wherein the first ore feed is fed to a first beneficiation system and the second ore feed is fed to a second beneficiation system.
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) teaches a method for purification of ore (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2) wherein the ore feed comprises a first ore feed including a first ore particle diameter (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-3, material on “fourth conveyor belt”) and a second ore feed including a second ore particle diameter (Paragraph 0014 lines 5-6, material on “third conveyor belt”) that is less than the first ore particle diameter (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-6), wherein the first ore feed is fed to a first beneficiation system (Paragraph 0017 lines 1-8) and the second ore feed is fed to a second beneficiation system (Paragraph 0021 lines 1-5).
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) explains that the x-ray emission source used for the larger ore particle diameter has stronger penetrating power, is connected to a second computer, and a second high-pressure gas tank (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-5). Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) states that the density of the material has a significant impact on the attenuation of x-ray intensity (Paragraph 0046 lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include wherein the ore feed comprises a first ore feed including a first ore particle diameter and a second ore feed including a second ore particle diameter that is less than the first ore particle diameter, wherein the first ore feed is fed to a first beneficiation system and the second ore feed is fed to a second beneficiation system as taught by Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) in order to provide a beneficiation system adjusted for the density of the material being separated.
Regarding claim 20, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks teaching the method of claim 18, wherein the first beneficiation system and the second beneficiation system are in parallel.
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) teaches a method for purification of ore (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2) wherein the first beneficiation system (Paragraph 0017 lines 1-8) and second beneficiation system (Paragraph 0021 lines 1-5) are in parallel (Fig. 1 see parallel beneficiation systems).
Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) explains that the x-ray emission source used for the larger ore particle diameter has stronger penetrating power, is connected to a second computer, and a second high-pressure gas tank (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-5). Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) states that the density of the material has a significant impact on the attenuation of x-ray intensity (Paragraph 0046 lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include wherein the first beneficiation system and the second beneficiation system are in parallel as taught by Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) in order to provide a beneficiation system adjusted for the density of the material being separated.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) in view of Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 4, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches the ore sorting system of claim 1, wherein the sensor identifies trona ore having a high trona concentration (Col. 4 lines 29-58).
Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks explicitly teaching a trona concentration greater than 95%. Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) states that the optical sorting devices permits the recovery of relatively pure trona ore by correlation of the reflectivity to its relative purity (Col. 4 lines 29-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include a trona concentration greater than 95% in order to recover a relatively pure trona ore, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the purity threshold is relatively high (Col. 4 lines 29-58).
Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks explicitly teaching the purity threshold comprises 90% trona. Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) states that the optical sorting devices permits the recovery of relatively pure trona ore by correlation of the reflectivity to its relative purity (Col. 4 lines 29-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include the purity threshold comprises 90% trona in order to recover a relatively pure trona ore, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 7, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) in view of Zhou et al. (CN 111495790) and further in view of Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278).
Regarding claim 7, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks teaching the ore sorting system of claim 6, wherein the first beneficiation system and the second beneficiation system are in series.
Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278) teaches an ore-sorting system (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-5) wherein the first beneficiation system (Fig. 1 feed from #12 to #16) and the second beneficiation system (Fig. 1 feed from #20 to #24) are in series (Fig. 2 see feed from #12 to #16 and feed from #20 to #24 in series, Paragraph 0094 lines 1-14).
Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278) explains that the second sorter using different sorting conditions is able to recover additional high-grade product with minimal impurities, or recover a different valuable material (Paragraph 0095 lines 13-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include wherein the first beneficiation system and the second beneficiation system are in series as taught by Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278) in order to recover additional high-grade product with minimal impurities or recover a different valuable material.
Regarding claim 12, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks teaching the ore sorting system of claim 11, further comprising a secondary ore sorter, wherein the secondary ore sorter is configured to analyze rejected trona ore particles to identify and further separate misclassified trona ore particles.
Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278) teaches an ore-sorting system (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-5) further comprising a secondary ore sorter (Fig. 1 #24), wherein the secondary ore sorter is configured to analyze rejected ore particles to identify and further separate misclassified ore particles (Paragraph 0095 lines 13-25, Paragraph 0097 lines 1-7).
Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278) explains that the second sorter using different sorting conditions is able to recover additional high-grade product with minimal impurities, or recover a different valuable material (Paragraph 0095 lines 13-25). Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278) states that the second sorting can capture at least 30, 50, or 70% by weight of the available high-grade product present in the waste material (Paragraph 0097 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include a secondary ore sorter, wherein the secondary ore sorter is configured to analyze rejected trona ore particles to identify and further separate misclassified trona ore particles as taught by Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278) in order to recover additional high-grade product.
Regarding claim 19, Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) lacks teaching the method of claim 18, wherein the first beneficiation system and the second beneficiation system are in series.
Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278) teaches an ore-sorting system (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-5) wherein the first beneficiation system (Fig. 1 #16) and second beneficiation system (Fig. 1 #24) are in series (Fig. 2 see #16 and #24 in series, Paragraph 0094 lines 1-14).
Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278) explains that the second sorter using different sorting conditions is able to recover additional high-grade product with minimal impurities, or recover a different valuable material (Paragraph 0095 lines 13-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sopchak et al. (US 3819805) to include wherein the first beneficiation system and the second beneficiation system are in series as taught by Bakke et al. (US 2014/0255278) in order to recover additional high-grade product with minimal impurities or recover a different valuable material.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/605,519 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the instant claims is anticipated by claims 11 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/605,519.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application 18/605,211
Application 18/605,519
9. An ore-sorting system, comprising: a feed intake comprising a hopper configured to receive trona ore particles; a conveyer belt that receives the trona ore particles from the hopper and carries the trona ore particles to be evaluated, wherein the trona ore particles are configured as a monolayer on the conveyer belt; a sensor configured to examine the trona ore particles on the conveyor belt to evaluate the concentration of trona in the trona ore particles and identify a high-grade ore product; wherein the sensor comprises an XRT source configured to analyze the trona ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations, and wherein the beneficiation system is configured to:
determine a trona concentration of the trona ore particles based on the X-ray signal attenuations, and
identify trona ore particles as accepted trona ore particles based on the trona concentration for said trona ore particles being at or above a threshold trona concentration; and
an ore separator to divide the high-grade ore product from a waste material based on the results of the sensor.
11. An ore-sorting system, comprising:
an ore feed intake configured to receive trona ore particles;
a conveyer belt that receives the trona ore particles from the ore feed intake and carries the trona ore particles to be evaluated, wherein the trona ore particles are configured as a monolayer on the conveyer belt;
a laser sensor configured to examine the trona ore particles on the conveyor belt to evaluate the concentration of trona in the trona ore particles and identify a high-grade ore product, the sensor comprising a laser scanner; and
an ore separator that divides the high-grade ore product from a waste material based on the results of the sensor.
14. The ore sorting system of claim 13, wherein the sensor further comprises an XRT source configured to analyze the trona ore particles for their X-ray signal attenuations and determine atomic density of the trona ore particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Zhou is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Zhou teaches the separation of mined coal material from gangue in order to reduce the amount of gangue included in mined coal and lifted to the surface, therefore increasing the production efficiency of coal mines (Paragraph 0009 lines 1-4). Further, Zhou teaches the benefit of separating material according to the material property value R which is related only to the atomic number of the materials when these materials were previously difficult to distinguish since they had a similar grey value in traditional X-ray methods (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13). Therefore, the system taught by Zhou would be relevant to other applications which separate a valuable mined material from other less-valuable or non-valuable materials.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Zhou does not teach or suggest a system configured to identify ore particles as accepted ore particles based on the trona concentration being at or above a threshold trona concentration, the Examiner would like to clarify that Zhou explains that when the particle size distribution is very wide, and the thickness, shape and size vary, it is difficult to accurately distinguish between material by comparing grey values alone (traditional X-ray methods), therefore the material property R value related to the equivalent atomic number is used to more accurately distinguish between materials based on the composition thereof (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-13). Zhou explains that experimental data shows that the material property R value, which is only related to the equivalent atomic number of the material, is between 1.30 and 1.35 for coal materials, and the material property R value of gangue is less than 1.20, such that R values above 1.30 are judged as coal and R values below 1.30 are judged as gangue (Paragraph 0049 lines 8-13). Therefore, Zhou teaches a system configured to identify ore particles as accepted ore particles based on the concentration of coal being at or above a threshold concentration (R value above 1.30). As explained previously, the teachings of Zhou would be relevant to other separation systems which separate a valuable mined material from gangue.
Conclusion
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 Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights