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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2, “a second ore feed” should be –a second trona ore feed--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3, 17, 18, 19, and 20, line 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, respectively, the claim state the limitation ‘about’ is indefinite. The limitation makes it unclear what the metes and bounds of claim in regards to what ‘about’ encompass.
The term “high-grade” in claims 1, 11, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. It is unclear what grade is high versus low or ultra high as it regards to grade of ore product.
The term “ultra high-grade” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. It is unclear what grade is ultra high versus low or high as it regards to grade of ore product.
The term “high-pressure” in claims 1, 13, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. It is unclear what high pressure refers to as it regards to the pressure of an air jet.
The term “large” in claims 8-10, 12, and 22-24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” 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. It is unclear what large ore particles refers to.
The term “small” in claims 1, 13, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” 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. It is unclear what small ore particles refers to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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 1-7, 11, 13, 14, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves et al (USP 3,819,805) in view of Sommer Jr., et al (USP 7,763,820 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Graves discloses an ore-sorting system (col. 3, lines 50-52), comprising: a trona ore screen system comprising an ore crusher (element 3) and a filter (elements 5 and 7), the screen system configured to produce an ore feed comprising ore particles having a predetermined size (col. 5, lines 12-14); a beneficiation system that receives the ore particles having a predetermined size, the beneficiation system configured to increase an economic value of the trona ore by removing gangue material, resulting in a high-grade ore product, the beneficiation system comprising an optical scanner (element 13 where the ore particles are optically examined); and a sorter configured to separate the high-grade ore product from the gangue material, the sorter comprising an identification system configured to accept or reject ore (element 13 where the ore is mechanically sorted into two streams), wherein accepted ore is deposited in a bin and rejected ore (streams separated 17 and 11) is ejected with a high-pressure air jet, but Graves does not disclose the beneficiation system comprising a laser scanner and rejected ore being ejected with a high-pressure air jet. Sommer teaches a laser scanner (see Fig. 7; elements 413 and 702) and rejected ore being ejected with a high-pressure air jet (col. 13, lines 64+ and col. 14, lines 1-13) for the purpose of identifying and sorting materials based on fluoresced x-rays and detected optical emissions (col. 5, lines 46-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Sommer, for the purpose of identifying and sorting materials based on fluoresced x-rays and detected optical emissions.
Regarding claim 2, Graves discloses the trona ore comprises trona interbedded with at least one of a marlstone, limestone, oil shale (col. 2, line 59), sandstone, or mudstone.
Regarding claim 3, Graves discloses the ore crusher pulverizes a raw ore into an ore particle comprising a diameter between about 1/8 inch and about 4 inches (col. 5, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 4, Graves discloses the laser scanner identifies trona ore having a trona concentration greater than 95% (element 22).
Regarding claim 5, Graves discloses the laser scanner identifies trona ore having a trona concentration greater than 98% (col. 3, lines 70-71).
Regarding claim 6, Graves does not explicitly disclose the first grade ore comprises a trona concentration greater than 98.5%. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to processing ore to a desired concentration because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific trona concentration percentage provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Graves, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either separation mechanisms because both separations mechanisms would perform the same function of sorting the trona to a desired concentration for the purpose of obtaining a grade suitable for manufacturing of glass.
Regarding claim 7, Graves discloses the beneficiation system further comprises a dry separation including at least one of density, magnetic, electrostatic, optical (element 13 where the ore particles are optically examined), X-ray, or infrared separation.
Regarding claim 11, Graves discloses an ore-sorting system (col. 3, lines 50-52), comprising: an ore feed intake configured to receive trona ore particles (element 1); an optical sensor configured to examine the trona ore particles (element 13, where the ore particles are optically examined); and an ore separator that divides the high-grade ore product from a waste material based on the results of the sensor (element 13 where the ore is mechanically sorted into two streams), but Graves does not disclose 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. Sommer teaches 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 (see Fig. 8; element 620 and 621); 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 (see Fig. 8; elements 708 and 612) for the purpose of identifying materials based on detected optical emissions (col. 5, lines 46-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Sommer, for the purpose of identifying materials based on detected optical emissions. Graves in view of Sommer does not explicitly disclose a second sensor comprising a second laser source directed at an opposite side of the trona ore particles. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to sensing an object from a separate angle because Applicant has not disclosed that a second laser provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Graves in view of Sommer, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either sensor and source because both sources would perform the same function of applying a source for absorption, fluorescence and reflectance characteristics detection for the purpose of identifying and sorting a desired material.
Regarding claim 13, Graves discloses the ore separator comprises an identification system (element 13) configured to accept or reject each trona ore particle, wherein an accepted trona ore particle is deposited in a bin (element 17 to element 22) and a rejected trona ore particle (element 11), but Graves does not disclose a rejected trona ore particle is ejected with a high-pressure air jet. Sommer teaches a rejected trona ore particle is ejected with a high-pressure air jet (col. 13, lines 64+ and col. 14, lines 1-13) for the purpose of identifying and sorting materials based on fluoresced x-rays and detected optical emissions (col. 5, lines 46-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Sommer, for the purpose of identifying and sorting materials based on fluoresced x-rays and detected optical emissions.
Regarding claim 14, Graves does not disclose the claim limitations. Sommer teaches 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 (elements 606 and 614 and col. 3, lines 3-20) for the purpose of identifying materials based on fluoresced x-rays (col. 5, lines 46-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Sommer, for the purpose of identifying materials based on fluoresced x-rays.
Regarding claim 15, Graves discloses a method for purification of trona (col. 3, lines 50-52), the method comprising: screening trona ore from an ore deposit to produce a trona ore feed comprising trona ore particles having a predetermined size (col. 5, lines 12-14); identifying an impurity content of the ore particles (element 13, where the ore particles are optically examined) an accepted ore particle is deposited in a bin and a rejected ore is ejected (elements 17 and 11), but Graves does not disclose placing the trona ore feed on a conveyer belt that receives the ore particles having a predetermined size, identifying an impurity content of the ore particles by a dual laser; and separating the ore particles using air-jet diverters based on a purity threshold to increase an economic value of the trona ore by removing high-grade mill feed, resulting in an ultra high-grade ore product, wherein an accepted ore particle is deposited in a bin and a rejected ore is ejected with a high-pressure air jet. Sommer teaches placing the trona ore feed on a conveyer belt that receives the ore particles having a predetermined size (see Fig. 8; element 620 and 621), identifying an impurity content of the ore particles by a dual laser scanner; identifying an impurity content of the ore particles by a dual laser scanner (see Fig. 7; element 702); and separating the ore particles using air-jet diverters based on a purity threshold to increase an economic value of the trona ore by removing high-grade mill feed, resulting in an ultra high-grade ore product, wherein an accepted ore particle is deposited in a bin and a rejected ore is ejected with a high-pressure air jet (col. 13, lines 64+ and col. 14, lines 1-13) for the purpose of identifying and sorting materials based on fluoresced x-rays and detected optical emissions (col. 5, lines 46-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Sommer, for the purpose of identifying and sorting materials based on fluoresced x-rays and detected optical emissions.
Regarding claim 16, Graves does not disclose the claim limitations. Sommer teaches the laser scanning comprises analyzing ore particles of the high purity ore stream for absorption, reflection and reflectance characteristics (elements 708 and 606 apply different wavelengths and absorption, fluorescence and reflectance characteristics are detected to determine material properties) for the purpose of identifying and sorting materials based on fluoresced x-rays and detected optical emissions (col. 5, lines 46-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Sommer, for the purpose of identifying and sorting materials based on fluoresced x-rays and detected optical emissions.
Regarding claim 17, Graves discloses the trona ore particles include a diameter between about 1/8 inch and about 4 inches (col. 5, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 18, Graves discloses the purity threshold comprises about 95% trona (element 22).
Regarding claim 19, Graves discloses the purity threshold comprises about 98% trona (col. 3, lines 70-71).
Regarding claim 20, Graves does not explicitly disclose the first grade ore comprises a trona concentration greater than 98.5%. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to processing ore to a desired concentration because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific trona concentration percentage provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Graves, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either separation mechanisms because both separations mechanisms would perform the same function of sorting the trona to a desired concentration for the purpose of obtaining a grade suitable for manufacturing of glass.
Regarding claim 21, Graves discloses crushing the trona ore prior to screening trona ore (see Fig. 1; elements 3 and 5).
Claims 8, 9, 12, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves/Sommer and in further view of Bakke et al (US Pub 2014/0255278 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Graves discloses a first trona ore feed and a first beneficiation system (elements 3 and 13), but Graves does not discloses trona ore screen system comprises a first trona ore feed including a large ore particle diameter and a second ore feed including a small 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. Bakke teaches multiple ore feed and beneficiation systems for the purpose of obtaining all of the desired materials from the ore (paragraph 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Bakke, for the purpose of obtaining all of the desired materials from the ore.
Regarding claim 9, Graves does not disclose the claim limitations. Bakke teaches the first trona ore feed and second trona ore feed are in series (see Fig. 1; elements 16 and 24) for the purpose of obtaining all of the desired materials from the ore (paragraph 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Bakke, for the purpose of obtaining all of the desired materials from the ore.
Regarding claim 12, Graves does not disclose the claim limitations. Sommer teaches the laser scanning comprises analyzing ore particles of the high purity ore stream for absorption, reflection and reflectance characteristics (elements 708 and 606 apply different wavelengths and absorption, fluorescence and reflectance characteristics are detected to determine material properties) for the purpose of identifying and sorting materials based on fluoresced x-rays and detected optical emissions (col. 5, lines 46-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Sommer, for the purpose of identifying and sorting materials based on fluoresced x-rays and detected optical emissions.
Regarding claim 22, Graves in view of Sommer discloses a first trona ore feed (Graves; element 3) and a laser scanner (Sommer; see Fig. 8; elements 708 and 612), but Graves does not discloses trona ore screen system comprises a first trona ore feed including a large ore particle diameter and a second ore feed including a small 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. Bakke teaches multiple ore feed and beneficiation systems for the purpose of obtaining all of the desired materials from the ore (paragraph 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Bakke, for the purpose of obtaining all of the desired materials from the ore.
Regarding claim 23, Graves in view of Sommer disclose the first laser scanner system (see Fig. 8; elements 708 and 612) does not disclose a first and second laser scanner in series. Bakke teaches the first and second scanner are in series (see Fig. 1; elements 16 and 24) for the purpose of obtaining all of the desired materials from the ore (paragraph 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Graves, as taught by Bakke, for the purpose of obtaining all of the desired materials from the ore.
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves/Sommer/Bakke and in further view of Gronvall (WO 2021/018781 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Graves in view of Bakke discloses a first trona ore feed (element 3) and a second trona ore feed (elements 16 and 24), but does not disclose the second trona ore feed are in parallel. Gronvall teaches as obvious placing feeding elements in parallel (see Fig. 1; elements 51-53) for the purpose of deeming particles valuable enough for further comminution or to particles which are deemed less valuable and which will therefore be transported to a gangue dump (page 22, lines 14+). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sommer and Bakke, as taught by Gronvall, for the purpose of deeming particles valuable enough for further comminution or to particles which are deemed less valuable and which will therefore be transported to a gangue dump.
Regarding claim 24, Graves in view of Sommer and Bakke discloses the first laser scanner (Sommer; see Fig. 8; elements 708 and 612) and the second laser scanner (Bakke; paragraph 0042), but does not disclose the laser scanners are in parallel. Gronvall teaches as obvious placing scanning elements in parallel (see Fig. 1; elements 51-53) for the purpose of deeming particles valuable enough for further comminution or to particles which are deemed less valuable and which will therefore be transported to a gangue dump (page 22, lines 14+). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sommer and Bakke, as taught by Gronvall, for the purpose of deeming particles valuable enough for further comminution or to particles which are deemed less valuable and which will therefore be transported to a gangue dump.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael McCullough can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653