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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 19 March 2026 has been entered.
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 24-28, 33-34, 38-39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botto (WO 2013/155075 A1) in view of Suenaga (JP 2014-126407 A).
Regarding claim 24, Botto teaches determining a density of at least a portion of a heap by measuring an incidence of atmospheric muons ([0020]), the method comprising:
Associating one or more muon detectors with the heap by placing a muon detector (120) within a trench, borehole, or pipe that is located within a first portion of the heap ([0022]),
Measuring an incidence of atmospheric muons on the one or more muon detectors (measured muon flux, [0027]), and
Determining the density of the at least a portion of the heap by comparing the incidence of atmospheric muons detected by the one or more muon detectors to a known muon attenuation of the materials in the heap and a known muon flux at the surface of the earth (normalizing observed event rate relative to incoming muon rate, [0020]; related to baseline measurement without injection of production agents, [0057]).
Botto does not teach that the method is for monitoring slope stability.
Suenaga teaches a method of slope stability monitoring by measuring a density of a heap (p. 1 paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the density measuring method of Botto in order to monitor the stability of the slope of the heap of Botto, in order to monitor the possibility of collapse and ensure safety as described by Suenaga.
Regarding claim 25, Botto teaches comparing the initial muon attenuation for an initial density from an initial sample of the materials in the heap with the muon attenuation in the heap (comparing measured value with baseline measurements of initial sample before introduction of production agents, [0057]).
Regarding claim 26, Botto teaches that the initial sample of materials in the heap is agglomerated ore (primary ore is agglomerated before leaching, [0018]; initial baseline measurement is therefore agglomerated ore).
Regarding claim 27, Botto teaches that the initial sample of materials in the heap is measured from two or more different locations in the heap (initial baseline measurements implicitly made by multiple detectors 120 to determine density distribution of heap over time, [0057]).
Regarding claim 28, Botto teaches that the measured incidence of atmospheric muons is measured across two or more angles (e.g. tracks 130-131, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, Botto teaches determining a fluid content of at least a portion of the heap by measuring, for the portion of the heap that includes unconsolidated material (i.e. the ore that forms the original heap), a change in the apparent bulk density of the unconsolidated material between an initial sample value and a current sample value (monitoring saturation and movement of a fluid in the heap over time by 3D density imaging, [0057]).
Regarding claim 34, Botto teaches a system for determining a density of at least a portion of a heap by measuring an incidence of atmospheric muons ([0020]), the system comprising:
A muon detector (120) within a trench or pipe that is located within a first portion of the heap ([0022]),
Wherein the system measures an incidence of atmospheric muons on the muon detector (measured muon flux, [0027]), and
Wherein the system determines the density of the at least a portion of the heap by comparing the incidence of atmospheric muons detected by the one or more muon detectors to a known muon attenuation of the materials in the heap and a known muon flux at the surface of the earth (normalizing observed event rate relative to incoming muon rate, [0020]; related to baseline measurement without injection of production agents, [0057]).
Botto does not teach that the system is for monitoring slope stability.
Suenaga teaches a method of slope stability monitoring by measuring a density of a heap (p. 1 paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the density measuring method of Botto in order to monitor the stability of the slope of the heap of Botto, in order to monitor the possibility of collapse and ensure safety as described by Suenaga.
Regarding claim 38, Botto teaches determining a fluid content of at least a portion of the heap by measuring, for the portion of the heap that includes unconsolidated material (i.e. the ore that forms the original heap), a change in the apparent bulk density of the unconsolidated material between an initial sample value and a current sample value (monitoring saturation and movement of a fluid in the heap over time by 3D density imaging, [0057]).
Regarding claim 39, Botto teaches determining a density of at least a portion of a heap by measuring an incidence of atmospheric muons ([0020]), the method comprising:
Placing a muon detector (120) within a trench, borehole, tunnel or pipe that is offset from the heap ([0022]),
Measuring an incidence of atmospheric muons on the muon detector (measured muon flux, [0027]), and
Determining the density of the portion of the heap by comparing the incidence of atmospheric muons detected by the muon detector to a muon attenuation of a material in the heap and a known muon flux at the surface of the earth (normalizing observed event rate relative to incoming muon rate, [0020]; related to baseline measurement without injection of production agents, [0057]).
Botto does not teach that the method is for monitoring slope stability.
Suenaga teaches a method of slope stability monitoring by measuring a density of a heap (p. 1 paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the density measuring method of Botto in order to monitor the stability of the slope of the heap of Botto, in order to monitor the possibility of collapse and ensure safety as described by Suenaga.
Regarding claim 41, Botto teaches determining a fluid content of at least a portion of the heap by measuring, for the portion of the heap that includes unconsolidated material (i.e. the ore that forms the original heap), a change in the apparent bulk density of the unconsolidated material between an initial sample value and a current sample value (monitoring saturation and movement of a fluid in the heap over time by 3D density imaging, [0057]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botto in view of Suenaga and in further view of Bryman (AU 2012203466 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Botto and Suenaga teach all the limitations of claim 24 as described above. Botto and Suenaga do not teach moving at least one muon detector.
Bryman teaches a method of forming a density map including repositioning a density detector ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Botto and Suenaga to include moving the muon detector as taught by Bryman, as a known equivalent means of measuring the muon flux at different positions in order to form a 3D density distribution with no unexpected result.
Claims 30, 35 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botto in view of Suenaga and in further view of Ma (CN 208151458 U).
Regarding claims 30, 35 and 42, Botto teaches that the heap is a pile of ore that is being leached ([0002]). Botto does not teach that the heap includes two or more leaching pad area modules.
Ma teaches a heap leaching pad having plural modules (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Botto to have the modular heap leaching pad of Ma, since a leaching pad is a common tool for heap leaching and the modular system of Ma allows production to continue when one region of the pad breaks.
Claims 31-32, 36-37,40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botto in view of Suenaga and in further view of Nagamine (US 20110001046 A1).
Regarding claims 31, 36 and 43, Botto and Suenaga teach all the limitations of claims 24 and 34 as described above. Botto and Suenaga do not teach that the heap is a dam.
Nagamine teaches a method of using muon detection to determine the density of a dam ([0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the art at the time of the invention to use the system of Botto to measure the structural stability of a dam, in order to monitor the soundness of the dam as taught by Nagamine.
Regarding claims 32 and 40, Botto teaches placing at least one muon detector horizontally offset from the toe of the dam (at the foot of the heap, i.e. the toe of the dam when the heap is a dam, [0022]).
Regarding claim 37, Botto teaches that the one or more muon detectors are placed horizontally offset from the heap outside of the dam (foot of the heap/dam, [0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached on 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881