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, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/3/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 2/23/2024 and the amendments and response filed 12/16/2025.
1, 17, 18, 20, and 22-24 are currently amended.
4, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, and 19 have been previously amended.
Claims 38 and 39 have been added.
Claims 5, 6, 21, and 25-37 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7-20, 22-24, and 38-39 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 02/23/2024, 05/01/2024, and 04/07/2025, and 9/19/2025 have been received and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 4/03/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of newly amended independent claim(s) 1 and 24 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the prior art failing to teach a controller which instructs the trucks to proceed to a particular dumping location based on the material category of material that has been sensed and loaded into the truck as required by the amended independent claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pearson (WO 2020120957), Kiegerl (US 20090076674), and Bamber (US 20160016202).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-15, 17-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (WO 2020120957, hereinafter “Pearson”) in view of Kiegerl (US 20090076674, hereinafter “Kiegerl”) and Bamber et al (US 20160016202, hereinafter “Bamber”).
Regarding Claim 1, Pearson teaches:
A material categorisation and transportation system (Pearson Pg 1 lines 6-10 “This invention relates to a material conveyer, system and method for the movement of material from a working site. The invention relates in particular to an overburden or mineral conveyer and a system and method of handling overburden or mineral, for example for use in opencast mining. The material conveyer, system and method is additionally adapted for the classification of conveyed material,”)
including: at least two mine vehicles […] (Pearson Pg 12 lines 24-26 “In a possible case, a separate onward transportation system may be provided to receive material classified in each one of the said classes separately from material classified in each other of the said classes,” and Pg 26 lines 12-13 “A first truck 115 receives the former and a second truck 116 receives the latter,”)
[…] transporting material from a first location; (Pearson Pg 12 lines 32-34 “An onward transport system may comprise one or more transport trucks each including a material transport volume positioned to receive material from the material discharge end of the feed device,”)
a sensing device for sensing characteristics of material (Pearson Pg 7 line 30-Pg 8 line 2 “The scanning system includes a scanning device adapted to scan the mineral and monitor some response therefrom, being a response selected to be one which characteristically varies depending upon the intended classification. In particular, the response is selected to be one which varies characteristically depending upon the level of one or more target minerals present in the material, and in consequence which varies characteristically relative to the “quality” of the ore, where quality in this context means economically recoverability of the target mineral. In particular, a property is preferably selected which is continuously variable,”)
such that the material is categorised into one of at least two material categories based on the sensed characteristics; (Pearson Pg 7 lines 21-28 “The apparatus of the invention is particularly adapted to effect classification of material via a binary classification into a waste class in which levels of target mineral are below economically recoverable levels, to be rejected from supply for further processing, and a useful ore class in which levels of target mineral are above economically recoverable levels, to be accepted for and passed to further processing. In this case there are exactly two classes comprising waste and useful ore. However, the invention is equally applicable to the classification of material into multiple classes correlated to a level of target mineral within each such class,”)
and a loading device located at the first location for loading material into the at least two mine vehicles (Pearson Pg 5 lines 26-30 “The invention comprises a mobile apparatus with at least the dual functionality that it receives material at the receiving end, for example in typical operation from a material shovel having a bucket adapted to pick up material and move the material from a work front, and conveys the same to a material discharge end where it may be discharged to a further transportation means,”)
based on the material category for transportation of the material, (Pearson Pg 5 lines 30-34 “a further transportation means for transport for onward processing for example at a remote site, but that additionally classifies material at least as between a waste class and a useable ore class. On the basis of this classification, different treatment decisions may be made, and for example materials in the respective classes may be differently allocated for onward transportation,”)
such that each of the at least two mine vehicles will only carry material of one of the at least two material categories; […] (Pearson Pg 12 lines 24-26 “In a possible case, a separate onward transportation system may be provided to receive material classified in each one of the said classes separately from material classified in each other of the said classes,” and Pg 26 lines 12-13 “A first truck 115 receives the former and a second truck 116 receives the latter,”)
Pearson does not teach:
[…] having an autonomous mode of operation for at least partially autonomously […]
[…] and a controller in communication with the at least two mine vehicles, the sensing device, and the loading device, wherein each material category of the at least two material categories is associated with a respective dumping location, and wherein, in response to material of a material category of the at least two material categories loaded into a mine vehicle of the at least two mine vehicles, the controller is configured to instruct the mine vehicle to proceed to the respective dumping location associated with the material category.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson, Bamber teaches:
[…] and a controller in communication with the at least two mine vehicles, the sensing device, and the loading device, wherein each material category of the at least two material categories is associated with a respective dumping location, (Bamber ¶ 0027 lines 10-15 “For example, as shown in FIG. 3, the chassis 303 includes an enclosure 350 that may house any additional processing equipment needed for the purpose of processing and analyzing data collected by the sensors 100/105/120 that is not present in the control housing 140,” and ¶ 0028 “data processed within the enclosure 350 and/or the control housing 140 is transmitted to a mine operator's enterprise resource planning (ERP) system 370 located remote from the mining shovel (such as in trailers set up at mining operations for various logistical requirements). ERP systems are generally used in mining operations to help ensure that mining material is directed to the appropriate destination based on a variety of variable conditions (e.g., commodity prices). For example, in some embodiments, ERP systems can be used to help direct higher quality mining material to product streams when commodity prices are low, while directing medium and lower quality mining material to waste or holding piles. Conversely, the ERP system can be used to help direct higher and medium quality mining material to product streams when commodity prices are high, while directing low quality mining material to waste or holding piles,” teaching an enterprise resource planning system (controller) in communication with the sensing and loading device and with mining vehicles, the communication with the latter evident from directing the vehicles, and furthermore teaches separate locations for high quality product streams and waste piles)
and wherein, in response to material of a material category of the at least two material categories loaded into a mine vehicle of the at least two mine vehicles, the controller is configured to instruct the mine vehicle to proceed to the respective dumping location associated with the material category. (Bamber ¶ 0030 lines 8-15 “For example, in a mining operation where more than one mining material is being recovered, a mining shovel having a bucket full or material found to include more of a first material than a second material can be directed to deposit the material in a specific haul truck via the fleet management system. The fleet management system can subsequently direct the haul truck to specific location based on the contents previously deposited therein,” teaching the fleet management system instructing a haul truck to proceed to a specific location based on the deposited contents)
Pearson and Bamber are both considered analogous because they both relate to material sorting and transport within a mine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material sorting and onward transportation of Pearson with the simple addition of the enterprise resource planning and fleet management systems of Pearson to direct the vehicles to specific locations based on the deposited contents in the vehicles. Because both Pearson and Bamber teach on-site distribution of mining material using trucks, this substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success motivated by an improved ability to direct mining material to appropriate destinations based on a variety of variable conditions such as commodity prices (Bamber ¶ 0028 lines 6-9).
The combination of Pearson and Bamber does not teach:
[…] having an autonomous mode of operation for at least partially autonomously […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson and Bamber, Kiegerl teaches:
[…] having an autonomous mode of operation for at least partially autonomously […] (Kiegerl ¶ 0036 lines 1-5 “The present invention furthermore includes a system for the automatic movement of material in a working area having at least one movable piece of equipment, with the system having a control for the automatic movement of the piece of equipment,”)
Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl are all considered analogous because they all relate to material sorting and transport within a mine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the onward transportation trucks of Pearson with the simple addition of Kiegerl’s automatic movement control of a movable piece of equipment for automatic movement of material. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an increase in efficiency, process optimization, operation independent of standard working hours, multishift operation without additional personnel capacity, machine operation optimized for service life, and minimization of energy requirements (Kiegerl ¶ 0006-0011).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the sensing device is mounted to the loading device. (Pearson Pg 1 lines 6-10 “a material transport system disposed between the material receiving end and the discharge end so as in use to cause material received at the material receiving end to be conveyed to the material discharge end; a scanning system including a scanning device disposed to scan the material being conveyed to the material discharge end,” and Pg 24 lines 15-17 “the apparatus is additionally characterized by the provision of the scanner 6 to give a classifying function. The scanner 6 is positioned part way along the conveyer belt 9 in suitable position to obtain a response from material as it passes along the belt,” shown as Item 6 in Fig. 1 to be part of the material transport system)
PNG
media_image1.png
700
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the sensing device is integrally formed with the loading device. (Pearson Pg 1 lines 6-10 “a material transport system disposed between the material receiving end and the discharge end so as in use to cause material received at the material receiving end to be conveyed to the material discharge end; a scanning system including a scanning device disposed to scan the material being conveyed to the material discharge end,” and Pg 24 lines 15-17 “the apparatus is additionally characterized by the provision of the scanner 6 to give a classifying function. The scanner 6 is positioned part way along the conveyer belt 9 in suitable position to obtain a response from material as it passes along the belt,” shown as Item 6 in Fig. 1 to be part of the material transport system)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the sensing device is operatively associated with the loading device […] (Pearson Pg 10 lines 13-17 “the apparatus preferably further comprises a material sorter in communication with the scanning device, and for example under control of the classification module of the scanning system, and adapted to physically separate material classified in each one of the said classes from material classified in each other of the said classes,” the classification module controlling physical separation of the loader, which is operative control)
Pearson does not teach:
[…] such that it can activate and deactivate the loading device from loading material.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson, Bamber teaches:
[…] such that it can activate and deactivate the loading device from loading material. (Bamber ¶ 0036 lines 7-24 “Once the bucket is loaded with mining material, the sensors in the bucket 110 are used to sense the material and gather data about the material loaded in the bucket 110. The results of these measurements are conveyed to the mine planning system 440 (also referred to as the ERP system 370 in FIG. 3) via, e.g., an on-shovel wireless communication node 430. Once received by the mine planning system 440, the values from the bucket 110 are compared to stored values in the mine planning system 440 to find matches that identify the composition of the material. When a match to desirable material is made, instructions to accept the material in the bucket 110 are conveyed to the fleet management/ore routing system 450 via, e.g., a mine operators network or communications network. When a match to desirable material is not found, or when a match to undesirable material is made, instructions to reject the material in the bucket 110 are conveyed to the fleet management/ore routing system 450,” teaching that the sensor results are used by the ERP system to classify the ore, and that classification is operatively used to send instructions (operative control) either to accept the material, functionally analogous to activating the loader, or reject the material, functionally analogous to deactivating the loader. )
Pearson and Bamber are considered analogous because they both relate to classifying mining materials during loading into mine transports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the classification-based control of the sorting of Pearson with the simple addition of Bamber’s use of material classification to send instructions to the loader to accept or reject material. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving the control efficiency of the loading system by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143(I)(C)).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the sensing device includes at least one sensor, (Pearson Pg 7 line 30-Pg 8 line 2 “The scanning system includes a scanning device adapted to scan the mineral and monitor some response therefrom, being a response selected to be one which characteristically varies depending upon the intended classification. In particular, the response is selected to be one which varies characteristically depending upon the level of one or more target minerals present in the material, and in consequence which varies characteristically relative to the “quality” of the ore, where quality in this context means economically recoverability of the target mineral. In particular, a property is preferably selected which is continuously variable,”)
the at least one sensor being one or more of the group including: Prompt Gamma Neutron Activation Analysis (PGNAA) sensor; (Pearson Pg 8 lines 23-25 “In particular, the scanning device may include […] one or more gamma ray emitters and one or more gamma ray detectors,” and Pg 24 lines 17-19 “The scanner has a sensor which is for example a gamma ray sensor, such as will be familiar to the skilled person as being useful for the automatic grading of various ores. The gamma ray sensor for example comprises one or more gamma ray emitters and one or more gamma ray detectors,” describing a gamma ray sensor)
microwave sensor;
x-ray sensor;
and magnetic induction sensor. (Pearson Pg 8 lines 23-24 “In particular, the scanning device may include one or more emitters and one or more detectors of electromagnetic radiation,” describing a magnetic induction sensor)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the loading device includes one or more of the group including: an excavator; a dozer; a face shovel; a rope shovel; and a conveyor loader. (Pearson Pg 1 line 6 “This invention relates to a material conveyer,” teaching a conveyor loader)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the characteristics of material sensed by the sensor device include one or more of: concentration of a desired material; (Pearson Pg 1 line 6 “The apparatus of the invention is particularly adapted to effect classification of material via a binary classification into a waste class in which levels of target mineral are below economically recoverable levels, to be rejected from supply for further processing, and a useful ore class in which levels of target mineral are above economically recoverable levels, to be accepted for and passed to further processing,”)
concentration of deleterious material; material moisture content;
and material fragmentation size. (Pearson Pg 19 lines 25-28 “Suitable sizer technology is well established, and in particular can readily be provided at a mining or quarrying site, either incorporated into the mobile apparatus of the first aspect of the invention, or via a separate mobile or static apparatus. Preferably, the apparatus of the first aspect of the invention includes a sizer.,”)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the material is categorised into one of a plurality of material categories based on the sensed characteristics. (Pearson Pg 1 line 6 “The apparatus of the invention is particularly adapted to effect classification of material via a binary classification into a waste class in which levels of target mineral are below economically recoverable levels, to be rejected from supply for further processing, and a useful ore class in which levels of target mineral are above economically recoverable levels, to be accepted for and passed to further processing,”)
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 12 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the plurality of material categories includes: a high grade material category; a low grade material category; (Pearson Pg 7 lines 26-28 “the invention is equally applicable to the classification of material into multiple classes correlated to a level of target mineral within each such class.”)
and a waste material category. (Pearson Pg 1 line 6 “The apparatus of the invention is particularly adapted to effect classification of material via a binary classification into a waste class in which levels of target mineral are below economically recoverable levels,”)
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 13 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
including at least three mine vehicles wherein: a first one of the at least three mine vehicles receives material of the high grade material category; a second one of the at least three mine vehicles receives material of the low grade material category; and a third one of the at least three mine vehicles receives material of the waste material category. (Pearson Pg 12 lines 16-26 “The onward transportation system is positioned to receive material from the material discharge end of the material conveyor apparatus in accordance with a first aspect of the invention which has been classified by the material conveyor apparatus at least as between a waste class and a useable ore class and optionally as between a larger plurality of classes correlated to a level of target mineral within each such class. On the basis of this classification, materials in the respective classes may be differently allocated for onward transportation. In a possible case, a separate onward transportation system may be provided to receive material classified in each one of the said classes separately from material classified in each other of the said classes,” and Pg 26 lines 12-13 “A first truck 115 receives the former and a second truck 116 receives the latter,” in the obvious combination teaching that each category is allocated to a separate truck)
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 14 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the first one of the at least three mine vehicles is configured to transport the material of the high grade material category to a high grade material location, the second one of the at least three mine vehicles is configured to transport the material of the low grade material category to a low grade material location, and the third one of the at least three mine vehicles is configured to transport the material of the waste material category to a waste material location. (Pearson Pg 5 lines 30-31 “a further transportation means for transport for onward processing for example at a remote site,” in combination with the separate allocation of the previous claim teaching separate allocation to remote locations)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein one or more of the respective dumping locations is a stockpile associated with a materials processing site. (Pearson Pg 5 lines 30-31 “a further transportation means for transport for onward processing for example at a remote site,”)
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein each respective dumping location receives only materials of a certain one of the material categories. (Pearson Pg 5 lines 30-31 “a further transportation means for transport for onward processing for example at a remote site,” and Pg 12 lines 16-26 “The onward transportation system is positioned to receive material from the material discharge end of the material conveyor apparatus in accordance with a first aspect of the invention which has been classified by the material conveyor apparatus at least as between a waste class and a useable ore class and optionally as between a larger plurality of classes correlated to a level of target mineral within each such class. On the basis of this classification, materials in the respective classes may be differently allocated for onward transportation. In a possible case, a separate onward transportation system may be provided to receive material classified in each one of the said classes separately from material classified in each other of the said classes,” teaching separate allocation for separate material grades)
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the loading device is configured to cease loading one of the at least two mine vehicles if the category of material that is sensed changes such that the one of the at least two mine vehicles is not loaded to its full capacity. (Pearson Pg 10 lines 22-29 “It is a particular feature of many mineral deposits that they are stratified, so that higher quality ore is not distributed randomly, but tends to occur in such strata with lower quality ore/waste strata between. Thus, when material recovered from such a deposit is passed through an apparatus in accordance with the invention, there will tend to be progressive changes in the ore quality, rather than random distributions of high quality ore and waste. The apparatus of the invention is particularly adapted to the effective continuous processing of such ore distributions as it switches between one classification and another as the quality changes progressively,” and Pg 12 lines 16-26 “The onward transportation system is positioned to receive material from the material discharge end of the material conveyor apparatus in accordance with a first aspect of the invention which has been classified by the material conveyor apparatus at least as between a waste class and a useable ore class and optionally as between a larger plurality of classes correlated to a level of target mineral within each such class. On the basis of this classification, materials in the respective classes may be differently allocated for onward transportation,” together teaching separate allocation for separate material grades as well as stratification of ore grades that results in a change of ore grade changing the distribution of the ore, that is a change in ore grade results in a change of vehicle allocation)
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 19 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the one of the at least two mine vehicles that is not loaded to its full capacity is configured to commence transportation of the material to the respective dumping location (Pearson Pg 13 lines 4-12 “In the case where an onward transport system comprises one or more transport trucks, a system in accordance with the second aspect of the invention preferably includes a sensor system to sense fill level as a truck is filled. Conveniently an apparatus in accordance with the first aspect of the invention includes a sensor system to sense fill level as a truck is filled in use. Conveniently such a sensor system is adapted cooperably with a conveyor control system to cause the material conveyor system to pause when a truck is detected as being full, allowing an empty truck to be positioned in replacement. The processing capacity of the material receiving end is preferably such as to allow for continuous operation of the shovel during this period,” together with the previously described features of Claim 19 teaching allocation with a sensed fill level when an ore grade changes)
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson does not teach:
wherein each of the at least two mine vehicles are able to be re-directed, prior to arrival at one of the respective dumping locations, to a third location.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson, Kiegerl teaches:
wherein each of the at least two mine vehicles are able to be re-directed, prior to arrival at one of the respective dumping locations, to a third location. (Kiegerl ¶ 0058-0059 “In the following driving operation either the loading site is driven to in a step 3 or the unloading site is driven to in a step 8. If the obstacle handling recognizes an obstacle, it is identified in a step 5 and classified correspondingly to select the required obstacle processing function in a step 6. Based on the selected obstacle processing strategy, a new path is calculated in the track planning which optionally also includes work steps,” teaching re-direction to a new path (third location) prior to arrival at the second location)
Pearson and Kiegerl are considered analogous because they both relate to material sorting and transport within a mine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the onward transportation trucks of Pearson with the simple addition of Kiegerl’s automatic movement control of a movable piece of equipment to redirect to a new path to avoid an obstacle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an increase in efficiency, process optimization, operation independent of standard working hours, multishift operation without additional personnel capacity, machine operation optimized for service life, and minimization of energy requirements (Kiegerl ¶ 0006-0011).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the respective dumping location is not determined until after the respective mine vehicle departs the first location. (Pearson Pg 13 lines 4-12 “In the case where an onward transport system comprises one or more transport trucks, a system in accordance with the second aspect of the invention preferably includes a sensor system to sense fill level as a truck is filled. Conveniently an apparatus in accordance with the first aspect of the invention includes a sensor system to sense fill level as a truck is filled in use. Conveniently such a sensor system is adapted cooperably with a conveyor control system to cause the material conveyor system to pause when a truck is detected as being full, allowing an empty truck to be positioned in replacement. The processing capacity of the material receiving end is preferably such as to allow for continuous operation of the shovel during this period,” and Pg x lines x-x “A key feature of this embodiment is the provision and configuration of the second conveyor portion that conveys material from the scanner. For practical purposes, any detection system, and in particular known detection systems embodying electromagnetic technology, require an acquisition time in order to make a determination of an appropriate classification. The combined conveyance speed, capacity, length etc. of the second conveyor portion are preselected to result in a conveyance time between an output of the scanner and a point of delivery which is at least this predetermined acquisition time,” where waiting to determine the truck destination is an obvious variation on solving the delay time for the detection system)
Regarding Claim 24, Pearson teaches:
A material categorisation and transportation method including the steps of: (Pearson Pg 1 lines 6-10 “This invention relates to a material conveyer, system and method for the movement of material from a working site. The invention relates in particular to an overburden or mineral conveyer and a system and method of handling overburden or mineral, for example for use in opencast mining. The material conveyer, system and method is additionally adapted for the classification of conveyed material,”)
sensing, by a sensing device, characteristics of material (Pearson Pg 7 line 30-Pg 8 line 2 “The scanning system includes a scanning device adapted to scan the mineral and monitor some response therefrom, being a response selected to be one which characteristically varies depending upon the intended classification. In particular, the response is selected to be one which varies characteristically depending upon the level of one or more target minerals present in the material, and in consequence which varies characteristically relative to the “quality” of the ore, where quality in this context means economically recoverability of the target mineral. In particular, a property is preferably selected which is continuously variable,”)
at a first location; (Pearson Pg 12 lines 32-34 “An onward transport system may comprise one or more transport trucks each including a material transport volume positioned to receive material from the material discharge end of the feed device,”)
categorising the material into one of at least two material categories based on the sensed characteristics, […] (Pearson Pg 7 lines 21-28 “The apparatus of the invention is particularly adapted to effect classification of material via a binary classification into a waste class in which levels of target mineral are below economically recoverable levels, to be rejected from supply for further processing, and a useful ore class in which levels of target mineral are above economically recoverable levels, to be accepted for and passed to further processing. In this case there are exactly two classes comprising waste and useful ore. However, the invention is equally applicable to the classification of material into multiple classes correlated to a level of target mineral within each such class,”)
[…] at the first location by a loading device, (Pearson Pg 5 lines 26-30 “The invention comprises a mobile apparatus with at least the dual functionality that it receives material at the receiving end, for example in typical operation from a material shovel having a bucket adapted to pick up material and move the material from a work front, and conveys the same to a material discharge end where it may be discharged to a further transportation means,”)
loading a first mine vehicle of a plurality of mine vehicles with material of a first material category of the at least two material categories, (Pearson Pg 5 lines 30-34 “a further transportation means for transport for onward processing for example at a remote site, but that additionally classifies material at least as between a waste class and a useable ore class. On the basis of this classification, different treatment decisions may be made, and for example materials in the respective classes may be differently allocated for onward transportation,”)
such that the first mine vehicle is only loaded with material of the first material category; […] (Pearson Pg 12 lines 24-26 “In a possible case, a separate onward transportation system may be provided to receive material classified in each one of the said classes separately from material classified in each other of the said classes,” and Pg 26 lines 12-13 “A first truck 115 receives the former and a second truck 116 receives the latter,”)
[…] and transporting, by the first mine vehicle, the material of the first material category […] (Pearson Pg 12 lines 24-26 “In a possible case, a separate onward transportation system may be provided to receive material classified in each one of the said classes separately from material classified in each other of the said classes,” and Pg 26 lines 12-13 “A first truck 115 receives the former and a second truck 116 receives the latter,”)
Pearson does not teach:
[…] wherein each material category of the at least two material categories is associated with a respective dumping location; […]
[…] in response to material of the first material category loaded into the first mine vehicle, instructing the first mine vehicle to proceed to the dumping location associated with the first material category; […]
[…] to the dumping location associated with the first material category, […]
[…] wherein the first mine vehicle has an autonomous mode of operation and the transporting of the material of the first material category at least partially involves the first mine vehicle being in the autonomous mode of operation.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson, Bamber teaches:
[…] wherein each material category of the at least two material categories is associated with a respective dumping location; […] (Bamber ¶ 0028 “data processed within the enclosure 350 and/or the control housing 140 is transmitted to a mine operator's enterprise resource planning (ERP) system 370 located remote from the mining shovel (such as in trailers set up at mining operations for various logistical requirements). ERP systems are generally used in mining operations to help ensure that mining material is directed to the appropriate destination based on a variety of variable conditions (e.g., commodity prices). For example, in some embodiments, ERP systems can be used to help direct higher quality mining material to product streams when commodity prices are low, while directing medium and lower quality mining material to waste or holding piles. Conversely, the ERP system can be used to help direct higher and medium quality mining material to product streams when commodity prices are high, while directing low quality mining material to waste or holding piles,” teaching separate locations for high quality product streams and waste piles)
[…] in response to material of the first material category loaded into the first mine vehicle, instructing the first mine vehicle to proceed to the dumping location associated with the first material category; […] to the dumping location associated with the first material category, […] (Bamber ¶ 0030 lines 8-15 “For example, in a mining operation where more than one mining material is being recovered, a mining shovel having a bucket full or material found to include more of a first material than a second material can be directed to deposit the material in a specific haul truck via the fleet management system. The fleet management system can subsequently direct the haul truck to specific location based on the contents previously deposited therein,” teaching the fleet management system instructing a haul truck to proceed to a specific location based on the deposited contents)
Pearson and Bamber are both considered analogous because they both relate to material sorting and transport within a mine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material sorting and onward transportation of Pearson with the simple addition of the enterprise resource planning and fleet management systems of Pearson to direct the vehicles to specific locations based on the deposited contents in the vehicles. Because both Pearson and Bamber teach on-site distribution of mining material using trucks, this substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success motivated by an improved ability to direct mining material to appropriate destinations based on a variety of variable conditions such as commodity prices (Bamber ¶ 0028 lines 6-9).
The combination of Pearson and Bamber does not teach:
[…] wherein the first mine vehicle has an autonomous mode of operation and the transporting of the material of the first material category at least partially involves the first mine vehicle being in the autonomous mode of operation.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson and Bamber, Kiegerl teaches:
[…] wherein the first mine vehicle has an autonomous mode of operation and the transporting of the material of the first material category at least partially involves the first mine vehicle being in the autonomous mode of operation. (Kiegerl ¶ 0036 lines 1-5 “The present invention furthermore includes a system for the automatic movement of material in a working area having at least one movable piece of equipment, with the system having a control for the automatic movement of the piece of equipment,”)
Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl are all considered analogous because they all relate to material sorting and transport within a mine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the onward transportation trucks of Pearson with the simple addition of Kiegerl’s automatic movement control of a movable piece of equipment for automatic movement of material. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an increase in efficiency, process optimization, operation independent of standard working hours, multishift operation without additional personnel capacity, machine operation optimized for service life, and minimization of energy requirements (Kiegerl ¶ 0006-0011).
Regarding Claim 38, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 24 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
further comprising the steps of: at the first location, by the loading device, loading a second mine vehicle of the plurality of mine vehicles with material of a second material category of the at least two material categories, (Pearson Pg 5 lines 26-30 “The invention comprises a mobile apparatus with at least the dual functionality that it receives material at the receiving end, for example in typical operation from a material shovel having a bucket adapted to pick up material and move the material from a work front, and conveys the same to a material discharge end where it may be discharged to a further transportation means,” applying to the second vehicle)
such that the second mine vehicle is only loaded with material of the second material category; […] (Pearson Pg 12 lines 24-26 “In a possible case, a separate onward transportation system may be provided to receive material classified in each one of the said classes separately from material classified in each other of the said classes,” and Pg 26 lines 12-13 “A first truck 115 receives the former and a second truck 116 receives the latter,” emphasis added)
[…] and transporting, by the second mine vehicle, the material of the second material category […] (Pearson Pg 5 lines 26-30 “The invention comprises a mobile apparatus with at least the dual functionality that it receives material at the receiving end, for example in typical operation from a material shovel having a bucket adapted to pick up material and move the material from a work front, and conveys the same to a material discharge end where it may be discharged to a further transportation means,” emphasis added, applying to the second vehicle)
Pearson does not teach:
[…] in response to material of the second material category loaded into the second mine vehicle, instructing the second mine vehicle to proceed to the dumping location associated with the second material category; […]
[…] to the dumping location associated with the second material category,
wherein the second mine vehicle has an autonomous mode of operation and the transporting of the material of the second material category at least partially involves the second mine vehicle being in the autonomous mode of operation.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson, Bamber teaches:
[…] in response to material of the second material category loaded into the second mine vehicle, instructing the second mine vehicle to proceed to the dumping location associated with the second material category; […] to the dumping location associated with the second material category,
(Bamber ¶ 0030 lines 8-15 “For example, in a mining operation where more than one mining material is being recovered, a mining shovel having a bucket full or material found to include more of a first material than a second material can be directed to deposit the material in a specific haul truck via the fleet management system. The fleet management system can subsequently direct the haul truck to specific location based on the contents previously deposited therein,” teaching the fleet management system instructing a haul truck to proceed to a specific location based on the deposited contents, the product streams and waste piles of Bamber ¶ 0028)
Pearson and Bamber are both considered analogous because they both relate to material sorting and transport within a mine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material sorting and onward transportation of Pearson with the simple addition of the enterprise resource planning and fleet management systems of Pearson to direct the vehicles to specific locations based on the deposited contents in the vehicles. Because both Pearson and Bamber teach on-site distribution of mining material using trucks, this substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success motivated by an improved ability to direct mining material to appropriate destinations based on a variety of variable conditions such as commodity prices (Bamber ¶ 0028 lines 6-9).
The combination of Pearson and Bamber does not teach:
[…] wherein the second mine vehicle has an autonomous mode of operation and the transporting of the material of the second material category at least partially involves the second mine vehicle being in the autonomous mode of operation.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson and Bamber, Kiegerl teaches:
[…] wherein the second mine vehicle has an autonomous mode of operation and the transporting of the material of the second material category at least partially involves the second mine vehicle being in the autonomous mode of operation. (Kiegerl ¶ 0036 lines 1-5 “The present invention furthermore includes a system for the automatic movement of material in a working area having at least one movable piece of equipment, with the system having a control for the automatic movement of the piece of equipment,”)
Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl are all considered analogous because they all relate to material sorting and transport within a mine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the onward transportation trucks of Pearson with the simple addition of Kiegerl’s automatic movement control of a movable piece of equipment for automatic movement of material. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an increase in efficiency, process optimization, operation independent of standard working hours, multishift operation without additional personnel capacity, machine operation optimized for service life, and minimization of energy requirements (Kiegerl ¶ 0006-0011).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Bamber and Kiegerl and further in view of Sinotruk Heavy Vehicles (hereinafter “Sinotruk,” website dated 6 Oct 2019 https://www.sinoheavyvehicles.com/e_productshow/?22-SINOTRUK-70tons-mining-trucks-22.html as accessed through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine on 1/22/2026 through https://web.archive.org/web/20200923122049/https://www.sinoheavyvehicles.com/e_productshow/?22-SINOTRUK-70tons-mining-trucks-22.html with details pictured below)
PNG
media_image2.png
617
1327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson does not teach:
wherein the haul trucks have a load capacity in the range of 10 tonnes to 80 tonnes.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson, Sinotruk teaches:
wherein the haul trucks have a load capacity in the range of 10 tonnes to 80 tonnes. (Sinotruk Pg 2 as shown above and below teaches a mining dump truck of a conventional size range to travel on public roads with a GVW of 75000 kg and Kerb weight of 20000 kg, resulting in a payload weight of 55000 kg, (55 metric tons, 54 imperial tonnes, or 60 US tons) which falls within the claimed range of 10 tonnes to 80 tonnes)
PNG
media_image3.png
96
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pearson and Sinotruck are both considered analogous because they both relate to mining material transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the onward transportation trucks in an opencast mining operation of Pearson with the simple substitution of the more specific SINOTRUK 70 ton mining truck with a 54 tonne payload capacity. Because Pearson teaches on-site distribution of mining material using trucks and Sinotruck furthermore teaches a specific mining dump truck with a 54 tonne payload capacity, this substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious substitution of one known element (the mining dump truck of Sinotruk) for another (the onward distribution truck of Pearson) (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, Kiegerl, and Sinotruk teaches the elements of Claim 7 as described above. Pearson does not teach:
wherein the haul trucks have a load capacity in the range of 40 to 60 tonnes.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson, Sinotruk teaches:
wherein the haul trucks have a load capacity in the range of 40 to 60 tonnes. (Sinotruk Pg 2 as shown above and below teaches a mining dump truck of a conventional size range to travel on public roads with a GVW of 75000 kg and Kerb weight of 20000 kg, resulting in a payload weight of 55000 kg, (55 metric tons, 54 imperial tonnes, or 60 US tons) which falls within the claimed range of 10 tonnes to 80 tonnes)
Pearson and Sinotruck are both considered analogous because they both relate to mining material transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the onward transportation trucks in an opencast mining operation of Pearson with the simple substitution of the more specific SINOTRUK 70 ton mining truck with a 54 tonne payload capacity. Because Pearson teaches on-site distribution of mining material using trucks and Sinotruck furthermore teaches a specific mining dump truck with a 54 tonne payload capacity, this substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious substitution of one known element (the mining dump truck of Sinotruk) for another (the onward distribution truck of Pearson) (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Bamber and Kiegerl and further in view of Stokes (US 20120001474, hereinafter “Stokes”)
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson does not teach:
wherein the first location is a blasted mine bench on a mine site.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson, Stokes teaches:
wherein the first location is a blasted mine bench on a mine site. (Stokes ¶0045-0047 “The method may include the following steps: (a) blasting a section of a bench in the mine area; (b) bringing in excavators (manned or unmanned) and unmanned haulage trucks and remove blasted material from the mine area;”)
Pearson and Stokes are considered analogous because they both relate to mining material transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonspecific mine location of Pearson with the simple substitution of Stoke’s blasting section of a bench in the mine area. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by being an obvious-to-try variation of mining environment in which to use the method of Pearson (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Bamber and Kiegerl and further in view of Sprock et al (AU 2012333234, hereinafter “Sprock”).
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of Pearson, Bamber, and Kiegerl teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Pearson further teaches:
wherein the mine vehicles are haul trucks […] (Pearson Pg 12 lines 32-34 as above teaching the use of transport trucks, analogous to haul trucks)
Pearson does not teach:
[…] of a conventional size range of vehicles that generally travel on public roads.
Within the same field of endeavor as Pearson and Kiegerl, Sprock teaches:
[…] of a conventional size range of vehicles that generally travel on public roads. (Sprock Pg 3 lines 14-21 “Fig. 1 shows a worksite 10 such as, for example, an open pit 15 mining operation. As part of the mining function, various machines may operate at or between different locations of the worksite 10. These machines may include, […] and hauling machines 16, transport machines (not shown), and other types of machines known in the art. Each of the machines at worksite 10 may be in communication with each other 20 and with a central station 18 by way of wireless communication to remotely transmit and receive operational data and instructions,” and Pg 4 lines 12-18 “A hauling machine 16 may refer to any machine that carries the excavated materials between different locations within worksite 10. Examples of hauling machine 16 may include […] an 15 on-highway dump truck, […]. Laden hauling machines 16 may carry overburden from areas of excavation within worksite 10, along haul roads to various dump sites, and return to the same or different excavation areas to be loaded again,” teaching the use of on-highway dump trucks (trucks of a conventional size range that generally travel on public roads) in an open pit (aboveground) mining operation for on-site material distribution)
Pearson and Sprock are considered analogous because they both relate to material sorting and transport within a mine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the onward transportation trucks in an opencast mining operation of Pearson with the simple substitution of the on-highway dump trucks for on-site material distribution in an open pit mine of Sprock for the more generally presented trucks of Pearson. Because both Pearson and Sprock teach on-site distribution of mining material using trucks, this substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious substitution of one known element (the on-highway dump truck of Sprock) for another (the onward distribution truck of Pearson) (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bamber (US 20160016202), in addition to the included rejections, teaches a very similar classification device built in to a mining shovel, teaching the x-ray sensor of Claim 9 and the excavator and rope shovel of Claim 10.
Naro (WO 2020200835) teaches a similar sorting system within a mining machine and conveying machine, teaching the microwave sensor of Claim 9 and categorization based on moisture content of Claim 1.
Kadali (CA 2957708) teaches a similar dispatching system which dispatches haulage vehicles to particular ore-unloading sites for particular ore processing facilities, dispatching based on the ore composition data of the load of the haulage vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights