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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1,7,8,11-17,24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkes et al. ‘086 in view of Nebeker et al. (US 3924805)
Parkes et al. ‘086 discloses a cutting head assembly for breaking and excavating rock
fragments from a mine wall (this is the case because coal lies in a coal seam/bed,
coal seams are found between sedimentary rock strata, often sandwiched between shale, sandstone, or mudstone. Hard rock (rock partings or overburden) exists as thin layers within the seam, or as thick overlying/underlying layers, separating coal bands)
the cutting head assembly comprising:
a primary breakage mechanism (86,88) comprising one or more primary cutters
configured to apply, to the mine wall, a breakage force for breaking rock fragments from the mine wall;
a surface (32) for catching the rock fragments broken from the mine wall, the surface
having one or more ports (see cols. 3-5) associated therewith; and a
secondary breakage mechanism (60,60b,110, Figs. 1-6) operatively associated with the surface, the secondary breakage mechanism actuable to apply a force for reducing the size of at least some of the rock fragments caught by the surface so as to allow at least the reduced size rock fragments to pass through at least one of the one or more ports associated with the surface for transportation to downstream processing.
Parkes et al. ‘086 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Parkes et al. is silent about the primary breakage mechanism applies a percussive breakage force to induce tensile failure of the rock. Nebeker et al. teaches jet fluid (primary breakage mechanism) applies a percussive breakage force to induce tensile failure of rocks (see col. 7 line 20+). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parkes et al. to have the jet fluid (primary breakage mechanism) applies a percussive breakage force to induce tensile failure of rocks as taught by Nebeker et al. since it requires reduced energy input to break the rocks.
Re claim 7, wherein the secondary breakage mechanism comprises one or more secondary cutters (60,60b,110, Figs. 1-6).
Re claim 8, wherein the one or more secondary cutters comprise one or more blades configured to reduce the size of at least some of the rock fragments caught by the surface and wherein the one or more blades are proximally associated with at least one of the one or more ports.
Re claim 11, wherein the one or more secondary cutters (60,60b,110, Figs. 1-6) of the secondary breakage mechanism are associated with at least one of the one or more primary cutters of the primary breakage mechanism (86,88,86b).
Re claim 12, wherein the primary breakage mechanism is configured to be actuated by a primary actuator (col. 4 line 20+) and the secondary breakage mechanism is configured to be actuated by a secondary actuator (62,62b,see Figs. 3,5).
Re claim 13, wherein the primary and secondary actuators are independently operable
(see col. 4 line 20+ and 62,62b).
Re claim 14, wherein the secondary actuator is configured to actuate the secondary breakage mechanism subsequent to an actuation of the primary breakage mechanism by the primary actuator (60,60b,110 is actuated subsequent to 86,88).
Re claim 15, wherein the assembly further comprises a fluid passageway (where 52a is under 30 of Fig. 3; 114) concealed within a housing (30;30b) and a drive gear (64,42,58;64b) mounted on a top of the housing, the fluid passageway extending between the one or more ports and an outlet.
Re claim 16, wherein the fluid passageway is sealed between the one or more ports and the outlet so as to permit transportation of the reduced size rock fragments therebetween on application of a negative pressure or a suction pressure (col. 4 line 5+).
Re claim 17, wherein the outlet (80,82,84) is proximal to the drive gear (see Fig. 2-5) on the top of the housing and configured to connect to a suction pump of a miner body.
Re claim 24, the recited method steps as called for in claim 24, a method for excavating rock fragments from a mine wall, the method comprising: providing a cutting head assembly according to claim 1; and operating the cutting head assembly to excavate the rock fragments from the mine wall is considered obvious in view of the combination of references called above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkes et al. ‘086 in view of Nebeker et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watson et al. (US 5803550).
Parkes et al. (as modified above) discloses the invention as substantially as claimed. However, Parkes et al. (as modified above) is silent wherein the percussive breakage force of the primary breakage mechanism provides between 50 to 1000J of impact energy at 20 to 400Hz to induce tensile failure.
Watson et al. teaches wherein percussive breakage force of the primary breakage mechanism provides between 50 to 1000J of impact energy at 20 to 400Hz to induce tensile failure (see col. 3 lines 1-10, col. 8 lines 60+).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Parkes et al. (as modified above) to have the percussive breakage force of the primary breakage mechanism provides between 50 to 1000J of impact energy at 20 to 400Hz to induce tensile failure as taught by Watson et al. since such force can induce tensile failure and fracture rocks.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkes et al. ‘086 in view of Nebeker et al. (US 3924805).
Parkes et al. discloses a cutting head assembly for breaking and excavating rock
fragments from a mine wall, the cutting head assembly comprising:
a primary breakage mechanism comprising one or more primary cutters configured to apply, to the mine wall, a breakage force for breaking rock fragments from the mine wall; a housing comprising a fluid passageway and a surface for catching the rock
fragments broken from the mine wall, the surface having one or more ports associated
therewith, wherein the fluid passageway extends between the one or more ports and an
outlet; a secondary breakage mechanism operatively associated with the surface and
proximal to the one or more ports, the secondary breakage mechanism actuable to
apply a force for reducing the size of at least some of the rock fragments caught by the
surface so as to allow at least the reduced size rock fragments to pass through at least
one of the one or more ports associated with the surface; and wherein, the secondary breakage mechanism is configured to actuate subsequent to the primary breakage mechanism and the outlet is configured to apply a suction pressure for transporting the reduced sized rock fragments via the one or more ports to the outlet for downstream processing (see Figs. 1-6, cols. 2-5, discussed in detail with respect to above claims).
Parkes et al. ‘086 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Parkes et al. is silent about the primary breakage mechanism applies a percussive breakage force to induce tensile failure of the rock. Nebeker et al. teaches jet fluid (primary breakage mechanism) applies a percussive breakage force to induce tensile failure of rocks (see col. 7 line 20+). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parkes et al. to have the jet fluid (primary breakage mechanism) applies a percussive breakage force to induce tensile failure of rocks as taught by Nebeker et al. since it requires reduced energy input to break the rocks.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkes et al. ‘086 in view of Nebeker et al. ‘805 and Funk (US 4082368).
Parkes et al. (as modified by Nebeker et al above) discloses a system for mining excavating rock fragments from a mine wall, the system including: a cutting head assembly according to claim 1; means controlling operation of the cutting head assembly to excavate rock fragments from the mine wall to provide a supply of rock fragments. Parkes et al. (as modified by Nebeker et al. above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Parkes et al. (as modified by Nebeker et al. above) is silent about including a solid separation and sorting unit or a mineral processing unit to receive the supply of rock fragments. Funk teaches transporting coal, mineral ores from mine face to surface wherein there is a solid separation and sorting unit or a mineral processing unit to receive the supply coal etc. that include rock fragments (see abstract and col. 5 lines 10+). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parkes et al. (as modified by Nebeker et al. above) to include a solid separation and sorting unit or a mineral processing unit to receive the rock fragments as taught by Funk since such a modification provides the desired end product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18,20-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on at least one reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to limitation “percussive breakage force” and “inducing tensile failure”, such limitations are taught by Nebeker et al. ‘805 (see discussion above).
Applicant argues that Parkes et al. teaches to mine coal and not break/excavate rocks. While Parkes et al. does not explicitly recite the word “rocks”, it is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that coal lies in a coal seam/bed, coal seams are found between sedimentary rock strata, often sandwiched between shale, sandstone, or mudstone. Hard rock (rock partings or overburden) exists as thin layers within the seam, or as thick overlying/underlying layers, separating coal bands. Therefore, its obvious to include breakage force between 50 to 1000J of impact energy at 20 to 400Hz to induce tensile failure since breaking hard rock is part of the process of mining coal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. 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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS 3/26/2026