DETAILED ACTION
The Preliminary Amendment has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18-21, are directed to a mineral feed flotation method. Claim 22 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that,when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations. Claim 23 is directed to a system comprising: one or more processors; and a storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations. Threfore, claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18-23 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) metal processes.
Independent claims 1, 22, and 23 include limitations that recite the same identical abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A mineral feed flotation method comprising:
receiving first measurement results from a characterization system in an ore processing plant, wherein the first measurement results characterize a sample of mineral flotation feed slurry;
determining a first set of characteristics, the first set of characteristics comprising one or more mineral characteristics of the sample of mineral flotation feed slurry, the one or more mineral characteristics based on the first measurement results, and one or more flotation system characteristics, the one or more flotation system characteristics based on a state of a flotation processing system;
based on the one or more mineral characteristics and the one or more flotation system characteristics, associating the first set of characteristics with a first predetermined grouping of characteristics from among a plurality of predetermined groupings of characteristics, each predetermined grouping of characteristics associated with one or more corresponding sets of flotation treatment parameters;
based on associating the first set of characteristics with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics, selecting a first set of flotation treatment parameters that is associated with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics; and
providing the first set of flotation treatment parameters to the flotation processing system for separation of mineral components according to the first set of flotation treatment parameters.
Claim 22 recites:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving first measurement results from a characterization system in an ore processing plant, wherein the first measurement results characterize a sample of mineral flotation feed slurry;
determining a first set of characteristics, the first set of characteristics comprising one or more mineral characteristics of the sample of mineral flotation feed slurry, the one or more mineral characteristics based on the first measurement results, and one or more flotation system characteristics, the one or more flotation system characteristics based on a state of a flotation processing system;
based on the one or more mineral characteristics and the one or more flotation system characteristics, associating the first set of characteristics with a first predetermined grouping of characteristics from among a plurality of predetermined groupings of characteristics, each predetermined grouping of characteristics associated with one or more corresponding sets of flotation treatment parameters;
based on associating the first set of characteristics with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics, selecting a first set of flotation treatment parameters that is associated with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics; and
providing the first set of flotation treatment parameters to the flotation processing system for separation of mineral components according to the first set of flotation treatment parameters.
Claim 23 recites:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving first measurement results from a characterization system in an ore processing plant, wherein the first measurement results characterize a sample of mineral flotation feed slurry;
determining a first set of characteristics, the first set of characteristics comprising one or more mineral characteristics of the sample of mineral flotation feed slurry, the one or more mineral characteristics based on the first measurement results, and one or more flotation system characteristics, the one or more flotation system characteristics based on a state of a flotation processing system;
based on the one or more mineral characteristics and the one or more flotation system characteristics, associating the first set of characteristics with a first predetermined grouping of characteristics from among a plurality of predetermined groupings of characteristics, each predetermined grouping of characteristics associated with one or more corresponding sets of flotation treatment parameters; based on associating the first set of characteristics with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics, selecting a first set of flotation treatment parameters that is associated with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics; and
providing the first set of flotation treatment parameters to the flotation processing system for separation of mineral components according to the first set of flotation treatment parameters.
The bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or a “mathematical concept” because the claims cover performance of the limitation by associating groupings of data sets.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
The additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are underlined below:
Claim 1 recites:
A mineral feed flotation method comprising:
receiving first measurement results from a characterization system in an ore processing plant, wherein the first measurement results characterize a sample of mineral flotation feed slurry;
determining a first set of characteristics, the first set of characteristics comprising one or more mineral characteristics of the sample of mineral flotation feed slurry, the one or more mineral characteristics based on the first measurement results, and one or more flotation system characteristics, the one or more flotation system characteristics based on a state of a flotation processing system;
based on the one or more mineral characteristics and the one or more flotation system characteristics, associating the first set of characteristics with a first predetermined grouping of characteristics from among a plurality of predetermined groupings of characteristics, each predetermined grouping of characteristics associated with one or more corresponding sets of flotation treatment parameters;
based on associating the first set of characteristics with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics, selecting a first set of flotation treatment parameters that is associated with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics; and
providing the first set of flotation treatment parameters to the flotation processing system for separation of mineral components according to the first set of flotation treatment parameters.
Claim 22 recites:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving first measurement results from a characterization system in an ore processing plant, wherein the first measurement results characterize a sample of mineral flotation feed slurry;
determining a first set of characteristics, the first set of characteristics comprising one or more mineral characteristics of the sample of mineral flotation feed slurry, the one or more mineral characteristics based on the first measurement results, and one or more flotation system characteristics, the one or more flotation system characteristics based on a state of a flotation processing system;
based on the one or more mineral characteristics and the one or more flotation system characteristics, associating the first set of characteristics with a first predetermined grouping of characteristics from among a plurality of predetermined groupings of characteristics, each predetermined grouping of characteristics associated with one or more corresponding sets of flotation treatment parameters;
based on associating the first set of characteristics with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics, selecting a first set of flotation treatment parameters that is associated with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics; and
providing the first set of flotation treatment parameters to the flotation processing system for separation of mineral components according to the first set of flotation treatment parameters.
Claim 23 recites:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving first measurement results from a characterization system in an ore processing plant, wherein the first measurement results characterize a sample of mineral flotation feed slurry;
determining a first set of characteristics, the first set of characteristics comprising one or more mineral characteristics of the sample of mineral flotation feed slurry, the one or more mineral characteristics based on the first measurement results, and one or more flotation system characteristics, the one or more flotation system characteristics based on a state of a flotation processing system;
based on the one or more mineral characteristics and the one or more flotation system characteristics, associating the first set of characteristics with a first predetermined grouping of characteristics from among a plurality of predetermined groupings of characteristics, each predetermined grouping of characteristics associated with one or more corresponding sets of flotation treatment parameters; based on associating the first set of characteristics with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics, selecting a first set of flotation treatment parameters that is associated with the first predetermined grouping of characteristics; and
providing the first set of flotation treatment parameters to the flotation processing system for separation of mineral components according to the first set of flotation treatment parameters.
The identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract ideas into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations “receiving first measurement results . . .and providing . . . to the flotation processing system . ..”; “one or more processors” and “a storage medium”; the examiner notes that these are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The “receiving first measurement results” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “providing . . . to the flotation processing system is also recited at a high level of generality merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The processors and storage medium merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental or mathematical concept in a generic or general purpose computer environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18-23 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional limitations “receiving first measurement results . . .and providing . . . to the flotation processing system . ..”; “one or more processors” and “a storage medium”…. are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities and conventional computers. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18-21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18-23 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McNamara et al. (US 2023/0264204) and Clark et al. (US 6,390,303) disclose systems for optimizing a mineral feed flotation process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights