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 .
Status of the Claims
This first non-final action is in response to applicant's original filing and preliminary amendment on June 13, 2024. 1-16 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, it is difficult to tell which line is Low Threshold Productivity and which line is High Threshold Productivity in Fig. 5. Similarly, it is difficult to tell which dot is High Power and which dot is Low Power in Fig. 8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
For example, Claim 7 is further defining the dispatch rules. However, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 6 (which claims “the vehicle movement rules include one or more of dispatch rules, refueling rules, maintenance rules and contention rules) can be interpreted as only requiring maintenance rules. Using this interpretation of claim 6, claim 7 does not further limit the claim limitations of claim 6. As such, claim 7 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 6.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected as the same reasons above. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Claim 1
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that Claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does Claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method (process) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1. A method for mine configuration optimization, comprising
receiving a plurality of vehicle models each model reflecting performance characteristics of a vehicles, the plurality of vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle;
receiving a geographical model of a mine layout, the geographical model including data representing a road network, one or more electrical trolley lines and a plurality of vehicle destination points;
receiving a plurality of vehicle movement rules governing the movement of vehicles within a mine;
in a mine operation model using a plurality of mine configuration parameters, iteratively performing the steps of:
simulating movement of a plurality modeled vehicles using the geographical model of the mine, in accordance with the vehicle movement rules, each of the plurality of modeled vehicles being reflected in the plurality of vehicle models;
on the basis of the simulated movement, computing a mine output parameter; and
altering a mine configuration parameter; and altering a physical mine configuration on the basis of one or more computations of the mine output parameter.
The method in Claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of Claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of steps of determining how much output can be accomplished. This is equivalent to a person, upon receiving data, knowing a vehicle (or vehicles) parameter (such as capacity) and looking at a map of a mine and determining how much output can be accomplished using a number of vehicles in the mine (which could be as low as 2 vehicles). Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Further, steps of below use mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations to calculate the collision probability.
on the basis of the simulated movement, computing a mine output parameter. This ste is considered as mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. Thus, the claims recite Mathematical concepts.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
receiving a plurality of vehicle models each model reflecting performance characteristics of a vehicles, the plurality of vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle;
receiving a geographical model of a mine layout, the geographical model including data representing a road network, one or more electrical trolley lines and a plurality of vehicle destination points;
receiving a plurality of vehicle movement rules governing the movement of vehicles within a mine;
in a mine operation model using a plurality of mine configuration parameters, iteratively performing the steps of:
simulating movement of a plurality modeled vehicles using the geographical model of the mine, in accordance with the vehicle movement rules, each of the plurality of modeled vehicles being reflected in the plurality of vehicle models;
on the basis of the simulated movement, computing a mine output parameter; and
altering a mine configuration parameter; and altering a physical mine configuration on the basis of one or more computations of the mine output parameter.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Further, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Altering steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
As such, the additional limitations of Claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Estimating and determining data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by general purpose computing devices, such as the devices in Claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since Claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-16 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more, as the limitations are either further part of the mental process or are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application using a similar analysis as applied to Claim 1 above.
As such, claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Watkins (US 20160314421 A1) in view of James (US 2024308361 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Watkins teaches a method for mine configuration optimization, comprising:
receiving a plurality of vehicle models each model reflecting performance characteristics of a vehicles ([0034] Mine site data 304 may include data on the operation of the machines at the mine site 12, including performance metrics relating to individual machines (e.g., the capacity of a hauling machine, the material/minute rate of a loading machine, the extraction rate of an excavator, the fuel consumption rate of a machine, the average speed of a hauling machine, or the drill rate of a drilling machine) or performance metrics relating to the cooperative operation of multiple machines (e.g., the amount of time that a loading machine takes to fill the bed of a hauling machine); [0043] the operational aspect may include the digging machines 52 excavating raw material with a particular strip ratio, the hauling machines 50 operating at a particular speed, along a particular route, and/or at a particular fuel consumption level, and/or a drilling rig performing blast-hole drilling with a particular pattern spacing and quantity of explosive),
receiving a geographical model of a mine layout, the geographical model including data representing a road network, one or more electrical trolley lines and a plurality of vehicle destination points ([0036] The mine site data 304 may additionally include information on the layout and planning of one of the mine sites 12. [0040] The transport data 308 may include any information on the transport routes 14);
receiving a plurality of vehicle movement rules governing the movement of vehicles within a mine ([0046] additionally include an identification of transport routes 14 connected, directly or indirectly, to the coal-producing mine sites 12 and transport data 308 (e.g., indication of transportation means, distance, time, and/or cost) for the identified transport routes 14.[0049] if the optimization plan 316 identified that a customer order for coal required that the coal be delivered to the delivery site 16 and that the coal may be transported more cost-effectively and within the allotted time frame via a particular one of the transport routes 14, the instruction may direct that the mine site 12 to load the coal onto a vehicle operating within the particular transport route 14 and that the vehicle transport the coal along the transport route 14);
in a mine operation model using a plurality of mine configuration parameters, iteratively performing the steps of: simulating movement of a plurality modeled vehicles using the geographical model of the mine, in accordance with the vehicle movement rules, each of the plurality of modeled vehicles being reflected in the plurality of vehicle models ([0031] The mining operation model 314 may simulate the operations of the mining operation 10),
on the basis of the simulated movement, computing a mine output parameter ( [0064] Given that mine site 12b and mine site 12c are determined in the optimization plan to fulfill the order for coal, it must still be determined which of the transport routes should be used in order to maximize profitability and efficiency) and altering a mine configuration parameter; and altering a physical mine configuration on the basis of one or more computations of the mine output parameter ([0043] The optimization plan 316 may include a determination of one or more operational aspects of the mining operation 10 that may be implemented or modified in order to effectuate, for example, a successful and cost-efficient fulfillment of a material order, an increase in profitability, an increase in productivity, an increase in efficiency, or other desirable outcome. [0064] the mining management system 26 may determine an optimization plan that is counter-intuitive to a human being; [0065] An instruction (e.g., the instruction 318) is generated based on the optimization plan and the instruction, or a portion thereof, is transmitted to each of the mine sites 12a-e and transport routes 14a-e. The instruction will direct mine site 12a to not fulfill the order for coal and then operate at its maximum production rate for the subsequent five months. The instruction will direct mine site 12b and mine site 12 to each produce 5 units of coal in the coming month. The instruction will further direct transport route 14b to transport the coal from mine site 12b to the delivery site 16a and transport route 14e to transport the coal from mine site 12c to the delivery site 16a).
Watkins does not explicitly teach but James teaches the specific limitations of the plurality of vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle (James, [0007] ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a mining operation optimization, as taught by Watkins, vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle, as taught by James, as Watkins and James are directed to vehicle mining (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle and predictably applied it to improve public health and the environment.
Regarding claim 2, Watkins does not explicitly teach but James teaches the specific limitations wherein, the plurality of vehicle models includes at least one diesel-electric vehicle, and wherein the battery electric vehicle and the at least one diesel-electric vehicle are mine haul trucks (James, [0005] Most mining vehicles currently in use in surface and underground mines are powered by diesel engines; [0007] One possible solution involves providing electric vehicles that have on-board battery storage to provide electrical energy to the electric motors to drive the vehicle and also allow the vehicle to electrically connect to an electrical charging system during driving).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a mining operation optimization, as taught by Watkins, vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle, as taught by James, as Watkins and James are directed to vehicle mining (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle and predictably applied it to improve public health and the environment.
Regarding claim 3, Watkins teaches wherein the performance characteristics of the vehicles include one or more of battery capacity, fuel capacity, drive train efficiency, and regenerative braking efficiency ([0026] a fuel consumption rate).
Regarding claim 4, Watkins does not explicitly teach but James teaches the specific limitations wherein the performance characteristics of the vehicles comprise required energy input per unit energy output for a vehicle (James [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a mining operation optimization, as taught by Watkins, vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle, as taught by James, as Watkins and James are directed to vehicle mining (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle and predictably applied it to improve public health and the environment.
Regarding claim 5, Watkins teaches wherein the vehicle destination points include one or more of power shovels, crushers, dumps, maintenance bays, and refueling stations ([0030] machine maintenance and repair data, site data such as survey information, geological data, or soil test information; [0040]; [0054] Delivery site data 306 may include information on the delivery site 16, such as the location of the delivery site 16 and type (e.g., shipping port, truck dump site, etc.)[0023]. The excavated material may be suitably loaded into the hauling machine 50 by, for example, a loading machine (e.g., a wheeled or tracked loader, a front shovel, an excavator, a cable shovel, a stack reclaimer, or any other similar machine). Accordingly, the hauling machine 50 may carry a payload when traveling from the pit 42 to the processing plant 48).
Regarding claim 6, Watkins teaches wherein the vehicle movement rules include one or more of dispatch rules, refueling rules, maintenance rules and contention rules ( [0019])
Regarding claim 7, Watkins teaches wherein the dispatch rules determine the next destination of a vehicle after it leaves a predetermined vehicle destination point ( [0019] A transport route 14 may refer generally to a means of moving a material from one location to another in the mining operation 10. A transport route 14 may include, for example, …, a railroad route, air transport route, a truck route, or the like. A transport route 14 may include a route with more than one mode of transportation)
Regarding claim 10, Watkins does not explicitly teach but James teaches the specific limitations wherein the mine configuration parameters comprise one of the proportion of diesel to battery-electric trucks within the plurality of modeled vehicles in the mine or the location of electrical trolley lines within the geographical model (James, Fig. 7 and corresponding paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a mining operation optimization, as taught by Watkins, vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle, as taught by James, as Watkins and James are directed to vehicle mining (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle and predictably applied it to improve public health and the environment.
Regarding claim 11, Watkins teaches wherein the geographical model including data representing a road network includes data representing the road network in terms of road segment endpoints, elevation change over road segments and average grade ([0035] Mine site data 304 may include grade of the materials; [0036] The mine site data 304 may additionally include information on the layout and planning of one of the mine sites 12. This may include the locations of material, a pit, a drilling rig, a processing machine, and one or more roads. Additionally, information on the layout of the mine site 12 may include the location of a dump zone, a scale, a loadout, or the like. The mine site data 304 may include data pertaining to the re-handling of material (i.e. the temporary storage of material after it has been excavated but before it has been processed or loaded for transport) at the mine site 12, such as the location of a temporary dump location and the amount of material stored therein).
Regarding claim 12, Watkins teaches wherein the mine output parameter comprises a product of tons of material moved and distance over which material is moved ([0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Watkins does not explicitly teach but James teaches the specific limitations wherein altering a physical mine configuration on the basis of one or more computations of the mine output parameter comprises installing electrical trolley lines on a mine road segment (James [0007] One possible solution involves providing electric vehicles that have on-board battery storage to provide electrical energy to the electric motors to drive the vehicle and also allow the vehicle to electrically connect to an electrical charging system during driving, in locations where the electrical charging system is located [0029] ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a mining operation optimization, as taught by Watkins, vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle, as taught by James, as Watkins and James are directed to vehicle mining (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle and predictably applied it to improve public health and the environment.
Regarding claim 16, Watkins does not explicitly teach but James teaches the specific limitations wherein altering a physical mine configuration on the basis of one or more computations of the mine output parameter comprises changing a proportion of diesel-electric to battery electric vehicles operating in a mine (James [0029] in an electric vehicle suitable for use in heavy duty applications such as mining, heavy haulage, earth moving or road maintenance, the electric vehicle comprising at least one electric motor for providing motive power to the vehicle, at least one battery for supplying electricity to the at least one electric motor, a connector for connecting to an electrical conductor, whereby the electrical conductor provides electricity to the battery and/or vehicle when the connector is connected to the electrical conductor, wherein the battery has a power density of from 5000 to 100,000 W/kg and an energy density of from 5 to 1000 Wh/kg).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a mining operation optimization, as taught by Watkins, vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle, as taught by James, as Watkins and James are directed to vehicle mining (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using vehicle models including at least one battery electric vehicle and predictably applied it to improve public health and the environment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Watkins (US 20160314421 A1) in view of James (US 2024308361 A1) in view of Rickard (WO 2024120613 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Watkins as modified by James does not explicitly teach but Rickard teaches the specific limitations, wherein the refueling rules determine conditions under which a vehicle returns to a refueling or charging station (the method 300 may include optimizing a driving schedule for a fleet of vehicles. The fleet of vehicles may have more vehicles than required to fulfil a haul plan or several haul plans. For example, several available vehicles may be parked, e.g. in a stationary charging area, e.g. having different vehicle parameters, such as a different state of charge, or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a mining operation optimization, as taught by Watkins as modified by James, the refueling rules determining conditions under which a vehicle returns to a refueling or charging station, as taught by Rickard, as Watkins, Rickard, and James are directed to vehicle mining (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility the refueling rules determining conditions under which a vehicle returns to a refueling or charging station to recharge a mining vehicle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Watkins (US 20160314421 A1) in view of James (US 2024308361 A1) in view of Florian (CA 3229285 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Watkins as modified by James does not explicitly teach but Florian teaches the specific limitations, wherein the contention rules determine priority between two or more vehicles on a trajectory to occupy the same space ( the haul truck moves to the available loading bay other vehicles moving along intersecting corridors may assume higher priority so that the vehicle coordination assembly 33 may send a pause, slow-down, or speed-up command to the haul truck or may update the path taken by the provisional corridor for collision avoidance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a mining operation optimization, as taught by Watkins as modified by James, determining priority between two or more vehicles on a trajectory to occupy the same space, as taught by Florian, as Watkins, Florian, and James are directed to vehicle mining (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility determining priority between two or more vehicles on a trajectory to occupy the same space to public safety.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Watkins (US 20160314421 A1) in view of James (US 2024308361 A1) in view of Sait (US 20240378571 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Watkins as modified by James does not explicitly teach but Sait teaches the specific limitations of wherein computing a mine output parameter comprises computing a combination of two or more sub-parameters ( [0129] Several route schedules can be calculated depending on the number of the vehicles 108 used, then each schedule can be allocated to a vehicle; a route with traffic hold ups may lead to more carbon emissions, such as carbon dioxide, compared to a route with no hold ups, even if the latter is longer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a mining operation optimization, as taught by Watkins as modified by James, computing a combination of two or more sub-parameters, as taught by Sait, as Watkins, Sait, and James are directed to vehicle mining (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility computing a combination of two or more sub-parameters to improve performance.
Regarding claim 14, Watkins as modified by James does not explicitly teach but Sait teaches the specific limitations of wherein the sub-parameters comprise a measure of an amount of material moved and vehicular carbon emissions ( [0129] Several route schedules can be calculated depending on the number of the vehicles 108 used, then each schedule can be allocated to a vehicle; a route with traffic hold ups may lead to more carbon emissions, such as carbon dioxide, compared to a route with no hold ups, even if the latter is longer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a mining operation optimization, as taught by Watkins as modified by James, computing a combination of two or more sub-parameters, as taught by Sait, as Watkins, Sait, and James are directed to vehicle mining (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility computing a combination of two or more sub-parameters to improve performance.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. For example, Russell (WO2025106088A) teaches using dispatching haul trucks between loading and unloading areas in a surface mining operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 86-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666