Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. The following is a Non-Final, first Office Action responsive to Application Serial Number: 18764554 filed on 07/05/2024.
Claims 1-28 are pending in the current application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites "means for estimating an idle time for the predicted total number of loaded batch delivery systems as the continuous material processor " at lines 1-2, instead of "means for estimating an idle time for the predicted total number of loaded batch delivery systems [[as]] at the continuous material processor ".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. Here, in Claim 1, Claim limitations: “a location sensing system operatively associated with the plurality of batch delivery systems and said network, the location sensing system determining a location”, "a state sensing system operatively associated with the plurality of batch delivery systems and said network, the state sensing system sensing a state”, “a processing system operatively associated with said network, said processing system being configured to: determine the location and state”, “a director operatively associated with said plurality of batch delivery systems and said processing system, said director directing the movement” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use generic placeholders "a location sensing system", "a state sensing system”, “a processing system“, “a director“, coupled with functional language such as "determining a location ", “sensing a state”, “configured to: determine the location and state”, “directing the movement”, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers. Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. A review of the figures and specification shows that the corresponding structure is disclosed as location sensing system 30, state sensing system 28, processing system 32 and director 38 at Figure 1 and paragraphs 25-28 of the Specification, which are interpreted as algorithms.
In Claim 19, Claim limitations: “means for predicting an estimated time of arrival”, “means for predicting a total number of loaded batch delivery system”, “means for estimating an idle time”, “means for predicting a time”, “means for directing the movement of at least one of the plurality of batch delivery systems” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use generic placeholders "means for" coupled with functional language such as " predicting", “estimating”, “directing”, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers. Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Claim 19 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. A review of the figures and specification shows that the corresponding structure is disclosed as "PREDICT ETA 50", “ESTIMATE IDLE TIME 54” and " DIRECT MOVEMENT TO MIN. IDLE TIME/NO-MATERIAL STATE 63" at Figure 2, which are interpreted as algorithms.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP §2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). See also MPEP §2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of system (machine), method (process) or medium (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
10. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 2 recites A method of directing the movement of a plurality of batch delivery systems carrying material from at least one loading area to at least one continuous material processor, comprising: determining a location of each of at least two of the plurality of batch delivery systems using a position location system that senses the positions of the plurality of batch delivery systems; determining the state of each of the located batch delivery systems using a state sensing system that senses a state of the plurality of batch delivery systems; predicting an estimated time of arrival at the continuous material processor of a loaded batch delivery system in transit from the loading area to the continuous material processor .. ; predicting an estimated time of arrival at the continuous material processor of an empty batch delivery system in transit to the loading area .. ; .. predict a total number of loaded batch delivery systems that will be located at the continuous material processor at a future time based on at least the predicted estimated time of arrival of the loaded batch delivery system and the predicted estimated time of arrival of the empty batch delivery system; estimating an idle time for at least one of the predicted total number of loaded batch delivery systems that will be located at the continuous material processor at the future time; predicting a time when the continuous material processor will be in a No-Material state; and directing the movement of at least one of the plurality of batch delivery systems to minimize at least one of the estimated idle time and the time when the continuous material processor will be in the No-Material state, which is an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because estimating and minimizing an idle time in a delivery system is a process that, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. The claim also recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, incorporating fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instruction), because minimizing an idle time in a delivery system is a business process for risk mitigation that involves commercial interactions and following rules or instruction. Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite similar abstract ideas.
At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 18 recites determine.. the position of each of at least two of a plurality of batch delivery systems, the plurality of batch delivery system carrying material from at least one loading area to at least one continuous material processor; determine .. the state of each of the located batch delivery systems; predict a number of loaded batch delivery systems that will be located at the continuous material processor at a future time based at least on the location of each of the at least two batch delivery systems; and generate a prediction window, the prediction window including at least the predicted number of loaded batch delivery systems at the continuous material processor for at least the future time, which is an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because predicting batch delivery in the future is a process that, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for independent Claims 1, 2 and 18-20, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as a network, a location sensing system operatively associated with the plurality of batch delivery systems and said network, a state sensing system operatively associated with the plurality of batch delivery systems and said network, a processing system operatively associated with said network, a director operatively associated with said plurality of batch delivery systems and said processing system, using a processor, the processor processing at least data produced by the position location system, using the processor, the processor processing at least data produced by the position location system and the state sensing system, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, executed by at least one computer processor, from data produced by a position location system, from data produced by a state location system, haul trucks carrying ore from at least one loading area to at least one ore crusher, using a position location system that senses the positions of the plurality of haul trucks, using a state sensing system that senses a state of the plurality of haul trucks, using a processor, the processor processing at least data produced by the position location system, using the processor, the processor processing at least data produced by the position location system and the state sensing system, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B of the analysis for independent Claims 1, 2 and 18-20, the Claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because any such additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 1 of the Drawings and paragraphs 57-59 of the Specification in the instant Application in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant independent Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 3-17 and 21-28 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent Claims from which they depend, and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 3-7, 9-17, 19-23 and 25-28 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two for dependent Claims 8 and 24, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for the respective independent Claims and a surge bin, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). These Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 3-7, 9-17, 19-23 and 25-28 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 8 and 24 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because any such additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and a second trained machine learning model, automatically, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 1 of the Drawings and paragraphs 57-59 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
35 U.S.C. 103 forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
12. Claims 1-15, 17 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek (US Patent Publication Number 20170205814 A1 - hereinafter Marsolek) in view of Hagenbuch (US Patent Number 5,327,347 - hereinafter Hagenbuch).
13. As per Claim 1, Marsolek teaches:
A system for directing the movement of a plurality of batch delivery systems delivering material from at least one loading area to at least one continuous material processor, comprising: a network [MARSOLEK reads on: Abstract, Figs. 1, 2; para 3 (plant is loading area); paras 5, 16; para 17 (haul truck is batch delivery system; paver is continuous material processor); para 24; para 33 (connected area network); para 34];
a location sensing system operatively associated with the plurality of batch delivery systems and said network, the location sensing system determining a location of each of at least two of the plurality of batch delivery systems and producing location data related thereto [MARSOLEK reads on: para 10 (The graphical user interface includes a map indicative of a position of each of one or more transport vehicles with respect to the first location and the second location); paras 16, 17 ; para 45 (A controller within the system can receive location data and other operating parameters relating to each machine and the plant); para 92 (current locations of transport vehicles)];
a state sensing system operatively associated with the plurality of batch delivery systems and said network, the state sensing system sensing a state of each of the located batch delivery systems and producing state data related thereto [MARSOLEK reads on: Figs. 7, 8 (TRUCK, TIME TO DESTINATION, CONTENTS)];
a processing system operatively associated with said network, said processing system being configured [MARSOLEK reads on: Fig. 2] to:
determine the location and state of each of at least two of the plurality of batch delivery systems based on the location data produced by said position sensing system and the state data produced by said state sensing system [MARSOLEK reads on: Figs. 7, 8]; …
… predict a time when the continuous material processor will be in a No-Material state [MARSOLEK reads on: para 61 (when paver 18 is not moving or is idle)]; and
a director [MARSOLEK reads on: para 110 (Recommendation and suggestion messages may be generated by processor 67); para 111 (determinations may be made by personnel or by a computer)] operatively associated with said plurality of batch delivery systems and said processing system, said director directing the movement of at least one of the plurality of batch delivery systems to minimize at least one of the estimated idle time and the time when the continuous material processor will be in the No-Material state [MARSOLEK reads on: para 60 (groundspeed of paver 18 or of the next haul truck 16 should be adjusted (if possible) to minimize downtime); para 61 (indicative of an amount of time that paver 18 has been stopped and continues to sit idly)].
Marsolek does not explicitly teach, but Hagenbuch teaches:
… estimate an idle time for a predicted number of loaded batch delivery systems that will be located at the continuous material processor at a future time based at least on the location and state of each of the at least two batch delivery systems [HAGENBUCH reads on: Figs. 15a, b (loading and dumping, multiple trucks, locations); Col. 42, lines 10-19 (loading state); Col. 49, lines 12-23 (the estimated time which the vehicle may expect to wait before it can be serviced by the loader 160 at the loading area)]; and …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marsolek to incorporate the teachings of Hagenbuch in the same field of endeavor of transporting material to include estimate an idle time for a predicted number of loaded batch delivery systems that will be located at the continuous material processor at a future time based at least on the location and state of each of the at least two batch delivery systems. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the transportation of material of Marsolek by efficiently using trucks. See Hagenbuch, Paragraph 2, "The invention generally relates to the measuring of operating parameters of haulage vehicles and, more particularly, to the measuring and acquisition of data indicative of hauling conditions for haulage vehicles and collecting the data to create a historical data base for use in vehicle management.".
14. As per Claim 2, Marsolek teaches:
.. predicting an estimated time of arrival at the continuous material processor of a loaded batch delivery system in transit from the loading area to the continuous material processor using a processor, the processor processing at least data produced by the position location system [MARSOLEK reads on: Figs. 7, 8 (TIME TO DESTINATION)];
predicting an estimated time of arrival at the continuous material processor of an empty batch delivery system in transit to the loading area using the processor, the processor processing at least data produced by the position location system and the state sensing system [MARSOLEK reads on: Figs. 7, 8 (time to plant for empty truck plus time to paver); para 100 (optimize workflow)];
using the processor to predict a … number of loaded batch delivery systems that will be located at the continuous material processor at a future time based on at least the predicted estimated time of arrival of the loaded batch delivery system and the predicted estimated time of arrival of the empty batch delivery system [MARSOLEK reads on: Fig. 7 (TRUCK 0015C, 0020C, TIME TO DESTINATION); Fig. 8 (TRUCK 0001A, 0018D, EMPTY); para 3 (some trucks are picking up fresh material, others are already in transit to the paver with fresh material, while others are emptying their payload or have already done so and are returning to the plant); para 100, as above]; …
Marsolek does not explicitly teach, but Hagenbuch teaches:
… total [HAGENBUCH reads on: Col. 57 lines 27-33 (all trucks)] …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marsolek to incorporate the teachings of Hagenbuch in the same field of endeavor of transporting material to include total (number of loaded batch delivery systems). The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the transportation of material of Marsolek by efficiently using trucks.
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1 above.
15. As per Claim 3, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein said directing the movement of at least one of the plurality of batch delivery systems [as above, Claim 2] further comprises
Marsolek further teaches:
directing the movement of at least one of the plurality of batch delivery systems to minimize both the estimated idle time and the time when the continuous material processor will be in the No-Material state [MARSOLEK reads on: paras 60, 61, as above, Claim 1].
16. As per Claim 4, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 2 [as above, Claim 2], further comprising
Marsolek further teaches:
predicting an estimated time of arrival at the loading area of an empty batch delivery system in transit from the continuous material processor to the loading area using the processor, the processor processing at least data produced by the position location system [MARSOLEK reads on: Fig. 8 (TRUCK 0001A, 0018D, TIME TO DESTINATION, EMPTY)].
17. As per Claim 5, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein said directing [as above, Claim 3] comprises
Marsolek further teaches:
assigning a destination to at least one of the loaded batch delivery systems [MARSOLEK reads on: Fig. 7 (TIME TO DESTINATION); Fig. 8 (0015C, TIME TO PAVER: 8MIN)].
18. As per Claim 6, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein said directing [as above, Claim 4] comprises
Marsolek further teaches:
assigning a destination to at least one of the empty batch delivery systems MARSOLEK reads on: Fig. 8 (0001A, TIME TO PLANT: 23MIN)].
19. As per Claim 7, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 2 [as above, Claim 2], further comprising …
… total [as above, Claim 2] …
Marsolek further teaches:
directing the movement of at least one of the batch delivery systems to prevent the … number of loaded batch delivery systems at the continuous material processor from exceeding a defined number at the future time [MARSOLEK reads on: para 81 (When a difference between the actual estimated arrival time and the target arrival time exceeds a tolerable difference, off-board computer 68 updates the status score of haul truck 16 to indicate whether and to what extent haul truck 16 will miss the target arrival time is directing the movement of at least one of the batch delivery systems to prevent the … number of loaded batch delivery systems at the continuous material processor from exceeding a defined number at the future time – the number is one)].
20. As per Claim 8, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein said predicting when the continuous material processor will be the No-Material state [as above, Claim 2] comprises
Marsolek further teaches:
predicting a level of a surge bin operatively associated with the continuous material processor [MARSOLEK reads on: para 60 (GUI 88 includes a graphical object 103a indicative of a fill level of hopper 32 and a graphical object 103b indicative of an amount of time until hopper 32 will become empty)].
21. As per Claim 9, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 2 [as above, Claim 2], further comprising
Marsolek further teaches:
predicting when the continuous material processor will be in an Accepting Material state [MARSOLEK reads on: para 60 (Graphical objects 103a and 103b are configured to convey the remaining amount of material and remaining time, respectively, so the supervisor can quickly and easily understand how much material is in hopper 32 and for how long paver 18 can continue production without having to pause to refill hopper 32)].
22. As per Claim 10, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein said predicting when the continuous material processor will be in the Accepting Material state [as above, Claim 9] comprises
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 8 above.
23. As per Claim 11, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 2 [as above], further comprising:
Marsolek does not explicitly teach, but Hagenbuch further teaches:
determining when at least one of the plurality of batch delivery system is in at least one of a Down state or a Delayed state; and predicting a time remaining in the at least one of the Down state or the Delayed state [HAGENBUCH reads on: Col. 58, lines 44-61 (vehicle goes out of service because of a breakdown, indicate how many more minutes the vehicle will be down)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch to incorporate the further teachings of Hagenbuch in the same field of endeavor of transporting material to include determining when at least one of the plurality of batch delivery system is in at least one of a Down state or a Delayed state; and predicting a time remaining in the at least one of the Down state or the Delayed state. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the transportation of material of Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch by using trucks efficiently.
24. As per Claim 12, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 11 wherein said predicting the time remaining in the at least one of the Down state or the Delayed state [as above, Claim 11] is
Marsolek further teaches:
based on historical data [MARSOLEK reads on: para 23 (historical operating parameters)].
25. As per Claim 13, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 2 [as above], further comprising:
... wherein said predicting the total number of loaded batch delivery systems that will be located at the continuous material processor at the future time [as above, Claim 2] is ...
Marsolek does not explicitly teach, but Hagenbuch further teaches:
predicting a dump location for at least one empty batch delivery system in transit to the loading area; and ... based on the predicted dump location for the at least one empty batch delivery system in transit to the loading area [HAGENBUCH reads on: Fig. 15b ( IN-TRANSIT AREA 1, DUMP AREA 1, DUMP AREA 2, LOADING AREA 1 .. LOADING AREA N); Col. 41, lines 38-54 (A complete haul cycle is defined as a completed round trip from a load site to a dump site and back to the load site or from a dump site to a load site and back to a dump site); Col. 43, line 29- Col. 44, line 4 (dispatch the vehicles to particular locations, certain load sites may be given preference in dispatch decisions in order to control the blend of ore at a dump site)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch to incorporate the further teachings of Hagenbuch in the same field of endeavor of transporting material to include predicting a dump location for at least one empty batch delivery system in transit to the loading area; based on the predicted dump location for the at least one empty batch delivery system in transit to the loading area. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the transportation of material of Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch by using trucks efficiently.
26. As per Claim 14, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein said predicting the dump location [as above, Claim 13] further comprises
Marsolek does not explicitly teach, but Hagenbuch further teaches:
predicting a material type to be loaded into the empty batch delivery system at the loading area, the predicted dump location being based on the predicted material type [HAGENBUCH, Col. 43, line 29- Col. 44, as above, Claim 13].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch to incorporate the further teachings of Hagenbuch in the same field of endeavor of transporting material to include predicting a material type to be loaded into the empty batch delivery system at the loading area, the predicted dump location being based on the predicted material type. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the transportation of material of Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch by using trucks efficiently.
27. As per Claim 15, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 14 [as above], further comprising: ...
... wherein said predicting the number of loaded batch delivery systems that will be located at the continuous material processor at the future time [as above, Claim 2] is ...
Marsolek further teaches:
determining a material type actually loaded into the empty batch delivery system [MARSOLEK reads on: para 22 (haul trucks 16 transport hot asphalt from plant 30 to worksite 10)];
Marsolek does not explicitly teach, but Hagenbuch further teaches:
assigning a destination to the loaded batch delivery system based on the material type actually loaded; and ... based on the assigned destination of the loaded batch delivery system [HAGENBUCH reads on: Col. 43, line 29- Col. 44, as above, Claim 13].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch to incorporate the further teachings of Hagenbuch in the same field of endeavor of transporting material to include assigning a destination to the loaded batch delivery system based on the material type actually loaded; based on the assigned destination of the loaded batch delivery system. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the transportation of material of Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch by using trucks efficiently.
28. As per Claim 17, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the state of each of at least two of the plurality of batch delivery systems [as above, Claim 2] comprises
Marsolek further teaches:
the state of each of at least two of the plurality of batch delivery systems [MARSOLEK reads on: para 3, as above, Claim 1] comprises
one or more selected from the group consisting of an Idle in Queue state [MARSOLEK reads on: para 4 (a queue of haul trucks may develop)], a Spot state, an Idle at Equipment Face state, a Loading state, and a Dumping state.
29. As per Claim 19, Marsolek teaches:
A system for directing the movement of a plurality of batch delivery systems, the batch delivery systems carrying material from at least one loading area to at least one continuous material processor [MARSOLEK reads on: Abstract, Figs. 1, 2; paras 3, 5, 16, 17,24, 33, 34, as above, Claim 1], comprising: …
The remainder of the Claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 2, as above.
30. Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch in view of Koti et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20190283765 A1 - hereinafter Koti).
31. As per Claim 16, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above], further comprising:
Marsolek further teaches:
... at least a prediction of the number of loaded batch delivery systems at the continuous material processor at each of a plurality of future times [MARSOLEK reads on: Fig. 8, paras 4, 62, as above, Claim 1]; and ...
Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch does not explicitly teach, but Koti teaches:
generating a prediction window, said prediction window including ... determining an event horizon cutoff for the prediction window [KOTI reads on: para 53 (controller 14 determines if look ahead or horizon based information is available); para 79 (look ahead condition inputs include one or more of a distance window ahead of the vehicle)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch to incorporate the teachings of Koti in the same field of endeavor of transporting material to include generating a prediction window, said prediction window including determining an event horizon cutoff for the prediction window. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the transportation of material of Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch by efficiently delivering material. See Koti, Abstract, "Disclosed are various techniques to optimize load delivery management of multiple vehicles along [a] route".
32. Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Koti et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20190283765 A1 - hereinafter Koti).
33. As per Claim 18, Marsolek teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by at least one computer processor cause the processor [MARSOLEK reads on: Fig. 2 (Control system 50); paras 23-27] to:
determine, from data produced by a position location system, the position of each of at least two of a plurality of batch delivery systems, the plurality of batch delivery system carrying material from at least one loading area to at least one continuous material processor [MARSOLEK reads on: Fig. 7, Fig. 8, as above, Claim 2];
determine, from data produced by a state location system, the state of each of the located batch delivery systems [MARSOLEK reads on: para 45, as above, Claim 1];
predict a number of loaded batch delivery systems that will be located at the continuous material processor at a future time based at least on the location of each of the at least two batch delivery systems MARSOLEK reads on: Fig. 7, Fig. 8, as above, Claim 2]; and …
… at least the predicted number of loaded batch delivery systems at the continuous material processor for at least the future time [MARSOLEK reads on: Figs. 7, 8, as above, Claim 2].
Marsolek does not explicitly teach, but Koti teaches:
… generate a prediction window, the prediction window [KOTI reads on: para 53 (controller 14 determines if look ahead or horizon based information is available); para 79 (look ahead condition inputs include one or more of a distance window ahead of the vehicle)] including …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marsolek to incorporate the teachings of Koti in the same field of endeavor of transporting material to include generate a prediction window. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the transportation of material of Marsolek by efficiently delivering material. See Koti, Abstract, "Disclosed are various techniques to optimize load delivery management of multiple vehicles along [a] route.".
34. Claims 20-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch in view of Cohen et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20030069680 A1 – hereinafter Cohen).
35. As per Claim 20, Marsolek teaches:
A method of directing the movement of a plurality of haul trucks [MARSOLEK reads on: Abstract, Fig. 2, para 17, as above, Claim 1]
Marsolek does not explicitly teach, but Hagenbuch teaches:
in a mining operation, the haul trucks carrying ore from at least one loading area [HAGENBUCH reads on: Fig. 15b, Col. 41, as above, Claim 13; Col. 44 lines 1-3 (mining of ore)]
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marsolek to incorporate the teachings of Hagenbuch in the same field of endeavor of transporting material to include in a mining operation, the haul trucks carrying ore from at least one loading area. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the transportation of material of Marsolek by efficiently using trucks. See Hagenbuch, Paragraph 2, "The invention generally relates to the measuring of operating parameters of haulage vehicles and, more particularly, to the measuring and acquisition of data indicative of hauling conditions for haulage vehicles and collecting the data to create a historical data base for use in vehicle management".
Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch does not explicitly teach, but Cohen teaches:
to at least one ore crusher [COHEN reads on: para 41 (crusher machines)], comprising:
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch to incorporate the teachings of Cohen in the same field of endeavor of transporting material to include to at least one ore crusher. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the transportation of material of Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch by efficiently using hauling vehicles. See Cohen, Abstract, "A method is provided for providing dispatch assignments to a plurality of vehicles in an environment including a plurality of sources and a plurality of processing sites. Current information about the environment is obtained, as is information about optimal criteria. Based on the current environment and the optimal criteria information, a production plan is determined. Based on the production plan and consideration of a cooperative assignment and/or anticipated future environment conditions, a dispatch assignment is selected for each vehicle".
The remainder of the Claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 2, as above.
36. As per Claim 21, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch in view of Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 20, wherein said directing the movement of at least one of the plurality of haul trucks [as above, Claim 20] further comprises …
… when the ore crusher [as above, Claim 20] …
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 3, as above.
37. As per Claim 22, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch in view of Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 20, wherein said directing [as above, Claim 20] comprises
Marsolek further teaches:
assigning a destination to one or more of the plurality of haul trucks selected from the group consisting of loaded haul trucks and empty haul trucks [MARSOLEK reads on: Fig. 8].
38. As per Claim 23, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch in view of Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 20 [as above], further comprising ..
… when the ore crusher [as above, Claim 20] …
Marsolek further teaches:
Predicting … will be in at least one of a No-Material state or an Accepting Material state [MARSOLEK reads on: paras 60, 61, as above, Claim 1].
39. As per Claim 24, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch in view of Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 23, wherein said predicting when the ore crusher will be in at least one of the No-material state or an Accepting Material state [as above, Claim 23] comprises …
… with the ore crusher [as above, Claim 20] …
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 8, as above.
40. As per Claim 25, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch in view of Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 20 [as above], further comprising: …
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 11, as above.
41. As per Claim 26, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch in view of Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 20 [as above], further comprising: …
… wherein said predicting the total number of loaded haul trucks that will be located at the ore crusher at the future time [as above, Claim 20] is
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 13, as above.
42. As per Claim 27, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch in view of Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 26, wherein said predicting the dump location [as above, Claim 26] further comprises
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 14, as above.
43. As per Claim 28, Marsolek in view of Hagenbuch in view of Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 27 [as above], further comprising: …
… wherein said predicting the total number of loaded haul trucks that will be located at the ore crusher at the future time [as above, Claim 20] is ..
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 15, as above.
Conclusion
44. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Olson et al. (US Patent Publication 20090096637 A1) describes a method and system for managing the movement of vehicles, material and information in a mining environment.
Skillsäter et al. (US Patent Publication 20220147012 A1) describes a method for controlling a system comprising a material processing device and at least one load-carrying vehicle configured to transport a load of unprocessed material to the material processing device and dump the unprocessed material directly or indirectly into the material processing device.
Subramanian et al. (US Patent Publication 20210117878 A1) describes a paving system including a control system configured to determine and track paving progress for a paving project.
Baker (US Patent Publication 20140122162 A1) describes a system for efficiency measurement systems in mining and earth moving applications, for example.
Mountford et al. (US Patent Publication 20190033808 A1) describes a method and system for controlling cumulative material blends at processors at a site, such as a mine site.
Ranjan et al. (US Patent Publication 20190318629 A1) describes resource transportation systems.
Kadali (Publication CA 2957708 A1) describes an automated solution for dispatching a haulage vehicle at an ore-mining site.
Ristovski et al. (Publication WO 2016118122 A1) describes a method and system for truck distributions among shovel/dump pairs in a mining operation.
45. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623