DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7,9,11-14, 19, 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 4 calls for “the intersection”; claim 1 line 2 calls for “a respective intersection”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 1 line 6 calls for “the intersection”; claim 1 line 2 calls for “a respective intersection”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 3 line 3 calls for “the configuration”; claim 3 line 1 calls for “a block caving mine configuration”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 3 line 3 calls for “a plurality of drawbells”; claim 1 lines 1-2 call for “one or more drawbells”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 29 is indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).
Claim 30 is incomplete because at line 7, each “what?” funnel into a respective intersection of extraction level drives.
Claim 30 line 9 calls for “the intersection”; claim 30 line 7 calls for “a respective intersection”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 30 line 11 calls for “the intersection”; claim 30 line 7 calls for “a respective intersection”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 31 line 1 calls for “the intersection”; claim 30 line 7 calls for “a respective intersection”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 32 line 2 calls for “undercut level drives”; claim 30 line 3 calls for “an undercut level”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
The remaining claims are solely rejected as being dependent from a rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1,2,7,9,11-14,26-29,30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oddie et al. (US 8820847) in view of Hutchins (US 4440445).
Oddie et al. discloses a block caving mine configuration including one or more
drawbells (32) that each funnel into a respective drive in an extraction level, such that
there are draw points at the base of each of the one or more drawbells,
wherein each drawbell includes a lower cavity above the respective drive, and an upper cavity with sloping side walls that provide widening of the drawbell, the lower cavity
spacing the sloping side walls of the upper cavity from the respective drive.
Oddie et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Oddie et al. is silent about the drawbell funneling into an intersection of drives in an extraction level, such that there are at least four draw points at the base of the drawbell. Hutchins teaches a drawbell funneling into an intersection of drives (34,38,46, see Figs. 2,5) in an extraction level, such that there are at least four draw points at the base of the drawbell (46a,246a). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oddie et al to have the one or more drawbell(s) funneling into an intersection of drives in the extraction level, such that there are at least four draw points at the base of each of the one or more drawbell(s) as taught by Hutchins since such a modification provides multiple paths for machinery to travel to be able to remove mined material.
Re claim 2, wherein the intersection of drives (where member 34 and 35 meet in Fig. 3 of Oddie et al.) in the extraction level is formed by the intersection of two drives such that the four draw points is accessible from a different direction.
Re claim 7, wherein the extraction level includes: a first plurality of main drives (35,34 of Fig. 3 of Oddie et al.) that are substantially parallel; and a second plurality of main drives (34,35, of Fig. 3 of Oddie et al.) that are substantially parallel, wherein the second plurality of main drives are angled with respect to the first plurality of main drives (see Fig. 3 of Oddie et al.).
Re claim 9, wherein the first plurality of main drives are substantially equi-spaced from one another, and/or wherein the second plurality of main drives are substantially equi-spaced from one another (see Fig. 3 of Oddie et al).
Re claim 11, wherein each of the one or more drawbells (see marked up Figure below) is located above a respective drawbell area defined by a pair of adjacent drives from the first plurality of main drives (35,34, of Fig. 3 of Oddie et al.), and a pair of adjacent drives from the second plurality of main drives (34,35 of Fig. 3 of Oddie et al.).
Re claim 12, wherein within each drawbell area there are two drawbell access drives that intersect, each respective drawbell funneling into the intersection of the two drawbell access drives (see Fig. 3 of Oddie et al.).
Re claim 13, wherein a first of the two drawbell access drives is substantially parallel to the first plurality of main drives (35,34 of Fig. 3 of Oddie et al.) and a second of the two drawbell access drives is substantially parallel to the second plurality of main drives (34,35 of Fig. 3 of Oddie et al.).
Re claim 14, wherein the first of the two drawbell access drives is located substantially at a midpoint between the pair of adjacent drives from the first plurality of main drives that in part define the drawbell area, and the second of the two drawbell access drives is located substantially at a midpoint between the pair of adjacent drives from the second plurality of main drives that in part define the drawbell area, such that the intersection of the two drawbell access drives is substantially centrally located within the drawbell area (see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 26, a block caving mine including a configuration called for in claim 1. (see discussion of claim 1 above).
Re claim 27, block caving mining method including the step of developing a block caving mine configuration as claimed in claim 1 (see discussion above regarding claim 1 and cols. 3-5 of Oddie et al.).
Re claim 28, a block caving mining method including the step of extracting ore from drawbell draw points in a block caving mine with a configuration as claimed in claim 1 (see discussion above regarding claim 1 and cols. 3-5 of Oddie et al.).
Re claim 29 Use of a block caving mine configuration as claimed in claim 1
(see discussion above regarding claim 1 and cols. 3-5 of Oddie et al.).
Re claims 30-34, the recited method steps are considered obvious in view of the combination of Oddie et al. in view of Hutchins, undercut level (21 of Oddie et al.), extraction level (22, of Oddie et al.), drawbell (32 of Oddie et al.), intersection of extraction level dirves (35,34, see marked up Figure below).
Re claims 32,33, drawbell developed from extraction level drive (see abstract of Oddie et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oddie et al. ‘847 in view of Hutchins ‘445 as applied to claims 7, 1 above, and further in view of Sykes et al. (US 11125084).
Re 19, Oddie et al. (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Oddie et al. (as modified above) is silent about wherein the distance between adjacent drawbell centres along a line substantially parallel to the first plurality of main drives is greater than about 35m, and/or wherein the distance between adjacent drawbell centres along a line substantially parallel to the second plurality of main drives is greater than about 35m. Sykes et al. teaches a distance between adjacent drawbell centers is greater than about 35m (see col. 6). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Oddie et al. (as modified above) to have the distance between adjacent drawbell centers greater than about 35m as taught by Sykes et al. since such a modification enables adequate support will recovering mined minerals.
Re 25, Oddie et al. (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Oddie et al. (as modified above) is silent about the drawbell having the upper cavity have the shape of an inverted frustum of a rectangular pyramid, and the lower cavity is substantially rectangular prism shaped. Sykes et al. taches a drawbell (11) having the upper cavity have the shape of an inverted frustum of a rectangular pyramid, and the lower cavity is substantially rectangular prism shaped. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Oddie et al. (as modified above) to have a drawbell having the upper cavity have the shape of an inverted frustum of a rectangular pyramid, and the lower cavity is substantially rectangular prism shaped as taught by Sykes et al. since such a modification controls the collapsing of the mined material in a controlled manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
2/7/2026