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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on March 27, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended, claims 12-14, 18, 23, 25-28 and 30 have been cancelled.
Currently claims 1-11, 15-17, 19-22, 24 and 29 are pending with claims 1-11 under consideration for examination and claims 15-17, 19-22, 24 and 29 being withdrawn as being directed to non-elected invention. Claims 1 is independent.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, including claims 1-11 without prejudice and claims 15-17, 19-22, 24 and 29 being withdrawn in the reply filed on March 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Applicant claims the priority of a Foreign application No. AU 2022900785, filed on March 28, 2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2024 appears to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been entered into record. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure filed on 09/26/2024 is objected to because the length exceeds the maximum allowable number of words as specified in 37 CFR 1.72(b). The abstract in an application filed under 35 U.S.C 111 may not exceed 150 words in length, and the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said" should be avoided. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the United States patent and Trademark Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method for building dispatch stockpiles without tied to a particular machine for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories. However, claims 1-11 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With respect to claims 1-11, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims are directed to a method without tied to a particular machine in the body of the claims for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whether a claim recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a particular machine or; (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Claims 1 recites a method for building dispatch stockpiles. More specifically, the claim recites the limitations of “determining chemical component compositions of a number of mine stockpiles, determining values of decision variables, determine the values of the decision variable, and effecting transportation of material from the mine stockpiles to the dispatch stockpiles in accordance with the determined value of the decision variables”; the dependent claims further narrowing the limitations of claim 1 including “determining levels of material and expected grades and variances of the one or more chemical components, ascertaining the specified tolerance band for each chemical component…, minimize the variance of the one or more chemical components of the dispatch stockpiles, inputting to the optimization engine the levels of material and the expected grades and variance, receiving the values of the decision variables, determining if the value of the decision variables are feasible with creation of dispatch stockpiles meeting the specified tolerance bands, determining that the values of the decision variable are feasible with creation of the dispatch stockpiles, then effecting the transportation of the material, and deriving blending targets from the values of the decision variables”. None of the claim limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “operating an optimization engine”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually determining chemical component compositions of a number of mine stockpiles, determining values of decision variables, and effecting transportation of material from the mine stockpiles to the dispatch stockpiles in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of “operating an optimization engine” does not take the claims out of the mental processing grouping. The Supreme court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite no additional element for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Other than reciting “operating an optimization engine” to determine the values of decision variable, but does not say who/what is operating the optimization engine to do the determination. Even if the “optimization engine” is considered as hardware structures, such as a processor and a memory, reciting a processor does not preclude the step of “determine the values of the decision variables” from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and nothing in the claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite no additional element for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 1 recites an additional element of “a processor” for performing the steps. The additional element is recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting data over a network. However, in the present case, a computer is not required in the claim, let alone it improves the functioning of a computer itself, or another technology or technical field. Thus, nothing in the claims, taken individually and as an ordered combination, amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-11 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above. Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppolzer et al., (WO 2023023804, hereinafter: Oppolzer), and in view of Xiong (CN 111222733).
Regarding claim 1, Oppolzer discloses a method of building one or more dispatch stockpiles having one or more chemical components within specified tolerance bands, the method comprising:
determining chemical component compositions of a number of mine stockpiles (see pg. 49, lines 4-13; pg. 59, lines 1-23; pg. 60, lines 19-27, pg. 65, lines 13 to pg. 66, line 7);
determining values of decision variables, the decision variables indicating mine stockpiles and amounts of material to transport therefrom to build the dispatch stockpiles to meet the specified tolerance bands with minimized variances of the chemical components (see pg. 51, line 1-14; pg. 51, line 26 to pg. 52, line 16; pg. 53, line 26 to pg. 54, line 16; pg. 56, lines 1-6; pg. 63, lines 1-12; pg. 70, line 33 to pg. 71, line 4); and
effecting transportation of material from the mine stockpiles to the dispatch stockpiles in accordance with the determined values of the decision variables to thereby build the one or more dispatch stockpiles with minimized variance of the one or more chemical components (see pg. 49, lines 4-13; pg. 67, lines 19-32; pg. 85, lines 11-13).
Oppolzer discloses determining a certain amount of mined material and dispensing the correct amount of mined material into the haul truck each time (see pg. 55, ¶ 1).
Oppolzer does not explicitly disclose an optimization engine for determining the values; however, Xiong in an analogous art for industrial decision making discloses
operating an optimization engine configured to determine the values of the decision variables (see Abstract; pg. 2, ¶ 4; pg. 3, ¶ 11-12, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Oppolzer to include teaching of Xiong in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Oppolzer discloses the method of claim 1 comprising, determining, in each mine stockpile of the number of mine stockpiles, levels of material and expected grades and variances of the one or more chemical components therein (see pg. 16, lines 15-29, pg. 18, line 10 to pg. 19, 8; pg. 23, lines 19-28; pg. 51, line 26 to pg. 52, line 16; pg. 53, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 3, Oppolzer discloses the method of claim 1 comprising, ascertaining the specified tolerance band for each chemical component in the dispatch stockpiles as a range extending from a lower expected value of the chemical component to an upper expected value of the chemical component (see pg. 51, line 26 to pg. 52, line 16; pg. 55, lines 29-32, pg. 64, lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 4, Oppolzer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the decision variables indicate proportions of dispatch stockpiles to be acquired from various of the mine stockpiles, to minimize the variances of the one or more of the chemical components of the dispatch stockpiles whilst constrained by the specified tolerance bands (see pg. 16, lines 1-29; pg. 30, line 30 to pg. 31, line 4; pg. 51, line 26 to pg. 52, line 16).
Regarding claim 5, Xiong discloses the method of claim 1, comprising:
the levels of material and the expected grades and variances of the one or more chemical components thereof in each mine stockpile (see pg. 53, lines 6-9); and
the tolerance band for each chemical component for the dispatch stockpiles (see pg. 52, lines 1-16; pg. 55, lines 29-32).
Oppolzer does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however,
Xiong discloses inputting to the optimization engine (see pg. 3, ¶ 6, ¶ 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Oppolzer to include teaching of Xiong in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Oppolzer discloses the method of claim 5, comprising receiving the values of the decision variables from the optimization engine (see pg. 25, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 7, Oppolzer discloses the method of claim 1, comprising determining if the values of the decision variables are feasible with creation of dispatch stockpiles meeting the specified tolerance bands (see pg. 58, lines 23-33; pg. 73, lines 14-29).
Regarding claim 8, Oppolzer discloses the method of claim 7, comprising upon determining that the values of the decision variables are feasible with creation of the dispatch stockpiles meeting the specified tolerance then effecting the transportation of the material from the mine stockpiles to the dispatch stockpiles (see pg. 3, lines 4-23; pg. 20, lines 21-29; pg. 55, lines 1-7; pg. 67, line 25-32).
Regarding claim 9, Oppolzer discloses the method of claim 1, including deriving blending targets from the values of the decision variables comprising a number of vehicles to be sent between mines and dispatch centers to carry out dispatch stockpile build proportions according to the values of the decision variables (see pg. 27, lines 14-22; pg. 36, lines 12-21; pg. 48, lines 3-10; pg. 73, lines 25-32).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppolzer and in view of Xiong as applied to claims 1-9 above, and further in view of Infanger, (US 2019/0114710).
Regarding claim 10, Oppolzer discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more dispatch stockpiles comprise one dispatch stockpile;
the one or more chemical components comprises one chemical component (see pg. 55, lines 8-19; pg. 56, lines 20-32).
Oppolzer and Xiong do not explicitly disclose the following quadratic program; however, Infanger in an analogous art for portfolio optimization discloses
the optimization engine is configured to find the decision variables w according to the following quadratic program:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where ∑ is a covariance matrix of the chemical component composition of the mine stockpiles and TPs is a level of material required at a dispatch stockpile, constrained by the specified tolerance bands (see ¶ 41, ¶ 108-109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Oppolzer and in view of Xiong to include teaching of Infanger in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, resulting in a more accurate information, and enabling better informed decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Oppolzer discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more dispatch stockpiles comprise multiple dispatch stockpiles;
the one or more chemical components comprises one chemical component (see pg. 55, lines 8-19; pg. 56, lines 20-32).
Oppolzer and Xiong do not explicitly disclose the following quadratic program; however, Infanger discloses
the optimization engine is configured to find the decision variables w according to the following quadratic program:
PNG
media_image2.png
84
104
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
30
116
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and constrained by the specified tolerance bands, where Tps is a level of material required at a dispatch stockpile, constrained by the specified tolerance bands (see ¶ 42, ¶ 53, ¶ 111-112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elements in the system of Oppolzer and in view of Xiong to include teaching of Infanger in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, resulting in a more accurate information, and enabling better informed decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oppolzer et al., (AU 2021/221826) discloses a method for transporting material within a mine site from a first location to a second location with mine vehicles based on material category.
Gatica et al., (WO 2022043886) discloses a method for dynamically constructing and updating model of 3D topography of a stockpile of granular material.
Mikkelsen et al., (WO 2013149796) discloses a method for tracking a batch of material in a process for production of raw or semi-processed material through collecting raw material, cutting, drilling and transporting to a subsequent stage.
Seiler et al., “Flow-Achieving Online Planning and Dispatching for Continuous Transportation with Autonomous Vehicle”, IEEE Transportations on Automation Science and Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 2022.
Fioroni et al., “Concurrent Simulation and Optimization Models for Mining Planning”, Proceedings of the 2008 Winter Simulation Conference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights