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 Objections
Claims 2-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-19 recite “a geological mapping method as claimed in” should be amended to the geological mapping method as claimed in to provide proper antecedent basis and consistency with claim 1.
Claim 6 recites 2D or 3D. It should be changed to two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D).
Claim 9 recites 2-dimensional. It should be changed to two-dimensional (2D)
Claim 19 recites two-dimensions and three-dimensions. It should be changed to two-dimensional and three-dimensional.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 and 21 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 recites the limitation "the data" and “the regions of interest”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “rapidly generated” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapidly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the map" and “the regions of interest”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The terms “accurate, consistent and repeatable” in claim 3 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “accurate, consistent and repeatable” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the presence”, “the data” and "the map". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the mineral presence". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the minerals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the estimated presence” and "the minerals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the estimated presence” and "the regions of interest". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the regions of interest". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “preferably” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the map". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “preferably” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the parameter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the regions of interest". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the data" and “the regions of interest”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 16, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 2009/0256412) in view of Hoekstra (US 2011/0307178).
Regarding claim 1, Nieto et al. (hereinafter Nieto) discloses a geological mapping method (Nieto, [0008], “provides a method of mining”. In addition, in paragraph [0028], “The scanning module data may be processed at the processing station to form a geological map”) including:
receiving scan data relating to a geological structure (Nieto, [0009], “The scanning module may comprise a hyperspectral imager to generate hyperspectral images of the bench face, the hyperspectral images containing geological information on the material at the bench face”);
processing the data to determine one or more regions of interest (Nieto, [0058], “The initial assessment may then be refined to allow for generation of a final classification of ore grades in the bench by combining the initial assessment with data taken from one or more subsequent scans of the bench face, and/or with data obtained by inspection of drill cuttings. The final determination/assessment and classification of ore grades can then be used to determine treatment of the mined material”); and
a geo-spatially accurate map of the geological structure showing the regions of interest (Nieto, [0067], “In process 42 the processing station 20 generates the three-dimensional geological map by registering (or fusing) the classification data of process 40 with the geometric data of process 36 (i.e. the already registered geometric and RGB data)”);
Nieto does not expressly disclose “display”;
Hoekstra discloses display region of interest (Hoekstra, [0055], “as shown in FIG. 7, the boundaries for the region of interest are displayed using dashed lines along with an arrow or other tool graphic that can be manipulated to manually adjust one or more of the boundaries based, for example, on examination of the probability information, shape of boundaries, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning system of Neito to incorporate the display function of Hoekstra including a graphical user interface for region of interest analysis. The motivation for doing so would have been improving user interaction and facilitating interpretation of the geological information.
Regarding claim 2, Nieto discloses the map showing the regions of interest are generated (Nieto, [0067], “In process 42 the processing station 20 generates the three-dimensional geological map by registering (or fusing) the classification data of process 40 with the geometric data of process 36 (i.e. the already registered geometric and RGB data)”);
Nieto as modified by Hoekstra with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses without the need for manual review and adjustment by a geologist (Hoekstra, [0045], “An automatic process may analyze seismic data and determine, for example, an average distance between neighboring points. In such an approach, the average distance may be implemented for an initial iteration for segmentation process”. In addition, in paragraph [0053], “FIG. 5 shows an example, in graphical form, of input information to a segmentation process (mapped data 512) and output information from a segmentation process (defined segments 522)”).
Regarding claim 3, Nieto as modified by Hoekstra with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses without the need for manual review and adjustment by a geologist (Hoekstra, [0045], “An automatic process may analyze seismic data and determine, for example, an average distance between neighboring points. In such an approach, the average distance may be implemented for an initial iteration for segmentation process”. In addition, in paragraph [0053], “FIG. 5 shows an example, in graphical form, of input information to a segmentation process (mapped data 512) and output information from a segmentation process (defined segments 522)”)
Regarding claim 4, Nieto discloses capturing the scan data using a hyperspectral imaging device (Nieto, [0034], “The scanning module may include one or more hyperspectral imagers for producing hyperspectral geological information relating to the bench”).
Regarding claim 7, Nieto teaches estimating the presence one or more minerals (Nieto, [0036], “a processing module operable to process the geological and geographical data to make an ore grade assessment of a mineral deposit present within the region”);
Nieto as modified by Hoekstra and Robinson with the same motivation from claim 5 discloses each spatial pixel of a map using the data (Robinson, col 9, 40-47, “outputting a classification map. For example, where the clusters represent different materials, the classification of each cluster may correspond to identification of the materials in the scene. As a specific example, those pixels representing a first material (e.g., water) may be highlighted as such in the classification map, while those pixels representing a second material (e.g., earth) may be highlighted differently from the first material”).
Regarding claim 8, Nieto as modified by Hoekstra and Robinson with the same motivation from claim 5 discloses analytical techniques for hyperspectral classification (Robinson, col 3. 10-12, “such clusters may be utilized to create classification maps, which may be useful in characterizing the hyperspectral image”)
Regarding claim 9, Nieto discloses each mineral representing the mineral presence (Nieto, [0051], “spatial control and classification of mineral deposits within the mining excavation”);
Nieto as modified by Hoekstra and Robinson with the same motivation from claim 5 discloses producing a 2-dimensional image for each material (Robinson, col 9, 40-47, “outputting a classification map. For example, where the clusters represent different materials, the classification of each cluster may correspond to identification of the materials in the scene. As a specific example, those pixels representing a first material (e.g., water) may be highlighted as such in the classification map, while those pixels representing a second material (e.g., earth) may be highlighted differently from the first material”).
Regarding claim 10, Nieto discloses specifying rules or parameters relating to the minerals (Nieto, [0051], “classification of mineral deposits within the mining excavation”).
Regarding claim 11, Nieto discloses a classified result (Nieto, [0058], “The final determination/assessment and classification of ore grades can then be used to determine treatment of the mined material”).
Regarding claim 13, Nieto discloses the rules or parameters are specified based upon a given mine (Nieto, [0057], “produce geological survey data and generate a three dimensional terrain model providing high spatial and spectral coverage of the bench face”).
Regarding claim 16, Nieto as modified by Hoekstra with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses contouring to form contours denoting the regions of interest (Hoekstra, [0055], “as shown in FIG. 7, the boundaries for the region of interest are displayed using dashed lines”).
Regarding claim 19, Nieto discloses mapping the regions of interest from two-dimensions (2D) to three-dimensions (3D) (Nieto, [0067], “generates the three-dimensional geological map by registering (or fusing) the classification data of process 40 with the geometric data of process 36 (i.e. the already registered geometric and RGB data)”).
Regarding claim 21, Nieto discloses a geological mapping system (Nieto, [0060], “The computing system 20 may also store a model of ore resources in the mine and use the hyperspectral and/or Lidar data to update the model”. In addition, in paragraph [0028], “The scanning module data may be processed at the processing station to form a geological map”) including:
a scanner (Nieto, [0011], “The scanning module may further comprise a geometry scanner”);
a processor (Nieto, [0032], “a processor”);
a display (Nieto, [0070], “A visual display unit 120”).
The remaining limitations recite in claim 21 are similar in scope to the method recited in claim 1 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 2009/0256412) in view of Hoekstra (US 2011/0307178), as applied to claim 4, in further view of Robinson et al. (US 8,660,360).
Regarding claim 5, Nieto teaches a hyperspectral data (Nieto, [0050], “the hyperspectral data”); Nieto as modified by Hoekstra does not expressly disclose “forming a hyperspectral data cube”;
Robinson et al. (hereinafter Robinson) discloses forming a hyperspectral data cube (Robinson, col 5. 57-58, “receiving the hyperspectral image data cube at 110 may include utilizing the hyperspectral imaging system”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hyperspectral data of Neito by representing the hyperspectral data as a hyperspectral data cube, as taught by Robinson. The motivation for doing so would have been facilitating three-dimensional spatial and spectral analysis of the hyperspectral information.
Regarding claim 6, Nieto as modified by Hoekstra and Robinson with the same motivation from claim 5 discloses two or more spatial dimensions, representing location in 2D or 3D space (Robinson, col. 43-44, “the hyperspectral image data may be characterized as vectors, having an X,Y spatial coordinate”) , and one spectral dimension (Robinson, col. 44-46, “a set of values in the spectral dimension (e.g., associated with particular wavelength values)”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 2009/0256412) in view of Hoekstra (US 2011/0307178), as applied to claim 10, in further view of Andrew et al. (US 2022/0397697).
Regarding claim 12, Nieto teaches rules or parameters are automatically specified (Nieto, [0066], “In process 40 thematic mapping is used to analyse the hyperspectral data generated in process 38 and classify substances in the bench”);
Nieto as modified by Hoekstra does not expressly disclose “through machine learning”;
Andrew et al. (hereinafter Andrew) discloses automatically specify through machine learning (Andrew, [0030], “The application of machine learning techniques allows for more sophisticated image segmentation and classification and allows much more powerful object recognition, separation and classification algorithms”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform classification of the data in Neito using the machine learning techniques, as taught by Andrew. The motivation for doing so would have been improving accuracy and efficiency in identification of geological features.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 2009/0256412) in view of Hoekstra (US 2011/0307178), as applied to claim 7, in further view of Jacobi et al. (US 2018/0328905).
Regarding claim 14, Nieto discloses estimated presence for more than one or the minerals (Nieto, [0051], “classification of mineral deposits within the mining excavation”);
Nieto as modified by Hoekstra does not expressly disclose “aggregating”;
Jacobi et al. (hereinafter Jacobi) discloses aggregating an estimated presence for more than one of elements (Jacobi, [0055], “FIG. 5 shows an example mineral map 501 obtained using example process 100. Mineral map 501 is a composite of image data from three elements, namely iron (Fe), carbon (C), and magnesium (Mg)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composite of image data function of Jacobi to generate a composite image for displaying the estimated mineral presence, as taught by Nieto as modified by Hoekstra. The motivation for doing so would have been enhancing visualization and interpretation of geological features.
Regarding claim 15, Nieto discloses the estimated presence of one or more minerals form part of the regions of interest (Nieto, [0036], “process the geological and geographical data to make an ore grade assessment of a mineral deposit present within the region”);
Nieto as modified by Hoekstra and Jacobi with the same motivation from claim 14 discloses thresholding and levels above a threshold (Jacobi, [0054], “If a sample area corresponding to the pixel is determined to contain amounts of phosphorous and calcium greater than a certain threshold, the pixel of the mineral map may be labeled as apatite”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 2009/0256412) in view of Hoekstra (US 2011/0307178), as applied to claim 16, in further view of Bedi et al. (US 2017/0221243).
Regarding claim 17, Nieto teaches the map (Nieto, [0067], “In process 42 the processing station 20 generates the three-dimensional geological map by registering (or fusing) the classification data of process 40 with the geometric data of process 36 (i.e. the already registered geometric and RGB data)”); Nieto as modified by Hoekstra with the same motivation from claim 1 teaches contouring (Hoekstra, [0055], “as shown in FIG. 7, the boundaries for the region of interest are displayed using dashed lines along with an arrow or other tool graphic that can be manipulated to manually adjust one or more of the boundaries based, for example, on examination of the probability information, shape of boundaries, etc.”); Nieto as modified by Hoekstra does not expressly disclose “using a computer vision edge detection to locate edges defined by pixels, using a canny filter”;
Bedi et al. (hereinafter Bedi) discloses using a computer vision edge detection to located edges defined by pixels, using a canny filter (Bedi, [0055], “a black pixel value (e.g., 0 pixel value) to indicate a pixel that is part of an edge and a white pixel value (e.g., 1 pixel value) to indicate a pixel that is not part of an edge”. In addition, in paragraph [0095], “the edge detector 510 generates the edge map using a Canny edge detection algorithm for detecting gradient values within the image. The edge detector 510 can utilize additional algorithms and filters to generate an edge map that reliably identifies edges throughout the digital image”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the contours of the regions of interest in Nieto as modified by Hoekstra using the Canny edge detection algorithm, as taught by Bedi. The motivation for doing so would have been improving image analysis and feature extraction.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al. (US 2009/0256412) in view of Hoekstra (US 2011/0307178), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Moosaei et al. (US 2018/0211121).
Regarding claim 18, Nieto teaches regions of interest on the map based on one or more paramters (Nieto, [0058], “The initial assessment may then be refined to allow for generation of a final classification of ore grades in the bench by combining the initial assessment with data taken from one or more subsequent scans of the bench face, and/or with data obtained by inspection of drill cuttings. The final determination/assessment and classification of ore grades can then be used to determine treatment of the mined material”); Nieto as modified by Hoekstra with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses displayed on the map (Hoekstra, Fig. 7);
Nieto as modified by Hoekstra does not expressly disclose “filtering regions of interest based upon one or more parameters, the parameters including size and/or shape”;
Moosaei et al. (hereinafter Moosaei) discloses filtering regions of interest based upon one or more parameters including size and/or shape (Moosaei, [0016], “The contours are filtered based on their shapes and sizes to help reduce false positives from sources”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the regions of interest in Nieto using a filtering function that includes filtering based on shapes and sizes, as taught by Moosaei. The motivation for doing so would have been accurately identify regions of interest by removing irrelevant regions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ZHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3740. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. 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.
/KYLE ZHAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights