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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 August 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “ground engaging member” as recited in claim 5 and the “battery hauler”, “feeder-breaker”, and “continuous haulage system” as recited in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “3’” has been used to designate both “ancillary unit” and “shovel”.
Reference character “3” has been used to designate “ancillary unit”, “shovel”, and “support unit”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “45”, “46”,k “47”, and “48”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “37” and “40”.
The drawings are objected to because:
The text matter or reference characters associated with the “central unit” and the “ancillary units” is illegible (see Figs. 1 and 3(a) - 3(p)).
Text matter should only be used where absolutely necessary for understanding. Reference characters should be used where appropriate. The text matter in Figs. 2(a) - 2(e) should be replaced with reference characters whenever possible.
Regarding Figs. 3(a), 3(d) - 3(f), 3(h) - 3(j), 3(l), and 3(o), the solid black markings associated with the shuttle cars do not allow Examiner to identify the structural features of said shuttle cars. It appears that the solid black markings are used to represent the material being extracted from the mine, but clarification is needed.
Regarding Fig. 6, the title of the figure (“Architecture of automation and remote operation”) should be described in the specification but should not be included in the figure.
Regarding Fig. 6, all of the structural elements included in the figure (i.e. gyroscope and x-scan) should also be described in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Figure 6 should be referred to at least once in the Detailed description of preferred embodiments section of the specification.
All of the structural elements included in Fig. 6 (i.e. gyroscope and x-scan) should be described in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 - 8, and 10 - 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 7 of claim 1, Examiner suggests changing “at least one ancillary unit” to “at least one of the ancillary units”, or something similar.
In line 1 of claim 3, “A mining system” should be changed to “The mining system”. Similar changes should be made in claims 4 - 8.
In line 2 of claim 6, “anacillary” should be changed to “ancillary”.
In line 1 of claim 10, “An underground mining method” should be changed to “The underground mining method”. Similar changes should be made in claims 11 - 15.
In lines 2 - 3 of claim 16, Examiner suggests changing “said central control unit” to “a central control unit”.
In line 3 of claim 16, Examiner suggests changing “each ancillary unit” to “each of a plurality of ancillary units”, or something similar.
In line 1 of claim 17, “A controller” should be changed to “The controller”.
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 and 3 - 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “relative to an adjacently positioned unit” as recited in line 10 is confusing because it is unclear whether the “unit” refers to one of the ancillary units or to the central control unit.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear whether “each unit” as recited in line 3 refers to the ancillary units or to the ancillary units and the control unit.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “each shovel member of each unit” is confusing because “each” implies a plurality of shovel members and it is unclear whether “each shovel member of each unit” requires each unit to have a plurality of shovel members or if each unit includes a single shovel member. Since claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, recites a single shovel member for each ancillary unit, “each shovel member of each unit” has been interpreted as “the shovel member of each unit”, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “an adjacent unit” as recited in lines 2 - 3 is confusing because it is unclear whether the “unit” refers to one of the ancillary units or to the central control unit.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear whether “each unit” as recited in line 3 refers to the ancillary units or to the ancillary units and the control unit.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear whether “each unit” as recited in line 2 refers to the ancillary units or to the ancillary units and the control unit.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a snake like manner” as recited in lines 2 - 3 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “snake like” does not clearly define a shape. For example, a snake can be coiled or extended such that its body is extended in a linear manner. Claim 20 contains a similar issue.
Regarding claim 12, “a lower from the roof” as recited in line 2 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear what structural element is lower from the roof.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear whether the claim is directed to a system or to a method. The preamble of claim 14 recites “An underground mining method” but then recites the method “according to claim 8” and claim 8 is directed to a mining system not a method. Claim 15 contains a similar error.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear whether “each unit” as recited in line 3 refers to the ancillary units or to the ancillary units and the control unit.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 6, lines 3 - 4: “said substrate surface”
Claim 6, line 4: “said unit”. It is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation refers to one of the ancillary units or to the central control unit.
Claim 9, line 12: “the position”
Claim 12, line 2: “the roof”
Claim 14, line 5: “said ancillary unit”. It is unclear as to which of the ancillary units the aforementioned limitation refers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pile et al. (US 2009/0033140).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Pile discloses a mining system for the extraction of pillars on either side of a control roadway of an underground mine grid, the mining system including: a central control unit (middle roof support of roof supports 42b), adapted to be initially positioned at an intersection of said control roadway (headgate 22) and an installation roadway (unlabeled roadway in which roof supports 42 and 43 are located in Fig. 4, the unlabeled roadway extending between and perpendicular to headgate 22 and tailgate 24), and configured to be forwardly propelled along the control roadway in a mining direction (19) towards an extraction roadway; and, a plurality of ancillary units (all of the roof supports 42b other than the middle roof support of roof supports 42b), at least one ancillary unit being located on each side of said central control unit, each ancillary unit including: a main body (base plate, not shown), adapted to be forwardly propelled adjacent to said central unit relative to an adjacently positioned unit thereto in the mining direction; and, a canopy portion (roof plate, not shown), adapted to extend substantially outwardly from an upper portion of the main body to thereby define a shielded mining space thereunder; and, wherein, the central control unit includes a controller (control device 120) that is configured to control the operation of the central unit and each ancillary unit (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0025, 0031, and 0032). Given the apparatus as disclosed by Pile, the method of claim 9 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Pile further discloses the central control unit (middle roof support of roof supports 42b) is either: self-propelling; or is configured to be propelled by a separate unit (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0031 and 0032).
Regarding claim 13, Pile further discloses in said advancing step, after each main body (base plate) of each ancillary unit (all of the roof supports 42b other than the middle roof support of roof supports 42b) is repositioned, each canopy portion (roof plate), including a flipper (ore face catcher, not shown), is thereafter operated to be pivotally and/or be slidably extended outwardly to redefine a new shielded mining space thereunder (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 15, Pile further discloses in the mining step, mineral or other material is extracted using a continuous miner vehicle (cutting head 44) and/or a conveyor (main conveyor system 46) (Fig. 4; paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 16, Pile further discloses a controller (120) of an underground mining system according to claim 1,configured to control the operation of said central control unit (middle roof support of roof supports 42b) and each ancillary unit (all of the roof supports 42b other than the middle roof support of roof supports 42b) located on either side thereof (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0031 and 0032).
Regarding claim 18, Pile further discloses an ancillary unit (one of the roof supports 42b other than the middle roof support of roof supports 42b) of an underground mining system according to claim 1, the operation and repositioning thereof being configured to be controlled by a controller (120) (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0025, 0031, and 0032).
Regarding claim 21, Pile discloses a pillar extraction system for underground mining, including: a central control unit (middle roof support of roof supports 42b); at least one ancillary unit (all of the roof supports 42b other than the middle roof support of roof supports 42b) located on each side of said central control unit, each ancillary unit including: a main body (base plate, not shown), adapted to be forwardly propelled; and, a canopy portion (roof plate, not shown), adapted to extend substantially outwardly from an upper portion of the main body to thereby define a shielded mining space thereunder; and, wherein the central control unit includes a controller (120) configured to control the operation of the central control unit and each ancillary unit (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0025, 0031, and 0032).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 - 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pile et al. in view of Kussel et al. (US 7,455,368).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Pile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the controller is operated remotely. Kussel teaches a controller (control device 33, control devices 34) is operated remotely (via control device 37) (Fig. 2; col. 3, line 49 - col. 4, line 58) to allow the operator to be in a location away from the longwall or be at least removed from the instant mining location. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the controller as disclosed above so that it is remotely operated as taught by Kussel to allow the operator to be located at a safe distance away from the instant mining location.
Regarding claim 4, Pile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except said canopy portion of each ancillary unit is configured to slide and/or pivot substantially outwardly from said main body. Kussel teaches said canopy portion (27; coal face catcher 48) of each ancillary unit (longwall supports 1 - 18) is configured to slide and/or pivot substantially outwardly (for example, by using cylinder-piston unit 30) from said main body (26) (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 16 - 26). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified each canopy portion as disclosed above so that it is configured to slide and/or pivot substantially outwardly from said main body as taught by Kussel so that each ancillary unit can be used to support a longwall as a cutting machine moves in a cutting direction.
Regarding claim 5, Pile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except said central control unit and said main body of each said ancillary unit each include a ground engaging member adapted to propel each unit over a substrate surface. Kussel teaches a central control unit and said main body of each ancillary unit (longwall supports 1 - 18) each include a ground engaging member (channel 25, advance piston 29) adapted to propel each unit over a substrate surface (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 3, lines 10 - 18). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the ground engaging member as taught by Kussel so that each unit can be used to support a longwall as a cutting machine moves in a cutting direction.
Claims 6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pile et al. in view of Brink (US 4,850,748).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Pile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except each said ancillary unit further includes a shovel member configured to forwardly push any mineral or other material atop said substrate surface away from said unit. Brink teaches an ancillary unit (roof support 72) includes a shovel member (22) configured to forwardly push any mineral or other material atop said substrate surface away from said unit (Fig. 3; col. 4, line 17 - col. 5, line 49; col. 7, lines 18 - 31) to receive loose material deposited on a mine floor. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the system as disclosed above with the shovel member as taught by Brink to receive and remove loose material that was deposited on the mine floor during the mining operation. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 14 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Pile discloses the system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Pile fails to disclose a shovel member associated with an ancillary unit of an underground mining system according to claim 1, configured to forwardly push any mineral or other extracted material atop a substrate surface away from said ancillary unit. Brink teaches a shovel (22) configured to forwardly push any mineral or other extracted material atop a substrate surface away from said ancillary unit (roof support 72) (Fig. 3; col. 4, line 17 - col. 5, line 49; col. 7, lines 18 - 31) to receive loose material deposited on a mine floor. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the system as disclosed above with the shovel member as taught by Brink to receive and remove loose material that was deposited on the mine floor during the mining operation.
Claims 10 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pile et al. in view of Knuth (US 10,364,676).
Regarding claim 10, Pile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except in said advancing step, a controller is configured to progressively operate a ground engaging member of each unit to thereby propel each unit over a substrate surface. Knuth teaches in said advancing step, a controller (301) is configured to progressively operate a ground engaging member (base 105 of PRS 100) of each unit (PRS 100) to thereby propel each unit over a substrate surface (Figs. 1 and 5; col. 4, lines 26 - 37; col. 7, lines 37 - 67). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the controller configured to progressively operate a ground engaging member of each unit using LAS methodology as taught by Knuth to prevent damage to each unit and/or to the roof of the mine due to contact between the canopy of each unit and the mine roof while the units are propelled over a substrate surface.
Regarding claim 11, Pile further discloses said controller (120) is adapted to selectively advance the position of each unit (42b) in a snake like manner (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Pile fails to disclose said controller utilizes a lower from the roof, advance, set to the roof, methodology (LAS). Knuth teaches said controller (301) utilizes a lower from the roof, advance, set to the roof, methodology (LAS) (Figs. 1 and 5; col. 4, lines 26 - 37; col. 7, lines 37 - 67). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the controller configured to utilize LAS methodology as taught by Knuth to prevent damage to each unit and/or to the roof of the mine due to contact between the canopy of each unit and the mine roof while the units are propelled over a substrate surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 20 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 SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights