DETAILED ACTION
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] This communication is in response to the patent application filed 2 July 2025. It is noted that this application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 16/764,473 filed 15 May 2020, now United States Patent No. 12,373,751. It is further acknowledged that United States Patent Application Serial No. 16/764,473, now United States Patent No. 12,373,751, is a National Stage Entry of PCT/AU2018/051176 having an International Filing date of 31 October 2018 which benefits from Foreign Priority to 2017904625 (Australia) filed 15 November 2017. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 2 July 2025 has been entered and considered. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Continuation Application
[3] This application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 16/764,473 filed 15 May 2020 which benefits from the effective filing date of 15 November 2017, now United States Patent No. 12,373,751. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application.
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.
[4] Claims 4-10 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.
Claims 4-10 all depend from claim 1 and recite instances of “flow planner computing device” (claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10), “dispatcher computing device” (claims 6, 7, 8, and 10), and “estimator computing device” (claim 9). Claim 1 recites a “flow planner”, “dispatcher”, and “estimator”. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the reference to “flow planner computing device”, “dispatcher computing device”, and “estimator computing device” in dependent claims 4-10.
Further, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 include further recitations of “flow planner” as recited in claim 1. The claims present “flow planner computing device”, “dispatcher computing device”, and “estimator computing device” as well as “flow planner”, “dispatcher”, and “estimator” interchangeably throughout the claims. Examiner assumes a typographical error or oversight and for purposes of further examination, Examiner assumes the intention is to claim the computing device form of the element, namely, the “flow planner computing device”, “dispatcher computing device”, and “estimator computing device” throughout claims. However, Examiner’s interpretation is not clear from the claims as currently presented and appropriate correction is required.
NOTE: For Applicant’s benefit – amendment to omit the recited “computing device” could require analysis of the terms “flow planner”, “dispatcher”, and “estimator” as nonce or placeholder terms which potentially invoke treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, as interpreted herein, the terms “flow planner computing device”, “dispatcher computing device”, and “estimator computing device” clarify that the system elements are devices and therefore do not invoke treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
[5] Claims 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-15 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claim 1 is directed to a system and is reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, claim 1 is determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of generating a material flow plan for a mine and dispatching resources to execute the plan, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed serves to assign resources, i.e., equipment and personnel, to fulfill mining functions defined by a material flow plan, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human activities, namely organizing and directing interactions and coordinated efforts of human actors.
With respect to functions/steps limited to abstract Organizing Human Activity, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 1. In particular, claim 1 includes:
“…generate global mine data including…future estimates including estimated asset parameters that estimate future parameters and/or conditions relating to the performance of assets;…receive, in response to the query, asset data for the corresponding asset or asset class…receive operating parameters and the global mine data…determine dispatch assignments based on: the asset data; the flow plan; and the dispatch planning window; cause a dispatch of at least one asset or asset class of the plurality of assets based on the dispatch assignments by generating and transmitting to the at least one asset or asset class, instructions that cause the at least one asset or asset class of the plurality of assets to operate according to the instructions…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of generating a material flow plan for a mine and dispatching resources to execute the plan, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Actions and Activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 recites:
“…estimate future parameters and/or conditions relating to the performance of assets; generate, for each asset or asset class of a plurality of assets, a query conditioned on a conditioning parameter indicating a performance or operational characteristic of the asset or asset class… calculate a flow plan based on the operating parameters and the global mine data, the flow plan spanning a flow planning window of time defined by a starting point and a horizon, and comprising one or more planned flow rates that vary over the flow planning window; and a dispatcher that is configured to: determine a dispatch planning window, wherein the dispatch planning window is a moving window within the flow planning window, and wherein the moving window has a receding horizon or a decreasing horizon based on the horizon of the flow planning window; and determine dispatch assignments based on: the asset data; the flow plan from the flow planner; and the dispatch planning window…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited at least one computing system implementing the model, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that calculating a flow plan using input data and an applicable relationship between the input data and the material flow are practicable/performable by a human using pen and paper. By extension one of ordinary skill would be capable of generating a query to determine information about available assets and determine dispatch assignments to implement the calculated flow plan by employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claim 1 recites technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “flow planner [computing device]”, “dispatcher [computing device]”, “estimator [computing device]” and “one or more sensors”. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “flow planner [computing device]” is identified as receiving data and calculating/generating a flow plan for a time window.
(2) The “dispatcher [computing device]” is identified as determining a dispatch planning window, dispatch assignments, and transmitting operating instructions to dispatched assets.
(3) The “estimator [computing device]” is identified as generating future estimates including estimated asset parameters relating to assets and querying assets for operational characteristics.
(4) The “one or more sensors” are identified as providing sensor data to the estimator [computing device].
With respect to the indication that the dispatcher transmits operating instructions to dispatched assets in accordance with the dispatch assignments, as presented, this requirement merely requires communication of general instructions in some form to an asset, e.g., a message to an operator to drive a vehicle, or to mine personnel to move to locations within the mine. In present form, the instructions do not require any commands or instructions to automated equipment to control or otherwise autonomously navigate the equipment.
NOTE for applicants benefit: Clarification that the instructions constitute automated controlling/navigation and operation of autonomous equipment could assist in overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as presented herein. However, as presented, the limitation merely requires transmission of general instructions to an operator via a computer network.
With respect to the above noted remaining functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: 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 uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., a flow plan is calculated for a time period and dispatch assignments are determined based on the flow plan etc.) as associated with a respective “planner” or “dispatcher”. Beyond the general statement that the system is comprised of a planner and a dispatcher, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “planner [computing device]” and “dispatcher [computing device]” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a computing device” absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) collecting, receiving, and sending data via a computer network (e.g., sensor data, queries, asset data, instructions); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., asset data and mine data); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., calculating a flow plan using input data and an applicable relationship between the input data and the material flow) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of generating a material flow plan for a mine and dispatching resources to execute the plan using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed generating a material flow plan for a mine and dispatching resources to execute the plan benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0182]-[0183]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “flow planner [computing device]” is identified as receiving data and calculating/generating a flow plan for a time window.
(2) The “dispatcher [computing device]” is identified as determining a dispatch planning window, dispatch assignments, and transmitting operating instructions to dispatched assets.
(3) The “estimator [computing device]” is identified as generating future estimates including estimated asset parameters relating to assets and querying assets for operational characteristics.
(4) The “one or more sensors” are identified as providing sensor data to the estimator [computing device].
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) collecting, receiving, and sending data via a computer network (e.g., sensor data, queries, asset data, instructions); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., asset data and mine data); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., calculating a flow plan using input data and an applicable relationship between the input data and the material flow).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of generating a material flow plan for a mine and dispatching resources to execute the plan. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., generating a material flow plan for a mine and dispatching resources to execute the plan, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of generating a material flow plan for a mine and dispatching resources to execute the plan benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Dependent claims 2-15, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Allowable Subject Matter
[6] Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in this Office action.
Subject Matter Overcoming the Art of Record
[7] The most closely applicable prior art of record is presented herein as ‘cited not applied’ to Watkins (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0314421). Watkins provides system and method which includes a mining operations model which simulates mine operating conditions to optimize a plan to match material produced with market conditions. Watkins discloses coordinating movements and activities of mining equipment including determining transportation routes. The system further generates an optimization plan including the transportation and movement of equipment and material over defined time periods.
While Watkins is similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. Initially, the optimization plan of Watkins includes a target material flow over a time period and is reasonably a form of flow plan having a planning window having an end point or “horizon”. Further, Watkins discloses adjustments to the plan and equipment transportation routes based on monitored market conditions.
In contrast to the optimization plan and associated time window of Watkins, the instant invention further generates a separate dispatch planning moving window within the flow planning window which dispatches equipment along the moving window using a receding or decreasing horizon that is based on the horizon of the flow planning window. The inventive system further updates or adapts dispatching by generating a second window, i.e., the dispatch planning within a subset of the flow planning window, responsive to receipt of an adjusted or updated flow plan. These features are functionally and patentably distinct from the planning time periods and direction of equipment of Watkins.
Double Patenting
[8] The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current invention/instant application and issued patent ‘751 patent are drawn to systems for calculating and planning material and equipment flows in mining operations. The distinctions between the claims of the instant application and the ‘751 patent are limited to a rewording of common features and to omissions of elements recited in the claims of the ‘751 application. The claims from all applications above are significantly similar and the claimed features seem to be identical with various obvious alternate method.
Examiner further notes that the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
Conclusion
[9] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Wood et al., Resource Flow Interface, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0343090, paragraphs [0048]-[0058]: Relevant Teachings: Wood discloses a system/method that provides resource flow simulations and an interface for resource flow planning for mining operations.
Kumar et al., SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0277940, paragraphs [0080]-[0086]: Relevant Teachings: Kumar discloses a system/method that provides monitoring of equipment in a mining operation including operational status obtained by interrogating vehicle systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights