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 statements (IDS) submitted on 04 December 2025 and 18 December 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 “soil/rock anchors” as recited in claim 4, the “plurality of piles” as recited in claim 5, the “diaphragm wall” as recited in claim 6, the “beam” as recited in claim 8, and the “drainage system” as recited in claim 11 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)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “49”.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1 contains 6 views. Each figure should only contain a single view and a unique figure ID. Examiner suggests renumbering the views shown in Fig. 1 as Figs. 1A - 1F, or something similar. The specification should be amended accordingly.
Regarding Fig. 2, text matter should only be used where necessary for understanding. The text matter shown in Fig. 2 (i.e. “bench face”, “safety berm”, etc.) should be replaced with reference characters wherever possible.
Regarding Figs. 1 and 2, it is unclear whether those figures represent prior art. Fig. 1 is described as illustrating “a typical open pit mine” and Fig. 2 is described as illustrating “a standard open pit mine”. If Figs. 1 and 2 represent prior art, the figures should be labeled “Prior Art” and the Brief Description of the Drawings section of the specification should also refer to those figures as prior art.
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the last sentence in the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 17, “successive, batters” should be changed to “successive batters”.
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 - 20 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 use of the term “it” renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which structural element or limitation the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “safe” as recited in line 4 renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because “safe” is a subjective term and it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “safe mining”. Claim 17 contains a similar error.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “slope angle is ≥ 55 degrees”, and the claim also recites “typically ≥ 60 degrees” and “more typically ≥ 65 degrees” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “soil/rock anchors” as recited in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation refers to anchors that are made for use in both soil and rock or in either soil or rock.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear whether “at least one berm” as recited in line 3 refers to at least one of the plurality of berms recited in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, or if it/they represent additional structural limitation(s). Claim 6 contains a similar error.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear whether “at least one batter” as recited in line 3 refers to at least one of the plurality of berms recited in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, or if it/they represent additional structural limitation(s).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “or other suitable protective material” as recited in lines 2 - 3 renders the claim vague and indefinite because the claim does not clearly define what material(s) are considered “suitable protective material”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a range of 12-60m”, and the claim also recites “typically less than 50m” and “more typically less than 40m” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the geological and geomechanical properties” renders the claim vague and indefinite because the claim does not define specific geological and mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “rock properties” renders the claim vague and indefinite because the claim does not define specific properties of rocks.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “mining safety factors” renders the claim vague and indefinite because the claim does not define specific mining safety factors.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “any other relevant factors” renders the claim vague and indefinite because the claim does not define specific “relevant factors”.
Regarding claim 17, the use of the term “it” renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which structural element or limitation the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear whether the step of “installing the civil engineering support system” refers to the step of “installing the civil engineering support system” as recited in claim 18, from which claim 19 depends, or if it represents an additional step of installing the civil engineering support system to stabilize successive benches and batters.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 4, line 3: “the length”
Claim 4, line 3: “the batter”. It is unclear as to which of the plurality of batters recited in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 7, lines 2 - 3: “the length”
Claim 10, line 3: “the batter”
Claim 13, line 2: “the berm width”
Claim 14, line 2: “the batter height”
Claim 16, line 2: “the height”
Claim 16, line 3: “the geological and geomechanical properties”
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 - 3, 12, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haile (US 2012/0230776).
Regarding claim 1, Haile discloses an open pit mine including a mine pit defined by a pit wall (face 5), with a target area of the pit wall including a plurality of batters (vertical batter 4) separated by berms (3) and a civil engineering support system (boreholes 9 and reinforcing members 10) for the pit wall that makes it possible for the pit wall to have a pit wall slope angle (90 degrees) that is greater than would have been possible for safe mining without the civil engineering support system (Figs. 1 - 3; abstract; paragraphs 0007, 0008, and 0015 - 0022).
Regarding claim 2, Haile further discloses the pit wall (5) slope angle is ≥ 65 degrees when the target area is a soft rock, as defined herein (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0008, 0010, and 0022).
Regarding claim 3, Examiner takes the position that claim 3 does not recite any additional structural limitations to further define the open pit mine as recited in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Since Haile discloses all of the structural limitations recited in claim 1, the apparatus as disclosed by Haile reads on claim 3.
Regarding claim 12. Haile further discloses each batter (vertical batter 4) has a batter angle in a range of 80 – 90 degrees (Figs. 1 and 3; paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 14, Haile further discloses a batter height (see height of batter as shown in Figs. 1 and 3). Examiner takes the position that the claim does not require a specific height because the use of the term “may” indicates that the respective limitation (the range of batter heights) is not required.
Regarding claim 17, Haile discloses a method of mining material in an open pit mine comprising mining material from a target area of the mine by progressively forming a pit wall (5) having successive, batters (4) and berms (3) separating the batters as mining progresses, and installing a civil engineering support system (9, 10) for the pit wall that makes it possible for the pit wall to have a pit wall slope angle that is greater than would have been possible for safe mining without the civil engineering support system (Figs. 1 - 3; abstract; paragraphs 0007, 0008, and 0015 - 0022).
Claims 1 - 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 108843322).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an open pit mine including a mine pit defined by a pit wall, with a target area of the pit wall including a plurality of batters (unlabeled vertical batters in Figs. 2 and 3) separated by berms (unlabeled horizontal berms as shown in Figs. 2 and 3) and a civil engineering support system (unlabeled soil nails extending through the batters into the surrounding rock; unlabeled soil nails extending through the berms into the surrounding rock; see Figs. 2 and 3) for the pit wall that makes it possible for the pit wall to have a pit wall slope angle (90 degrees) that is greater than would have been possible for safe mining without the civil engineering support system (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraphs 0010 - 0014, 0019 - 0023, 0048, 0050, 0056, and 0071).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses the pit wall slope angle is ≥ 65 degrees (90 degrees) when the target area is a soft rock, as defined herein (Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Examiner takes the position that claim 3 does not recite any additional structural limitations to further define the open pit mine as recited in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Since Zhang discloses all of the structural limitations recited in claim 1, the apparatus as disclosed by Zhang reads on claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further discloses the civil engineering support system includes a plurality of soil/rock anchors (soil nails, unlabeled in Figs. 2 and 3) at spaced intervals along the length of at least a section of the batter (vertical batters, unlabeled in Figs. 2 and 3) that place the section under compression to stabilize the section (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraphs 0014 and 0048).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang further discloses a diaphragm wall (see paragraphs 0016 and 0050).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang further discloses the civil engineering support system includes a layer of shotcrete or other suitable protective material (reinforced concrete support) (paragraphs 0014, 0048, and 0071).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang further discloses the civil engineering support system includes a drainage system (water discharge hole, not shown) (paragraphs 0023 and 0056).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang further discloses each batter (unlabeled vertical batters in Figs. 2 and 3) has a batter angle in a range of 80 - 90 degrees (Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang further discloses the batter height (step height) may be in a range of 12-60m (12 meters, 24 meters) (paragraph 0068). Additionally, Examiner takes the position that the claim does not require a specific height because the use of the term “may” indicates that the respective limitation (the range of batter heights) is not required.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang further discloses the open pit mine includes a plurality of target areas (left side of Fig. 1; right side of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses a method of mining material in an open pit mine comprising mining material from a target area of the mine by progressively forming a pit wall having successive, batters (unlabeled vertical batters in Figs. 2 and 3) and berms (unlabeled horizontal berms as shown in Figs. 2 and 3) separating the batters as mining progresses, and installing a civil engineering support system (unlabeled soil nails extending through the batters into the surrounding rock; unlabeled soil nails extending through the berms into the surrounding rock; see Figs. 2 and 3) for the pit wall that makes it possible for the pit wall to have a pit wall slope angle that is greater than would have been possible for safe mining without the civil engineering support system (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraphs 0010 - 0014, 0019 - 0023, 0048, 0050, 0056, and 0071).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang further discloses a 1st bench (bottom unlabeled horizontal berm as shown in Figs. 2 and 3) and a 1st batter (bottom unlabeled vertical batter in Figs. 2 and 3) extending upwardly from the 1st bench by mining material from the target area and installing the civil engineering support system (unlabeled soil nails extending through the batters into the surrounding rock; unlabeled soil nails extending through the berms into the surrounding rock; see Figs. 2 and 3) to stabilize the 1st batter, and forming a 2nd bench (top unlabeled horizontal berm as shown in Figs. 2 and 3) and a 2nd batter (top unlabeled vertical batter in Figs. 2 and 3) extending upwardly from the 2nd bench by mining material from the target area and installing the civil engineering support system to stabilize the 2nd batter, with mining including mining material from the 1st bench and leaving a berm separating the 1st and 2nd batters (Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang further discloses forming successive benches (unlabeled horizontal berms as shown in Figs. 2 and 3) and batters (unlabeled vertical batters in Figs. 2 and 3) and installing the civil engineering support system (unlabeled soil nails extending through the batters into the surrounding rock; unlabeled soil nails extending through the berms into the surrounding rock; see Figs. 2 and 3) (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraphs 0010 - 0014, 0019 - 0023, 0048, 0050, 0056, and 0071).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang further discloses forming the 1st bench in a series of successively deeper stages (middle and bottom unlabeled horizontal berms as shown in Figs. 2 and 3) and installing the civil engineering support system (unlabeled soil nails extending through the batters into the surrounding rock; unlabeled soil nails extending through the berms into the surrounding rock; see Figs. 2 and 3) to stabilize each stage of the 1st batter (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraphs 0010 - 0014, 0019 - 0023, 0048, 0050, 0056, and 0071).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haile in view of Peng et al. (CN 112609713). Haile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a plurality of piles that have been driven downwardly into a section of at least one berm. Peng teaches a plurality of piles (first-level bench piles 1-1 and 1-2) that have been driven downwardly into a section of at least one berm (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0078 - 0080) to control landslides. 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 open pit mine as disclosed above with the plurality of piles as taught by Peng to control rockfalls, thereby increasing the stability of the pit wall.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Peng et al. (CN 112609713). Zhang discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a plurality of piles that have been driven downwardly into a section of at least one berm. Peng teaches a plurality of piles (first-level bench piles 1-1 and 1-2) that have been driven downwardly into a section of at least one berm (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0078 - 0080) to control landslides. 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 open pit mine as disclosed above with the plurality of piles as taught by Peng to control rockfalls, thereby increasing the stability of the pit wall.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haile in view of Androsov et al. (RU 2099528).
Regarding claim 7, Haile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except an elongate reinforcement member along the length of at least a section of at least one batter to stabilize the section. Androsov teaches an elongate reinforcement member (mesh web 16; rods 15) along the length of at least a section of at least one batter (unlabeled incline slope is functionally equivalent to a batter) to stabilize the section (Figs. 3 and 4; paragraph 0018) to provide a heat-protective shield to increase the stability of steep sides of quarries, especially under permafrost conditions. 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 open pit mine as disclosed above with the elongate reinforcement member as taught by Androsov to provide a heat-protective shield to increase the stability of steep sides of quarries, especially under permafrost conditions.
Regarding claim 8, Haile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the reinforcement member is a beam. Androsov teaches the reinforcement member is a beam (rod 15) (Figs. 3 and 4; paragraph 0018) to provide a heat-protective shield to increase the stability of steep sides of quarries, especially under permafrost conditions. 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 open pit mine as disclosed above with the elongate reinforcement member as taught by Androsov to provide a heat-protective shield to increase the stability of steep sides of quarries, especially under permafrost conditions.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Androsov et al.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except an elongate reinforcement member along the length of at least a section of at least one batter to stabilize the section. Androsov teaches an elongate reinforcement member (mesh web 16; rods 15) along the length of at least a section of at least one batter (unlabeled incline slope is functionally equivalent to a batter) to stabilize the section (Figs. 3 and 4; paragraph 0018) to provide a heat-protective shield to increase the stability of steep sides of quarries, especially under permafrost conditions. 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 open pit mine as disclosed above with the elongate reinforcement member as taught by Androsov to provide a heat-protective shield to increase the stability of steep sides of quarries, especially under permafrost conditions.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the reinforcement member is a beam. Androsov teaches the reinforcement member is a beam (rod 15) (Figs. 3 and 4; paragraph 0018) to provide a heat-protective shield to increase the stability of steep sides of quarries, especially under permafrost conditions. 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 open pit mine as disclosed above with the elongate reinforcement member as taught by Androsov to provide a heat-protective shield to increase the stability of steep sides of quarries, especially under permafrost conditions.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haile in view of Jansen Van Rensburg (WO 2013/175383).
Regarding claim 7, Haile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except an elongate reinforcement member along the length of at least a section of at least one batter to stabilize the section. Jansen Van Rensburg teaches an elongate reinforcement member (bands of drape mesh 62, 64, 66, 68) along the length of at least a section of at least one batter (unlabeled incline slope is functionally equivalent to a batter) to stabilize the section (Figs. 6 and 7; page 10) to contain rockfalls, especially as slopes in mines become steeper. 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 open pit mine as disclosed above with the elongate reinforcement member as taught by Jansen Van Rensburg to contain rockfalls, especially as slopes in mines become steeper.
Regarding claim 9, Haile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the reinforcement member is a mesh reinforcement. Jansen Van Rensburg teaches the reinforcement member is a mesh reinforcement (bands of drape mesh 62, 64, 66, 68) (Figs. 6 and 7; page 10) to contain rockfalls, especially as slopes in mines become steeper. 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 open pit mine as disclosed above with the elongate reinforcement member as taught by Jansen Van Rensburg to contain rockfalls, especially as slopes in mines become steeper.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Jansen Van Rensburg.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except an elongate reinforcement member along the length of at least a section of at least one batter to stabilize the section. Jansen Van Rensburg teaches an elongate reinforcement member (bands of drape mesh 62, 64, 66, 68) along the length of at least a section of at least one batter (unlabeled incline slope is functionally equivalent to a batter) to stabilize the section (Figs. 6 and 7; page 10) to contain rockfalls, especially as slopes in mines become steeper. 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 open pit mine as disclosed above with the elongate reinforcement member as taught by Jansen Van Rensburg to contain rockfalls, especially as slopes in mines become steeper.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the reinforcement member is a mesh reinforcement. Jansen Van Rensburg teaches the reinforcement member is a mesh reinforcement (bands of drape mesh 62, 64, 66, 68) (Figs. 6 and 7; page 10) to contain rockfalls, especially as slopes in mines become steeper. 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 open pit mine as disclosed above with the elongate reinforcement member as taught by Jansen Van Rensburg to contain rockfalls, especially as slopes in mines become steeper.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haile. Haile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the berm width is in a range of 5 - 15m. Examiner takes the position that the berm width lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the size of the open pit mine and the properties of the surrounding rock.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. Zhang discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the berm width is in a range of 5 - 15m. Examiner takes the position that the berm width lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the size of the open pit mine and the properties of the surrounding rock.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haile in view of Kava et al. (RU 2475648). Haile discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except different sections of the height of the target area have different slope angles, determined having regard to the geological and geomechanical properties, including rock properties, mining safety factors, and any other relevant factors in each section. Kava teaches different sections of the height of the target area have different slope angles (Figs. 1 and 2) determined having regard to the geological and geomechanical properties, including rock properties (geological structure of the rocks that make up the sides of the open pit) (Figs. 1 and 2; see Description section of the attached translation). 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 slope angle as disclosed by Haile to include different slope angles in different sections of the height of the target area as taught by Kava to ensure the stability of the walls of the open pit.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Kava et al. Zhang discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except different sections of the height of the target area have different slope angles, determined having regard to the geological and geomechanical properties, including rock properties, mining safety factors, and any other relevant factors in each section. Kava teaches different sections of the height of the target area have different slope angles (Figs. 1 and 2) determined having regard to the geological and geomechanical properties, including rock properties (geological structure of the rocks that make up the sides of the open pit) (Figs. 1 and 2; see Description section of the attached translation). 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 slope angle as disclosed by Zhang to include different slope angles in different sections of the height of the target area as taught by Kava to ensure the stability of the walls of the open pit.
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
8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights