DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 07/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-2 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 202010569134 filed on 2020-06-2019.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner' s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
Acknowledgement is made of amended claim 1 to clarify the meaning of “assembly constraint relationship”. Rejections to claims 1-2 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Acknowledgement is made of claim 1 amendments to correct indefinite and relative terms. Rejections to claims 1-2 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claim 1. Applicant’ arguments have been fully considered, and after careful re-evaluation under the Office’s subject matter eligibility test, Applicant’s arguments were not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-2 are maintained. Note: Applicant’s amendment necessitated new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is not directed towards mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under Step 2A Prong 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, instead is directed towards a “specific computer-aided engineering workflow for modifying a three-dimensional Computer-Aided Design (CAD) model of a cutter head of a hard rock tunnel boring machine under high-dimensional random field conditions“. Additionally, Applicant argues the amended limitations are not “activities that can practically be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper”, and cites Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) as basis for their conclusion. After careful evaluation, the examiner respectfully disagrees per the following reasoning:
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-2 are directed towards a method, therefore fall within the statutory category of a process. Per MPEP 2106.04, Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection [ ] In addition to the terms "laws of nature," "natural phenomena," and "abstract ideas," judicially recognized exceptions have been described using various other terms, including "physical phenomena," "products of nature," "scientific principles," "systems that depend on human intelligence alone," "disembodied concepts," "mental processes," and "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas." [ ] mathematical formulas are considered to be a judicial exception as they express a scientific truth, but have been labelled by the courts as both abstract ideas and laws of nature [ ] The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are "the basic tools of scientific and technological work", and are thus excluded from patentability because "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." [ ] The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation). [ ] This is because such a patent would "in practical effect [ ] be a patent on the [abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon] itself." [ ] questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B) [ ] The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were "‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection."
Step 2A Prong 1: Determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites (i.e. sets forth or describes) an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitation(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. Mental Processes, Mathematical Concepts, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Claims 1 and 2 are directed towards mathematical concepts and/or mental processes – see detailed 35 USC §101 analysis below. Note: per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. [ ] The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. [ ] Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” Thus, Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1, as a whole, integrates into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 since “claim 1 now recites performing isogeometric analysis by using basis functions …”, therefore “applies the alleged mathematical operations to improve a specific CAD/CAE-based structural analysis workflow, rather than merely performing mathematical calculations for their own sake” and cites Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as analogous to the claimed invention. Applicant also argues the claims include “significantly more than any alleged abstract idea” under Step 2B and cites McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as support for argument. After careful reconsideration and re-evaluation, the examiner respectfully disagrees given the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes summarized here.
Step 2A Prong 2 / Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements identified as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Insignificant Extra-solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(g)/(f).
As disclosed in Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101 section below, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering/outputting) does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. Additionally, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2 section, the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, etc.) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Thus, Applicant’ arguments not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-2 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong I:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
1) and determining structural design parameters and value ranges thereof based on a structure of the cutter head, wherein the structural design parameters comprise a length, a fillet radius and a thickness of the cutter head; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or (III). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate a structure of a cutter head and then determine structural design parameters and value ranges thereof, with or without a physical aid.);
3) according to a high-rigidity and light-weight design requirement of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine, giving expressions of an objective function and constraint functions for structural optimization design, and establishing a high-rigidity and light-weight design model of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine:
PNG
media_image1.png
110
171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where k is a design vector of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine and comprises several structural design parameters;
PNG
media_image2.png
16
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is a random field vector; f(k) is an objective function representing the weight of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine;
PNG
media_image3.png
18
40
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is a mean value of random structural stresses;
PNG
media_image4.png
21
46
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is a standard deviation of the random structural stresses; [S] is an allowable stress obtained by dividing a yield strength of the cutter head with average material properties by a safety factor;
PNG
media_image5.png
20
44
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is a mean value of a random structural displacement;
PNG
media_image6.png
23
47
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is a standard deviation of the random structural displacement; [U] is an allowable displacement having a value of 3% of a diameter of the cutter head; j is a boundary parameter determined based on a six sigma principle and representing a strictness degree of the requirement on structural response values;
PNG
media_image7.png
31
114
media_image7.png
Greyscale
are a lower limit and an upper limit of the value of the structural design vector, respectively; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.)
4) calculating an optimal solution of the high-rigidity and light-weight design model of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine by adopting a particle swarm optimization algorithm (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) and/or MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number.), which specifically comprises the following sub-steps:
;
4.2) , calculating, by combining a stochastic isogeometric analysis approach with a stochastic polynomial expansion enhanced Dagum kernel Kriging surrogate model, statistical characteristics of the stochastic response of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine corresponding to each particle (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) and/or MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number.), which specifically comprises the following steps:
4.2.1) performing isogeometric analysis by using basis functions of the three-dimensional CAD model as analysis basis functions, such that structural responses of the cutter head are calculated using a same geometric representation as the three-dimensional CAD model (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).);
4.2.2) implementing Karhunen-Loeve expansion to obtain discrete expressions of the random fields of the structural material properties and loads of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine, and discretizing each random field into a sum of functions of M standard Gaussian random variables, so that all the random fields are discretized by a total of 40 standard Gaussian random variables; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation recites Mathematical Relationships (organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations) and/or Mathematical Calculations per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) and/or MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number.)
4.2.3) carrying out Latin hypercube sampling on all the Gaussian random variables with a sampling number of 200 and using sampling results as inputs of training samples (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of Applicant’s Specification disclosure [P.0073], this limitation recites mathematical calculations per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Applicant’s disclosure recites “Latin hypercube sampling”, which is a statistical technique for generating samples from a multidimensional distribution. Therefore, this limitation is amounts to Mathematical Concepts (i.e. mathematical calculations).);
4.2.4) and calculating structural responses comprising displacement and stress of the cutter head as outputs of the training sample by an isogeometric analysis approach; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation recites Mathematical Calculations per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number);
4.2.6) training the stochastic polynomial expansion enhanced Dagum kernel Kriging surrogate model in the numerical calculation software, according to the obtained structural response values of all the training samples (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation recites Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) and/or MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). This limitation can also be interpreted as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), since the limitation invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process – see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v));
4.2.7) carrying out large-scale sampling on the random fields of the structural material properties and loads of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine with a sampling number of one million, and obtaining structural responses comprising displacement and stress of each large-scale sample through the trained stochastic polynomial expansion enhanced Dagum kernel Kriging surrogate model (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation recites Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)); and
4.2.8) calculating a mean value and a standard deviation of a random displacement and a random stress of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine corresponding to the current particle according to the structural responses of the large-scale samples obtained through the stochastic polynomial expansion enhanced Dagum kernel Kriging surrogate model; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation recites Mathematical Calculations per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))
4.3) calculating a fitness value of each particle according to the weight of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation recites mathematical calculations per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)), judging, by the numerical calculation software, whether the statistical characteristics of the structural random displacement and random stress corresponding to each particle meet constraints on stress and displacement (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation recites performance of the limitation in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or with the aid of pen and paper per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Note that the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. The use of “numerical calculation software” is interpreted as using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.), and if the statistical characteristics of the structural random displacement and random stress corresponding to each particle do not meet stress and displacement constraints, adding a penalty function to the fitness of the particle to produce an extreme value of the fitness (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation recites Mathematical Relationships (organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A));
4.4) determining an optimal fitness value and a particle position corresponding to the optimal fitness value according to the fitness value of each particle, and updating a speed and a position of each particle (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, this limitation recites Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
4.5) judging, by the numerical calculation software, whether termination conditions are met, if termination conditions are not met, repeating steps 4.2 to 4.4, and if termination conditions are met, (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation recites performance of the limitation in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or with the aid of pen and paper per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Note that the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. The use of “numerical calculation software” is interpreted as using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.)
5) determining optimal structural design parameter values according to the optimal solution of the high-rigidity and light-weight design model of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine obtained in step 4, and updating the three- dimensional CAD model of the cutter head according to the optimal structural design parameter values to generate a manufacturable optimized three-dimensional CAD model of the cutter head, wherein the manufacturable optimized three-dimensional CAD model defines at least the length, fillet radius, and thickness of the cutter head; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, calculations) and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or (III). For instance, a person can reasonably determine / calculate (i.e. observe, evaluate, and judge) optimal structural design parameter values with/without the use of a physical aid.) wherein a weight of the optimized cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine is reduced by 5.3% compared to an initial design, and statistical characteristics of a random displacement and a random stress of the optimized cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine considering randomness of the material properties and loads meet constraints given by the allowable displacement and the allowable stress. (As drafted, this limitation elaborates on the optimal design parameters previously determined, therefore the limitation is further directed towards Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)/(III))
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
1) parameterizing a structure of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine, (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process/method. Additionally, the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. fails to recite details of how the cutter head structure is “parameterized”. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".)
2) adopting random fields to describe material properties and loads of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine considering spatially dependent uncertainty:
PNG
media_image8.png
180
136
media_image8.png
Greyscale
where x is a point coordinate on a surface in the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine, θ is a sample set of the random fields, E(x,θ), v(x,θ), q(x,θ), α(x,θ), β(x,θ) are the Young's modulus, Poisson ratio, load magnitude, load direction angle α (an included angle between the load and the z axis in a space rectangular coordinate system) and load direction angle β (an included angle between the load and the x axis in the space rectangular coordinate system) of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine, respectively,
PNG
media_image9.png
23
215
media_image9.png
Greyscale
represent lognormal random fields of the Young's modulus, Poisson ratio and load of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine with the spatially dependent uncertainty, respectively,
PNG
media_image10.png
23
141
media_image10.png
Greyscale
represent Gaussian random fields of the load direction angle α and the load direction angle β of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine with the spatially dependent uncertainty, respectively; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity). Additionally, the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. fails to recite details of how “adopting” random fields describes material properties and loads. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".)
4.2) in the numerical calculation software, (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the limitation invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. An example where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process includes: v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer.)
4.2.1) establishing the three-dimensional Computer-Aided Design (CAD) model of the cutter head of the hard rock tunnel boring machine based on NURBS or T-spline functions according to structural design parameter values of a current particle, l; (The additional elements amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)/(2), i.e. The limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and/or invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.)
4.2.4) obtaining, for each training sample, Young's modulus, Poisson
ratio, load magnitude, and a load direction, importing the three-dimensional CAD model based on T-spline functions into the numerical calculation software, setting the Young's modulus, the Poisson ratio, the load magnitude, the load direction, and constraints in the numerical calculation software (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception and/or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)/(2) and/or MPEP 2106.05(g). Per MPEP 2106.05(f), an example “where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer”.)
4.5) outputting the optimal solution (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (data outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(g)/(f). As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. Additionally, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2 section, the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, etc.) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 further recites, 1) standardizing input data to obtain training data with a mean value of 0 and a standard deviation of 1; (The additional element further amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f))
2) expanding the training data by using a random chaos polynomial, and obtaining parameters and weights of the random chaos polynomial; (The additional element further amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f))
3) training the Kriging model:
3.1) taking the obtained random chaos polynomial as a regression function for the Kriging model; (The additional element further amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f))
3.2) taking a Dagum function as a correlation function for the Kriging model, the Dagum 17 function being as follows:
PNG
media_image11.png
74
354
media_image11.png
Greyscale
where R (p, p', ξ) represents the correlation function of the Kriging model, p, p' are two different training data points, and ,a, b are hyper-parameters to be obtained by training the Kriging model; (The additional element further amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f))
3.3) applying a cross-validation error as a convergence criterion for the Kriging model; (The additional element further amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f))
3.4) applying a covariance matrix adaptive evolution strategy to find appropriate hyper-parameters to meet the convergence criterion; (The additional element further amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f))
3.5) obtaining the trained stochastic polynomial expansion enhanced Dagum kernel Kriging surrogate model, according to the obtained random chaos polynomial and the optimal hyper-parameters. (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering and outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional features of claim 2 further recite Mathematical Concepts and/or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Applicant' s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights