DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments, the 112 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: A person could not reasonably perform the claimed features mentally.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as Applicant has not provided any evidence as to why they cannot be performed mentally. The claim does not define what the calculation model is, therefore it is reasonable to assume it is a model for performing calculations. The performance of mesh divisions is the breaking up of a total mesh into smaller sections, this can be done with pencil and paper. The continuous and discontinuous methods are calculation techniques as required by the claim. Therefore these elements are abstract and the claims as a whole recite an abstract idea.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims recite a practical application because calculation efficiency is improved.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as a better calculation method is still an abstract idea and cannot integrate the claims into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are similar to Enfish.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the present claims do not provide an analogous improvement to the computer to that of Enfish, specifically because the present claims do not improve the computer itself. The improvements of a self-referential table provide a specific benefit to the functioning of the computer, which is not the case in the claims of the instant application. The present claims are directed to perceiving rock mass deformation, which is not an improvement to the computer itself. Rather, this is an improvement to the abstract idea associated with “Mental Processes”, or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
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.
Regarding claims 1-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-10 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of simulating particle motion using a series of calculations, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "establishing a rock mass engineering scale calculation model, and assigning particle parameters of rock mass in a construction site of the rock mass engineering to the established rock mass engineering scale calculation model;” covers mathematical concepts in the form of setting up an equation or alternatively a mental process including evaluating a dataset and judging how to put those variables into an equation. Additionally, the limitation of “dividing the rock mass engineering scale calculation model into multiple finite elements, performing mesh division on the multiple finite elements, and making a volume of each of the multiple finite elements-be equal to a representative elementary volume (REV);” covers mathematical concepts in the form of the division mathematical calculation or alternatively a mental process including evaluating how to divide a model. Additionally, the limitation of “determining boundary conditions according to construction site conditions of the rock mass engineering, applying the boundary conditions to the rock mass engineering scale calculation model,” covers mathematical concepts in the form of limiting the equation by setting boundaries or alternatively a mental process including making a judgement about how to limit a model by applying boundary conditions. Additionally, the limitation of “calculating force and motion information of finite element nodes by using a continuous medium method, and determining whether a finite element failed or not in the multiple finite elements, calculating the motion information of particles in the failed finite element by using a discontinuous medium method” covers mathematical concepts in the form of a series of calculations or alternatively a mental process including a series of evaluations. Additionally, the limitation of “determining a deformation process of the rock mass in the construction site of the rock mass engineering by analyzing the calculated motion information, to prevent an occurrence of engineering problems” covers a mental process including making an evaluation of a calculated result to judge if it will prevent an engineering problem. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively a mental process based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-10 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not contain any additional elements for consideration. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-10 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do not contain any additional elements for consideration. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the sampling and tests that are used to aid the selection of the volume, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts,” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining densities, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts,” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the continuous medium method, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts,” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining the discontinuous medium method, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts,” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining the failure conditions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts,” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining the failure conditions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts,” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining the values that failures occur, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts,” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining the calculation method of the speeds and displacements, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts,” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining the obtaining of a speed and displacement through the calculation method, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts,” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that no prior art has been applied as the claims were previously indicated allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hammah et al. “The Practical Modelling of Discontinuous Rock Masses with Finite Element Analysis”: Also teaches the use of discontinuous medium methods to quantify behaviors of rock masses.
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 MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188