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
A summary of this action:
Claims 1-18 have been presented for examination.
This action is Final.
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 arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter." Here applicant argues that the newly amended subject matter of acquiring, by the processing device, a preset load p of the subgrade and geocell parameters of a preset geocell of the subgrade and calculating, by the processing device, a composite subgrade reaction modulus kr of the subgrade on condition that the roadbed is under a reinforced working condition by taking the initial subgrade reaction modulus ks, the load p, does not fall within the subject matter groupings of an abstract idea.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because the newly amended subject matter of acquiring is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the use of a processing device or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, all arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s argues that the newly amended subject matter should be withdrawn because the claim amendments are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field are patent eligible in providing accurate and effective data support for facilitating the progress of a geocell reinforcement work in a case of introducing the geocell to reinforce the roadbed process, which does not fall into any of subject matter groupings of abstract ideas and is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because 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 generating a prediction, which is not an improvement to the computer itself. Rather, this is an improvement to the abstract idea associated with “Mental Processes.”
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-6 are directed to a method, which is a process and is a statutory category invention. Claims 7-12 are directed to a processing device, which is a system and is a statutory category invention. Claims 13-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is a manufacturer and is a statutory category invention. Therefore, claims 1-18 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 7, and 13, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processing device,” “a processor,” and “a memory,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Accordingly, claims 1, 7, and 13 claim limitations recite acquiring…an initial subgrade reaction modulus ks of a subgrade of a target road section by using a field plate-bearing test process, wherein the target road section is a section of which the mechanical performance is to be evaluated, and the initial subgrade reaction modulus is used to indicate a ratio of a vertical pressure to a deflection s at a target point on a top surface of the subgrade, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of evaluating the mechanical performance of a target road section, as described in [0006] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 similarly recite the additional imitation of the initial subgrade reaction modulus is determined on condition that a roadbed of the target road section is under an un-reinforced working condition, and the target road section comprises the roadbed and the subgrade from surface to interior in turn, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of evaluating the subgrade reaction modulus and the roadbed conditions of the target road section, as described in [0006] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 similarly recite the additional imitation of the acquiring…a preset load p of the subgrade and geocell parameters of a preset geocell of the subgrade, wherein the geocell parameters comprise a geocell weld spacing d, a geocell height h, a distance u from a top of the geocell to a surface of the subgrade and an elastic modulus Mg of the geocell, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes or in the alternative mathematical concepts of evaluating mathematical variables including a geocell weld spacing, a geocell height, and a distance, as described in [0007] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 similarly recite the additional imitation of the calculating, by the processing device, a composite subgrade reaction modulus kr of the subgrade on condition that the roadbed is under a reinforced working condition by taking the initial subgrade reaction modulus ks, the load p, and the geocell parameters as first input parameters and putting the first input parameters into a composite modulus calculation formula, wherein the composite modulus calculation formula is,
PNG
media_image1.png
83
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes or in the alternative mathematical concepts of evaluating mathematical variables including the initial subgrade reaction modulus ks, the load p, and the geocell parameters, as described in [0008] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 similarly recite the additional imitation of the calculating, by the processing device, an equivalent thickness RP of the roadbed under the reinforced working condition by taking the distance u from the top of the geocell to the surf ace of the subgrade and the diameter D as second input parameters and putting the second input parameters into a depth adjustment calculation formula, wherein the depth adjustment calculation formula is,
PNG
media_image2.png
88
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, L, M, N, Q, and Tare respectively preset constants, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes or in the alternative mathematical concepts of evaluating mathematical variables including the equivalent thickness RP of the roadbed, the distance from the top of the geocell to the surface, and the diameter as a second input parameter, as described in [0011] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. See analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recite the additional limitation “processing device” as in independent claims 1, 7, and 13 and dependent claims 4-6, 8-12, and 16-18, “processor,” as in independent claims 7 and 13 and dependent claims 10-12, and “memory” as in independent claim 7, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation outputting…the composite subgrade reaction modulus kr and the equivalent thickness RP, so as to provide data support for an engineering processing of the target road section., similarly recited in independent claim 1, 7, and 13, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation displaying to users, data report based on the outputting the composite subgrade reaction modulus kr and the equivalent thickness RP to provide support for an engineering processing of the target road section similarly recited in independent claim 1, 7, and 13, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation outputting…the road section data report, similarly recited in dependent claims 6, 12, and 18, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation acquiring…a first subgrade reaction modulus ks1 of the subgrade by the field plate-bearing test process, similarly recited in dependent claims 4, 10, and 16, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation acquiring…a data of a load displacement ps curve of a soil body of the subgrade under the un-reinforced working condition, similarly recited in dependent claims 4, 10, and 16, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation after detecting a geocell reinforcement treatment event, acquiring, by the processing device, the initial subgrade reaction modulus ks through the field plate-bearing test process, similarly recited in dependent claims 5, 11, and 17, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 recite the additional limitation “processing device” as in independent claims 1, 7, and 13 and dependent claims 4-6, 8-12, and 16-18, “processor,” as in independent claims 7 and 13 and dependent claims 10-12, and “memory” as in independent claim 7, this limitation does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation outputting…the composite subgrade reaction modulus kr and the equivalent thickness RP, so as to provide data support for an engineering processing of the target road section., similarly recited in independent claim 1, 7, and 13, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation displaying to users, data report based on the outputting the composite subgrade reaction modulus kr and the equivalent thickness RP to provide support for an engineering processing of the target road section similarly recited in independent claim 1, 7, and 13, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation outputting…the road section data report, similarly recited in dependent claims 6, 12, and 18, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation acquiring…a first subgrade reaction modulus ks1 of the subgrade by the field plate-bearing test process, similarly recited in dependent claims 4, 10, and 16, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation acquiring…a data of a load displacement ps curve of a soil body of the subgrade under the un-reinforced working condition, similarly recited in dependent claims 4, 10, and 16, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation after detecting a geocell reinforcement treatment event, acquiring, by the processing device, the initial subgrade reaction modulus ks through the field plate-bearing test process, similarly recited in dependent claims 5, 11, and 17, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims 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 claims 2, 8, and 14, similarly recite “wherein A= -2.994, B = -0.465, C = 0.553, E = 0.334, F = 3.201, G = 0.0945, I= 0.314, J = 0.891,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 3, 9, and 15 similarly recite “wherein L = -1.328, M = 2.857, N = -1.762, Q = 0.18, T = 0.678,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claims 4, 10, and 16 recite “calculating…an inverted second subgrade reaction modulus ks2 by taking the first sub grade reaction modulus ks1, the data of the load displacement ps curve, the preset load p of the subgrade and the geocell parameters of the preset geocell of the subgrade as third input parameters and performing an inversion process, and taking, by the processing device, the inverted second subgrade reaction modulus ks2 as the initial subgrade reaction modulus ks,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claims 6, 12, and 18 similarly recite “generating…a road section data report of the target road section based on the composite subgrade reaction modulus kr and the equivalent thickness RP, wherein the road section data report is marked with the composite subgrade reaction modulus kr and the equivalent thickness RP,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejections of the claims. More specifically, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 that references: calculating, by the processing device, a composite subgrade reaction modulus kr of the subgrade on condition that the roadbed is under a reinforced working condition by taking the initial subgrade reaction modulus ks, the load p, and the geocell parameters as first input parameters and putting the first input parameters into a composite modulus calculation formula, wherein the composite modulus calculation formula is,
PNG
media_image1.png
83
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the independent claim 1, 7, and 13 limitation of calculating, by the processing device, an equivalent thickness RP of the roadbed under the reinforced working condition by taking the distance u from the top of the geocell to the surf ace of the subgrade and the diameter D as second input parameters and putting the second input parameters into a depth adjustment calculation formula, wherein the depth adjustment calculation formula is,
PNG
media_image2.png
88
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The claims would be allowable if they overcome the 101 rejection above. The closest pieces of prior art are the INDRARATNA BUDDHIMA NALIN (WO-2018141024-A1), LI (CN-207452609-U), DAI (CN-209114266-U), and HALAHMI (US-20150225908-A1) references. The closest references alone and in combination do not teach the equations as claimed in the independent and dependent claims. Therefore, the claims overcome the closest pieces of prior art such that none of the closest prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims.
Conclusion
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 MARTIN K VU whose telephone number is (703)756-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 4:30 pm M-F.
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 on 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.
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186