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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 01/16/2026
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 are pending.
Claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see page 6, filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive for the amended claims removing 112 issues. Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments and amendments, see pages 6-8, filed 01/16/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, “should be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application”. Examiner notes the intended use would be for mining by applying the determined rational width. It does not integrate the exception into a practical application but it is mere instructions to apply an exception see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a piecewise function constructing module”, “an obtaining module”, “a solving module”, “a rational width determining module”, “an actual width determining unit” and “a mining unit” in claim 5. Claim limitations are “a function determining unit” and “a solution set calculating unit” in claim 7. The specification is silent as to the structure that performs the modules and units, (par 27, 28, 29, 30, 39-44), it recites functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
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; and
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).
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).
1, 3, 5 and 7
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 3 are directed to the statutory category of processes.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A method for mining a gob-side working face under a condition of thick and hard key strata, comprising:
constructing a piecewise function with a width of the gob-side working face as an independent variable,
wherein the piecewise function represents a relationship among the width of the gob-side working face and parameters of the gob-side working face, the parameters of the gob-side working face comprising at least a width of a small coal pillar of a gob-side entry, an entry width, a ruptured zone width, a plastic zone width, a uniaxial compressive strength of coal, a buried depth of a coal seam, a fracture angle, an average capacity of overlying rock above a mining area, and a mining area width;
obtaining values of the parameters of the gob-side working face;
determining a solution set based on the values of the parameters of the gob-side working face, the piecewise function, and a predetermined function threshold;
determining a numerical value according to the solution set as a rational width; and
mining the gob-side working face according to the rational width;
wherein, the mining the gob-side working face according to the rational width comprises:
determining an actual width of the gob-side working face based on the rational width, the width of the small coal pillar of the gob-side entry, and the entry width; and
mining the gob-side working face according to the actual width;
wherein the piecewise function is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
121
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when Hcota<d'c<2Hcota
PNG
media_image2.png
197
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the piecewise function, while d' is the width of the gob-side working face, a is the width of the small coal pillar of the gob-side entry, r is the entry width, P is a sum of the ruptured zone width and the plastic zone width, n is a confining pressure coefficient for different areas of surrounding rock,
σ
is the uniaxial compressive strength of coal, K is an incremental coefficient for stope dynamic-load stress of the gob-side working face, P is dead load stress of the gob-side working face, H is the buried depth of the coal seam, α is the fracture angle,
γ
is the average capacity of overlying rock above the mining area,
∆
σ
is a maximum increment of stress transferred from different overlying rock strata above the mining area to the gob-side working face, and D is the mining area width.
The limitations “constructing a piecewise function”, “determining a solution set”, “determining a numerical value according to the solution set as a rational width”, “determining an actual width of the gob-side working face” and “wherein the piecewise function is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
121
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when
H
c
o
t
α
<
d
'
<
2
H
c
o
t
α
PNG
media_image2.png
197
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the piecewise function, while d' is the width of the gob-side working face, a is the width of the small coal pillar of the gob-side entry, r is the entry width, P is a sum of the ruptured zone width and the plastic zone width, n is a confining pressure coefficient for different areas of surrounding rock,
σ
is the uniaxial compressive strength of coal, K is an incremental coefficient for stope dynamic-load stress of the gob-side working face, P is dead load stress of the gob-side working face, H is the buried depth of the coal seam, α is the fracture angle,
γ
is the average capacity of overlying rock above the mining area,
∆
σ
is a maximum increment of stress transferred from different overlying rock strata above the mining area to the gob-side working face, and D is the mining area width” are an abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a function and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A method for mining a gob-side working face under a condition of thick and hard key strata” (general field of use –referencing MPEP 2106.05(h), mere instructions to apply an exception see MPEP 2106.05(f))
“a width of a gob-side working face as an independent variable” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“wherein the piecewise function represents a relationship among the width of the gob-side working face and parameters of the gob-side working face, the parameters of the gob-side working face comprising at least a width of a small coal pillar of a gob-side entry, an entry width, a ruptured zone width, a plastic zone width, a uniaxial compressive strength of coal, a buried depth of a coal seam, a fracture angle, an average capacity of overlying rock above a mining area, and a mining area width” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“obtaining values of the parameters of the gob-side working face” (Field of Use and data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(h))(Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
“set based on the values of the parameters of the gob-side working face, the piecewise function, and a predetermined function threshold” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“mining the gob-side working face according to the rational width” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
“mining the gob-side working face according to the actual width” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount 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 claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the determining the solution set based on the values of the parameters of the gob-side working face, the piecewise function, and the predetermined function threshold comprises: inputting the values of the parameters of the gob-side working face into the piecewise function to obtain a function; and performing calculation by letting the function be less than or equal to the predetermined function threshold to obtain the solution set.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the functions that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula for calculating an output. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 1:
Claim 5 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim language is substantially similar as claim 1, except for the following claim elements/limitations: A system for mining a gob-side working face
Claim 5 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A system for mining a gob-side working face” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 5 Step 2B:
The additional limitations found in claim 5, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (a system) and would function in its ordinary capacity for processing, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Step 2A Prong I and Step 2B.
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 5 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 3; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Independent claim 1 is disclosing a method for mining a gob-side working face under a condition of thick and hard key strata, comprising:
constructing a piecewise function with a width of the gob-side working face as an independent variable,
wherein the piecewise function represents a relationship among the width of the gob-side working face and parameters of the gob-side working face, the parameters of the gob-side working face comprising at least a width of a small coal pillar of a gob-side entry, an entry width, a ruptured zone width, a plastic zone width, a uniaxial compressive strength of coal, a buried depth of a coal seam, a fracture angle, an average capacity of overlying rock above a mining area, and a mining area width;
obtaining values of the parameters of the gob-side working face;
determining a solution set based on the values of the parameters of the gob-side working face, the piecewise function, and a predetermined function threshold;
determining a numerical value according to the solution set as a rational width; and
mining the gob-side working face according to the rational width;
wherein, the mining the gob-side working face according to the rational width comprises:
determining an actual width of the gob-side working face based on the rational width, the width of the small coal pillar of the gob-side entry, and the entry width; and
mining the gob-side working face according to the actual width;
wherein the piecewise function is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
121
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when
H
c
o
t
α
<
d
'
<
2
H
c
o
t
α
PNG
media_image2.png
197
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the piecewise function, while d' is the width of the gob-side working face, a is the width of the small coal pillar of the gob-side entry, r is the entry width, P is a sum of the ruptured zone width and the plastic zone width, n is a confining pressure coefficient for different areas of surrounding rock,
σ
is the uniaxial compressive strength of coal, K is an incremental coefficient for stope dynamic-load stress of the gob-side working face, P is dead load stress of the gob-side working face, H is the buried depth of the coal seam, α is the fracture angle,
γ
is the average capacity of overlying rock above the mining area,
∆
σ
is a maximum increment of stress transferred from different overlying rock strata above the mining area to the gob-side working face, and D is the mining area width.
The closest prior art uncovered during examination teaches certain limitations of the claimed invention as follows:
Weili Yang, “"Research on Reasonable Width of Coal Pillars of Non- equal Width Isolated Working Face Heading Goaf in Deep Mine", Published: 14 August 2021 (Page 1298, sec 3.2, mining toward worked out area), comprising:
constructing a piecewise function with a width of the gob-side working face as an independent variable (Page 1301-1302, equation 1, 2, 3),
wherein the piecewise function represents a relationship among the width of the gob-side working face and parameters of the gob-side working face (Page 1301, equations relate the width, P and R), the parameters of the gob-side working face comprising at least a width of a small coal pillar of a gob-side entry, an entry width, a ruptured zone width, a plastic zone width, a uniaxial compressive strength of coal, a buried depth of a coal seam, a fracture angle, an average capacity of overlying rock above a mining area, and a mining area width (Page 1302, Fig 6, xi, caving zone, abscission zone and static zone, H1(depth), gangue line angle, rock movement line angle, work out areas (mining areas), B (length of coal pillar ), L (length of coal pillar along the intersection line));
obtaining values of the parameters of the gob-side working face (Page 1303, sec 4.3.1, values of parameters are defined);
determining a solution set based on the values of the parameters of the gob-side working face, the piecewise function, and a predetermined function threshold (Page 1304, fig 8, determines the width, based on the equation and the intersection of the figure (125));
determining a numerical value according to the solution set as a rational width (Page 1305, sec 5, reasonable to set the width of reserved coal pillar of non-equal width isolated working face at 130 m); and
mining the gob-side working face according to the rational width (Page 1298, fig 3, mining toward worked out area);
wherein, the mining the gob-side working face according to the rational width comprises:
determining an actual width of the gob-side working face based on the rational width, the width of the small coal pillar of the gob-side entry, and the entry width (Page 1305, sec 5, reasonable to set the width of reserved coal pillar of non-equal width isolated working face at 130 m)(Page 1302, fig 6, B, L, xi); and
mining the gob-side working face according to the actual width (Page 1303, sec 4.3, based on geological data and mining technical conditions, for calculating width) (Page 1304, sec 5, test points during mining);
However, Weili Yang or any other prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose
wherein the piecewise function is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
121
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when
H
c
o
t
α
<
d
'
<
2
H
c
o
t
α
PNG
media_image2.png
197
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the piecewise function, while d' is the width of the gob-side working face, a is the width of the small coal pillar of the gob-side entry, r is the entry width, P is a sum of the ruptured zone width and the plastic zone width, n is a confining pressure coefficient for different areas of surrounding rock,
σ
is the uniaxial compressive strength of coal, K is an incremental coefficient for stope dynamic-load stress of the gob-side working face, P is dead load stress of the gob-side working face, H is the buried depth of the coal seam, α is the fracture angle,
γ
is the average capacity of overlying rock above the mining area,
∆
σ
is a maximum increment of stress transferred from different overlying rock strata above the mining area to the gob-side working face, and D is the mining area width , in combination with the aforementioned limitations and in the sequence recited in the claims.
Therefore, independent claim 1 is allowed over the prior art of record. Dependent claim 3 is also allowed due to their dependency from the allowed independent claims 1. Independent claim 5 also has similar limitations as claim 1 indicated to be allowable. Therefore, claim 5 including all dependent claims are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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.
/A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights