DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination based on the application filed on July 22, 2022.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application.
This action is made non-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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, which cites “the surface well” in Ln. 22-23, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the surface well”. For the purpose of examination, “the surface well” will be interpreted as “the mine surface well”. Claims 2-9 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its independent claim 1.
Claim 2, which cites “combination; wherein the types” in Ln. 3-4 and “combination; if the coal seam” in Ln. 12 should be “combination; and wherein the types” and “combination; or if the coal seam”, respectively. Claims 6 is also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its independent claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “obtaining a horizontal thrust distribution of each rock stratum in a same manner in case of three or more mining impacts” in Ln. 13-14. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what “in a same manner” in the phrase is referring to. The “in a same manner” could be referring to either the manner in which the initial horizontal thrust of fractured blocks in the fracture zone is determined as in S3.1 of the claim or the manner in which horizontal thrust of the pressure arches on both sides is calculated as in S3 of claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that “in a same manner” in this phrase to be the manner in which the initial horizontal thrust of fractured blocks in the fracture zone is determined as in S3.1 of the claim. The examiner recommends that applicant amend the claim language from “in a same manner” to “by calculating a caving zone distribution height and a fracture zone distribution height”, or similar, as supported by the specification, when referring to a same manner of determining the horizontal thrust.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “the surface well is arranged within a pressure arch formed by them” in Ln. 2-3. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what “them” in the phrase is referring to. The “them” in the phrase could be referring to either the alternating block-scattered combination and the cumulative increased block-scattered combination, any grouping of combinations of the types of overlying strata failures, or even the grouping of the floor failure depth and the caving zone height. Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that “them” in this phrase to be the alternating block-scattered combination and the cumulative increased block-scattered combination. The examiner recommends that applicant amend the claim language from “them” to “the alternating block-scattered combination and the cumulative increased block-scattered combination”, or similar, as supported by the specification, when referring to them.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of:
“determining an initial stress distribution of overlying strata after multiple asymmetric mining as an initial stress conditions of different rock constitutive models”,
“S3, calculating characteristics of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches respectively according to types of overlying strata after mining, and calculating horizontal thrust of the pressure arches on both sides respectively, so as to obtain stress boundary conditions of pressure relief positions of the pressure arches”, and
“S5, obtaining the pressure relief positions of mine pressure arches in different periods under different mining conditions” as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, the limitations can be performed as the following:
calculating the initial distribution of stress can be conducted using known stress and force equations (see Sun, Xiaoming, Yangyang Liu, Junwei Wang, Jiangbing Li, Shijie Sun, and Xuebin Cui. "Study on three-dimensional stress field of gob-side entry retaining by roof cutting without pillar under near-group coal seam mining." Processes 7, no. 9 (2019): 552 for the stress and force equations used to pressure arch boundaries),
calculating characteristics, such as stress, of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches according to overlying strata category after mining to obtain stress boundary conditions of pressure relief positions of the pressure arches can be accomplished using known stress and force equations (see Sun, Xiaoming, Yangyang Liu, Junwei Wang, Jiangbing Li, Shijie Sun, and Xuebin Cui. "Study on three-dimensional stress field of gob-side entry retaining by roof cutting without pillar under near-group coal seam mining." Processes 7, no. 9 (2019): 552 for the stress and force equations used to pressure arch boundaries), and
calculating the pressure relief positions of mine pressure arches can be accomplished by calculating the lowest stress in the arch for different periods under different mining condition.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9: The limitations of:
“S1, classifying types of overlying strata failure after multiple asymmetric mining according to geological parameters and mining parameters”,
“S2, modeling for different types of overlying strata failure”,
“determining an initial stress distribution of overlying strata after multiple asymmetric mining as an initial stress conditions of different rock constitutive models”,
“S3, calculating characteristics of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches respectively according to types of overlying strata after mining, and calculating horizontal thrust of the pressure arches on both sides respectively, so as to obtain stress boundary conditions of pressure relief positions of the pressure arches”,
“S4, substituting constitutive models of different layers of overlying strata considering time factors to obtain asymptotic failure characteristics of overlying strata with an increase of time scale”,
“S5, obtaining the pressure relief positions of mine pressure arches in different periods under different mining conditions”,
“S6, determining a dominant area of high concentration coalbed methane and a rapid diversion area of fracture positions of separations respectively based on distribution characteristics of multiple mining fractures”, and
“S7, determining an optimal location of single working face extraction in a mine surface well”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper categories of overlying strata failures after multiple asymmetric mining using the strata layers of geological composition and the spacing of the coal seams implemented during mining,
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a model representing each category of overlying strata failure at different points in time,
a person can mentally set or draw with pen and paper the initial stress conditions of stress models for each different rock layer from the initial stress distribution of overlying strata after multiple asymmetric mining,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper characteristics, such as stress, of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches according to overlying strata category after mining to obtain stress boundary conditions of pressure relief positions of the pressure arches using known stress and force equations,
a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper swap sequentially the stress models for the different rock layers over time until the layer of rock stabilizes after a certain period of time,
a person can mentally determine the position for the pressure relief of the stress arch in different periods under different mining conditions as the point in the arch with the least amount of stress,
a person can mentally recognize that the points of least stress in the arch of the fracture are points of high permeability of gas, i.e., high concentration coalbed methane and a rapid diversion area of fracture positions of separations, and
a person can mentally determine a position for a well that is in close proximity to the points of least stress as an optimal location of single working face extraction in a mine surface well.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions. The claim has been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional element: “three-dimensional” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, the additional element recitation of “S8, connecting high positions within a range of multiple pressure arches with the surface well in series combined with a distribution of mine working face and an extraction capacity of the surface well, and realizing long-term stable extraction by one well and multiple faces in series” is merely a recitation of instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished or the mechanism to accomplish the solution (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 1 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished or the mechanism to accomplish the solution which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claim 1 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, it recites additional limitations of:
“wherein in S1, the types of overlying strata failure comprise an alternating block-scattered combination, a cumulative increased block-scattered combination and an uncorrelated block-scattered combination”,
“wherein the types of overlying strata failure after multiple mining operations are classified based on whether there are key strata in a mined coal seam, a floor failure depth caused by a coal seam mining, and a fracture zone height or a caving zone height caused by a lower coal seam mining”,
“if a coal seam spacing is between the floor failure depth and the caving zone height, the type of overlying strata failure is the cumulative increased block-scattered combinations”,
“if the coal seam spacing is between a sum of the floor failure depth plus the caving zone height and a sum of the floor failure depth and the fracture zone height, the type of overlying strata failure is the alternating block-scattered combination”, and
“if the coal seam spacing exceeds the floor failure depth and the fracture zone height, the type of overlying strata failure means is the uncorrelated block-scattered combination”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper categories of overlying strata failures after multiple asymmetric mining such as alternating block-scattered combination, a cumulative increased block-scattered combination and an uncorrelated block-scattered combination,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper categories of overlying strata failures after multiple mining operations based on if the layers are key strata, depth of the floor failure, height of the fracture zone, and height of the caving zone,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a category of overlying strata failures after multiple mining operations is a cumulative increased block-scattered combination if a coal seam spacing is between the floor failure depth and the caving zone height,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a category of overlying strata failures after multiple mining operations is an alternating block-scattered combination if the coal seam spacing is between a sum of the floor failure depth plus the caving zone height and a sum of the floor failure depth and the fracture zone height, and
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a category of overlying strata failures after multiple mining operations is ab uncorrelated block-scattered combination if the coal seam spacing exceeds the floor failure depth and the fracture zone height.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 3, it recites additional limitations of: “wherein in S2, an overlying strata fracture length under an influence of mining in different positions are comprehensively determined according to a mining thickness of coal seam and characteristics of predetermined block-scattered combinations, combined with determination of overlying strata fracture length in masonry beam theory” and “then, excavation calculation is carried out layer by layer, and an initial distribution of mining stress under multiple asymmetric mining is obtained”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, calculating the fracture length at different position can be done using coal seam thickness, different lengths and distances of the layer, and simple geometry (see Sun, Xiaoming, Yangyang Liu, Junwei Wang, Jiangbing Li, Shijie Sun, and Xuebin Cui. "Study on three-dimensional stress field of gob-side entry retaining by roof cutting without pillar under near-group coal seam mining." Processes 7, no. 9 (2019): 552 for the equations used to calculate the fracture length), and calculating the initial distribution of stress can be conducted using known stress and force equations (see Sun, Xiaoming, Yangyang Liu, Junwei Wang, Jiangbing Li, Shijie Sun, and Xuebin Cui. "Study on three-dimensional stress field of gob-side entry retaining by roof cutting without pillar under near-group coal seam mining." Processes 7, no. 9 (2019): 552 for the stress and force equations used to pressure arch boundaries).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, it recites additional limitations of “wherein in S2, an overlying strata fracture length under an influence of mining in different positions are comprehensively determined according to a mining thickness of coal seam and characteristics of predetermined block-scattered combinations, combined with determination of overlying strata fracture length in masonry beam theory” and “then, excavation calculation is carried out layer by layer, and an initial distribution of mining stress under multiple asymmetric mining is obtained”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a model for each category of overlying strata failure at different points in time and different position with respect to the fracture length and thickness of the coal seam, and a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the initial stress conditions of stress models for each different rock layer using stress equations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 4, it recites additional limitations of:
“S3.1, calculating a caving zone distribution height and a fracture zone distribution height after a first mining, and determining an initial horizontal thrust of fractured blocks in the fracture zone”,
“S3.2, calculating a caving zone development height and a fracture zone development height after the first mining and a displacement space of the overlying strata of a first-mining coal seam”,
“S3.3, calculating a displacement space for upward transfer after secondary mining”, and
“S3.4, determining a secondary distribution of horizontal thrust of an upper layer of overlying strata considering an influence of vertical displacement change on horizontal thrust, and obtaining a horizontal thrust distribution of each rock stratum in a same manner in case of three or more mining impacts until all coal seams are mined”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
calculating characteristics, such as horizontal force from the distribution height of caving zone and fracture zone, of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches according to overlying strata category after mining to obtain stress boundary conditions of pressure relief positions of the pressure arches can be accomplished using known stress and force equations (see Sun, Xiaoming, Yangyang Liu, Junwei Wang, Jiangbing Li, Shijie Sun, and Xuebin Cui. "Study on three-dimensional stress field of gob-side entry retaining by roof cutting without pillar under near-group coal seam mining." Processes 7, no. 9 (2019): 552 for the stress and force equations used to pressure arch boundaries),
calculating characteristics, such as displacement of overlying strata from the development height of caving zone and fracture zone, of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches according to overlying strata category after mining to obtain stress boundary conditions of pressure relief positions of the pressure arches can be accomplished using known stress and force equations and simple geometry (see Sun, Xiaoming, Yangyang Liu, Junwei Wang, Jiangbing Li, Shijie Sun, and Xuebin Cui. "Study on three-dimensional stress field of gob-side entry retaining by roof cutting without pillar under near-group coal seam mining." Processes 7, no. 9 (2019): 552 for the stress and force equations used to pressure arch boundaries),
calculating characteristics, such as displacement of overlying strata from the development height of caving zone and fracture zone, of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches according to overlying strata category after a secondary mining can be accomplished using known stress and force equations and simple geometry (see Sun, Xiaoming, Yangyang Liu, Junwei Wang, Jiangbing Li, Shijie Sun, and Xuebin Cui. "Study on three-dimensional stress field of gob-side entry retaining by roof cutting without pillar under near-group coal seam mining." Processes 7, no. 9 (2019): 552 for the stress and force equations used to pressure arch boundaries), and
calculating characteristics, such as second distribution of horizontal force from the distribution height of caving zone and fracture zone after the first displacement and horizontal distribution, of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches according to overlying strata category after mining for all layers to obtain stress boundary conditions of pressure relief positions of the pressure arches can be accomplished using known stress and force equations (see Sun, Xiaoming, Yangyang Liu, Junwei Wang, Jiangbing Li, Shijie Sun, and Xuebin Cui. "Study on three-dimensional stress field of gob-side entry retaining by roof cutting without pillar under near-group coal seam mining." Processes 7, no. 9 (2019): 552 for the stress and force equations used to pressure arch boundaries).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, it recites additional limitations of:
“S3.1, calculating a caving zone distribution height and a fracture zone distribution height after a first mining, and determining an initial horizontal thrust of fractured blocks in the fracture zone”,
“S3.2, calculating a caving zone development height and a fracture zone development height after the first mining and a displacement space of the overlying strata of a first-mining coal seam”,
“S3.3, calculating a displacement space for upward transfer after secondary mining”, and
“S3.4, determining a secondary distribution of horizontal thrust of an upper layer of overlying strata considering an influence of vertical displacement change on horizontal thrust, and obtaining a horizontal thrust distribution of each rock stratum in a same manner in case of three or more mining impacts until all coal seams are mined”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper characteristics, such as horizontal force from the distribution height of caving zone and fracture zone, of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches in the mine according to overlying strata category after mining in the coalbed to obtain stress boundary conditions of pressure relief positions of the pressure arches can be accomplished using known stress and force equations,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper characteristics, such as displacement of overlying strata from the development height of caving zone and fracture zone, of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches according to overlying strata category after mining to obtain stress boundary conditions of pressure relief positions of the pressure arches can be accomplished using known stress and force equations and simple geometry,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper characteristics, such as displacement of overlying strata from the development height of caving zone and fracture zone, of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches according to overlying strata category after a secondary mining can be accomplished using known stress and force equations and simple geometry, and
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper characteristics, such as second distribution of horizontal force from the distribution height of caving zone and fracture zone after the first displacement and horizontal distribution of force of the pressure arch, of overlying strata block-scattered combinations in pressure arches according to overlying strata category after mining for all layers to obtain stress boundary conditions of pressure relief positions of the pressure arches can be accomplished using known stress and force equations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 5, it recites additional limitations of:
“wherein in S4, elements of specific overlying strata considering time factor are constructed, and the elements are serially substituted into an existing constitutive model of specific rock, so as to obtain failure characteristics of different strata of overlying strata under action of specific mining stress”,
“determine a position of a first damaged strata in the pressure arches”, and
“determine an outward expansion position of the pressure arches, so as to determine a change shape of the pressure arches”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper generate different parameters of stress models for the different rock layers and sequentially swap the parameters over time until the layer of rock stabilizes after a certain period of time after failing,
a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper the position of a first damaged strata in the pressure arches in different periods under different mining conditions as the point in the arch with which first deforms, and
a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper change of shape of the arch in the pressure arches in different periods under different mining conditions as the point in the arch with which first a first damaged strata moves.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional limitation of: “wherein in S7, for the alternating block-scattered combination and the cumulative increased block-scattered combination, the surface well is arranged within a pressure arch formed by them while only the pressure arch formed by upper mining is considered for the uncorrelated block-scattered combination”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper a position for a well that is in close proximity to the points of least stress within the arch formed by the alternating block-scattered combination and the cumulative increased block-scattered combination while the arch is formed by upper mining for the uncorrelated block-scattered combination as an optimal location of single working face extraction in a mine surface well.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 7, it recites an additional limitation of: “after S8, further comprising selecting a cementing material to ensure a stable wellbore structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally choose a durable cement mixture for the wellbore structure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 8, it recites an additional limitation of: “wherein the cementing material comprises cement, a nanomaterial, a dispersant and a defoamer; wherein the cement and the dispersant are mixed to obtain mixed slurry, the nanomaterial is placed in deionized water to obtain water-based nanofluid, and the water-based nanofluid is put into the mixed slurry to complete a preparation of cementing materials”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally choose a durable cement mixture for the wellbore structure consisting of cement to be mixed with a dispersant and then further to be mixed with a water-based nanomaterial.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 9, it recites additional limitations of: “wherein the cementing material comprises following components in parts by mass: 62-65 parts of CaO, 23-25 parts of SiO2, 5-7 parts of Al2O3, 3-6 parts of Fe2O3, 10-20 parts of nanomaterial, 0.3-0.5 parts of dispersant and 0.2-0.5 part of defoamer”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally choose a durable cement mixture for the wellbore structure consisting of cement to be mixed with a dispersant and deformer and then to be further mixed with a water-based nanomaterial with a mass ratio of 62-65 parts of CaO, 23-25 parts of SiO2, 5-7 parts of Al2O3, 3-6 parts of Fe2O3, 10-20 parts of nanomaterial, 0.3-0.5 parts of dispersant and 0.2-0.5 part of defoamer.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-9 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-9 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. Thus, the claims overcome the prior art of record.
The limitations of claim 1 include the steps of obtaining asymptotic failure characteristics of overlying strata over time and obtaining pressure relief points in pressure arch in different periods and under different mining conditions in combination with the all of the remaining limitations, S4 and S5, respectively. The closest prior art references of record, as listed below, alone or in combination, do not disclose the limitations including obtaining asymptotic failure characteristics of overlying strata over time and obtaining pressure relief points in pressure arch in different periods and under different mining conditions in combination with the all of the remaining limitations in combination with the all of the remaining limitations in combination with the all of the remaining limitations:
Sun, Xiaoming, Yangyang Liu, Junwei Wang, Jiangbing Li, Shijie Sun, and Xuebin Cui. "Study on three-dimensional stress field of gob-side entry retaining by roof cutting without pillar under near-group coal seam mining." Processes 7, no. 9 (2019): 552,
Zhang, Bichuan, Haitao Sun, Yunpei Liang, Kequan Wang, and Quanle Zou. "Characterization and quantification of mining-induced fractures in overlying strata: implications for coalbed methane drainage." Natural Resources Research 29, no. 4 (2020): 2467-2480, and
Yang, He, Zhen Liu, Danliang Zhu, Wenzhi Yang, Dawei Zhao, and Wendi Wang. "Study on the fractal characteristics of coal body fissure development and the law of coalbed methane migration of around the stope." Geofluids 2020, no. 1 (2020): 9856904.
Therefore, claim 1, as drafted, is rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. Claims 2-9 would be allowable because they are dependent on claim 1 which has been indicated as overcoming the prior art of record.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cao, Wenzhuo, Qinghua Lei, and Wu Cai. "Stress-dependent deformation and permeability of a fractured coal subject to excavation-related loading paths." Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 54, no. 8 (2021): 4299-4320 teaches model of the stress paths in coal mining to find points of greatest permeability.
Xu, Chao, Gang Yang, Kai Wang, and Qiang Fu. "Uneven stress and permeability variation of mining-disturbed coal seam for targeted CBM drainage: A case study in Baode coal mine, eastern Ordos Basin, China." Fuel 289 (2021): 119911 using stress-relief effects of coal seam mining to increase the permeability of coal reservoirs.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to 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. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188