DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 06/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 have been amended.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Specification Objections:
Acknowledgement is made of amended invention title. Objection to Specification due to non-descriptive title is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1 and 3 (and the cancelation of claim 5) to provide clarification. Previous rejections of claims due to lack of clarity are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 3, 6 and 7. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Rejections to claims are maintained. Note new grounds of rejection necessitated by significant amendments.
Applicant argues that under Step 2A Prong 1 amended claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception since the claim “requires physically parking a full-scale heavy duty vehicle on a vibration table, arranging force measuring plates at the bottom of each wheel, physically driving the table top of the vibration table to reproduce the dynamic response of the bridge structure, and physically measuring the vertical force and the horizontal shear force at the contact point between the heavy duty vehicle and the vibration table” which are steps that “can[not] be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.” Applicant also argues “[t]he vehicle-bridge interaction force F is physically measured by the force measuring plates, not calculated from prior art equations alone”, thus not an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument not persuasive since none of the claim limitations listed in Applicant’s argument were identified as abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that under Step 2A Prong 2 amended claim 1 integrates into a practical application for the following reasons:
“First, amended claim 1 is directed to a specific improvement in a technological field”, “Second, amended claim 1 recites particular machines and physical apparatus that are integral to the claimed method”, thus more than mere instructions to apply an exception, “Third, amended claim 1 recites a specific hybrid experiment method as the framework for reconstructing the response of the table top of the vibration table [ ] a clear technical implementation, not an abstract idea”, “Fourth, the recited steps of obtaining the dynamic response of the bridge structure by the sensors and measuring the vehicle-bridge interaction force F by the force measuring plates are not insignificant extra-solution activity”, and “Fifth, amended claim 1 recites a complete causal chain that transforms a field-measured bridge response into a physical force input for updating the bridge model.” Applicant also argues claim 1 recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea under Step 2B and that the Examiner has not provided factual evidence that the additional elements of amended claim 1 are WURC. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive per the following reasoning:
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter are the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 are directed towards a method, therefore fall within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites (i.e. sets forth or describes) an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitation(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As shown in Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 analysis below, several claims limitations within dependent claim 1 have been identified as directed towards mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Step 2A (Prong 2)/Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 / Step 2B are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
Per MPEP 2106.05(g), “when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [ ] Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data (e.g. obtaining a dynamic response by sensors, obtaining vehicle-bridge interaction force through force measuring plates, etc.) for use in a claimed process (i.e. bridge model updating method).”
Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer [ ] The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".”
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.04(d), “[t]he courts have recognized the following (applicable) computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network (i.e. mere data gathering), ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Note: Applicant’s argument regarding Office Action (dated 4/2/2026) referenced art not disclosing amended claim 1 limitations as evidence the limitations are not WURC is moot since examination under 35 U.S.C §101 is not dependent upon examination under other statutes, such as 35 U.S.C. §102/103.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims, including the incorporation of claim 5 limitations into claim 1. Applicants’ arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Previous rejections of claims are withdrawn.
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, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
establishing a nonlinear finite element model of the bridge structure, and
taking the vehicle-bridge interaction force as external force and the dynamic response of bridge structure as a structural response, and completing modification of the nonlinear finite element model of the bridge structure through a nonlinear parameter identification method. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid; and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) which are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. For instance, a person can reasonably establish a nonlinear finite element model (i.e. numerical model ) of a bridge and solve (i.e. completing modification) the model through a nonlinear parameter identification method (mathematical concept) with/without the aid of pen/paper. Ref. Applicant disclosure [Spec. P.0014].)
wherein completing modification of the nonlinear finite element model of the bridge structure through the nonlinear parameter identification method is implemented by an energy conservation integral method and a unscented Kalman filter method, wherein the energy conservation integral method is used to solve structural dynamics problems, and the unscented Kalman filter method is used to update a bridge numerical model, wherein a specific process of solving the structural dynamics problems by using the energy conservation integral method comprises the following steps: providing a time discrete form of equation of motion of a bridge nonlinear system as shown in formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
24
172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(1), wherein,
M
,
C
are mass and damping matrices of the bridge nonlinear system,
x
indicates a state variable of state space equation,
k
is a time step,
F
is the vehicle-bridge interaction force at
k
time step,
L
is a load position matrix,
x
¨
k,
x
˙
k, and xk, are acceleration, velocity and displacement response of the bridge structure at
k
time step,
R
k
(
x
)
is a nonlinear structural restoring force of the bridge nonlinear system at
k
time step; extending parameter discrete point amplitude to the state variable, obtaining the relationship between speed and acceleration at adjacent time steps by using a constant acceleration Newmark-β method, and completing parameter identification of the nonlinear finite element model by discrete motion differential equations as shown in formula (3):
PNG
media_image2.png
91
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(3)
wherein Δ
t
is a time step length; according to formula (1), obtaining an expression of system speed
X
˙
k+1 with
k
+
1
as a time step:
PNG
media_image3.png
28
248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(4)
PNG
media_image4.png
41
148
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(5)
wherein
X
m,
F
m and
R
m are average speed, average external force and average restoring force between
k
and
k
+
1
time step, wherein the equation of motion of the bridge nonlinear system in formula (1) is written as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
22
213
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(7)
after right multiplication (xk+1 - xk)T of formula (1), obtaining a new equation of motion:
PNG
media_image6.png
41
596
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(8); and regarding equation (8) as an energy transfer process, and using the energy conservation integral method to solve structural dynamics problems. (As drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations amount to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)/(III). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. The limitations also amount to Mental Processes since a person (i.e. the human mind) can reasonably perform all the listed limitations with/without the help of physical aid. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation [ ] Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer [ ] Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind”. Additionally, “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
obtaining a dynamic response of a bridge structure under the action of a load of a heavy duty vehicle by sensors arranged on the bridge structure, at quarter points of a girder of each span of the bridge structure, wherein the obtained dynamic response of the bridge structure comprises vertical vibration acceleration and vertical deflection of the bridge structure (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data (e.g. obtaining a dynamic response) for use in a claimed process (i.e. bridge model updating method).)
according to the vertical vibration acceleration and the vertical deflection of the bridge structure at a center of gravity of the heavy duty vehicle and a speed of the heavy duty vehicle, reconstructing a response of a table top of a vibration table, and obtaining a vehicle-bridge interaction force
F
of a vehicle-bridge coupling model (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution/outcome (e.g. reconstructing a response and obtaining interaction force), i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution/outcome is accomplished.)
wherein reconstructing the response of the table top of the vibration table and obtaining the vehicle-bridge interaction force of the vehicle-bridge coupling model comprises the following steps: parking the heavy duty vehicle on the vibration table; arranging a force measuring plate at the bottom of each wheel;
providing an actually measured dynamic response reconstruction of the bridge structure as response quantity to the vibration table, so that the dynamic response of the bridge structure generated by the vibration table is consistent with that corresponding to the center of gravity of the heavy duty vehicle during the process of crossing the bridge structure; and obtaining the vehicle-bridge interaction force through the force measuring plates, wherein a vertical force and a horizontal shear force at a contact point between the heavy duty vehicle and the vibration table are measured by the force measuring plates (The additional elements amount to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
wherein the reconstructing of the response of the table top of the vibration table is implemented by a hybrid experiment method, wherein an experimental substructure of the hybrid experiment method is a full-scale heavy duty vehicle and a numerical substructure of the hybrid experiment method is a nonlinear finite element model of the bridge structure (The additional elements amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation recites only the idea of a solution/outcome and fails to recite details of how a hybrid experiment method reconstructs the response of the table top of the vibration table.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
Per MPEP 2106.05(g), “when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [ ] Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data (e.g. obtaining a dynamic response by sensors, obtaining vehicle-bridge interaction force through force measuring plates, etc.) for use in a claimed process (i.e. bridge model updating method).”
Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer [ ] The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".”
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.04(d), “[t]he courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claim 3, recites wherein the vertical deflection and vertical vibration acceleration of the bridge structure at the center of gravity of the heavy duty vehicle in the whole process of the heavy duty vehicle crossing the bridge structure are to be obtained by an interpolation method. The additional element elaborates on the obtained dynamic response of the bridge, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), i.e. “by interpolation method”.
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4 and 5 have been canceled.
Claim 6 recites wherein the damping matrix of the bridge nonlinear system is Rayleigh damping matrix:
PNG
media_image7.png
26
122
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein ai and a2 are Rayleigh damping coefficients and
K
is stiffness matrix. The additional element elaborates on the damping matrix, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 recites wherein the average speed, average external force and average restoring force
X
m,
F
m and
R
m between k and k+1 time step are as follows:
PNG
media_image8.png
115
135
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The additional elements elaborate on the average speed, external force, and restoring force, thus further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Terzic, Vesna, and Bozidar Stojadinovic. "Hybrid simulation of bridge response to three-dimensional earthquake excitation followed by truck load." Journal of Structural Engineering 140.8 (2014): A4014010. “A hybrid simulation approach is used to evaluate the traffic performance of a typical California highway overpass bridge after a major earthquake” [Abstract]
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
