DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 9/30/2022. Claims 1-7 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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT / CN2022 / 071663, filed on 01/12/2022. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2022 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The claims are directed towards a method only. The inclusion of “System, Storage Medium and Device Of” are not indicative of the claimed invention. The following title is suggested: “Bridge Model Updating Method Based on Modification of Vehicle-Bridge Coupling Force”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 1-7 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. Regarding independent claim 1 , the claim (Ln.9-10) recites “ of the overloaded vehicle ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claim previously recites “heavy duty vehicle load”, but no previous mention of an “ overloaded vehicle”. Is the referenced “overloaded vehicle” the same as the previously recited “heavy duty vehicle” or is the limitation referring to a different vehicle ? Furthermore, the term “overloaded” in this context is itself ambiguous. Does this mean a load of the vehicle is exceeding the vehicles load capacity, or that the vehicle and load is exceeding a rated load capacity for the bridge? Overloading is necessarily a comparison and it is unclear whether the overloading is of the vehicle or of the bridge. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “overloaded vehicle” to mean “heavy duty vehicle”. Clarification is required. Additionally, the term “overloaded” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “overloaded” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required. Regarding claim 3 , the claim (Ln.4-5) recites “ the vertical deflection deformation ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 1 recites “vertical deflection of a bridge”, but no previous mention of “vertical deflection deformation ”. Is the referenced “deflection deformation” the same as the previously recited “vertical deflection” or is the limitation referring to a different vertical deflection? For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “the vertical deflection deformation” to mean “the vertical deflection of a bridge”, as stated in claim 1. Clarification is required. Regarding claim 5 , the claim (Ln.15) recites “ the state quantity ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 5 recites “a state variable of state space equation”, but no previous mention of a “state quantity ”. Is the referenced “state quantity” the same as the previously recited “state variable” or is the limitation referring to a different state quantity? For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “the state quantity” to mean “state variable”, as stated in claim 5. Clarification is required. The dependent claims 2 , 4 , 6 -7 , included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above. 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. Claim s 1-7 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 1-7 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 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] . 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 heavy duty vehicle load by sensors arranged on the bridge structure, wherein the measured obtained dynamic response of the bridge structure comprises vertical vibration acceleration and vertical deflection of a bridge ; (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 a o and the vertical deflection y o of the bridge at a center of gravity o of the overloaded vehicle and a speed of the heavy duty vehicle U vehicle , reconstructing a response of a table top of a vibration table, and obtaining interaction force 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. ) 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 2106.04(d) , the courts have identified the following limitations that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(d), 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 recites wherein the sensors are arranged at quarter points of a girder of each span of the bridge. The additional element elaborates on the sensors used to obtain a bridge dynamic response, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 3 , the method of claim 2, recites wherein the measured obtained dynamic response of the bridge structure comprises the vertical vibration acceleration and vertical deflection of the bridge, during the process of the dynamic response of the bridge, the vertical deflection deformation and vertical vibration acceleration of the bridge at the center of gravity of the heavy duty vehicle in the whole process of crossing the bridge need to be obtained by 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. Claim 4 recites wherein, the process of reconstructing the response of the table top of the vibration table and obtaining the interaction force F of the vehicle-bridge coupling model comprises the following steps: parking the heavy duty vehicle on the vibration table, arranging a force plate at the bottom of each wheel, and 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, and obtaining the interaction force F of the vehicle-bridge coupling model through the force plates. The additional element elaborates on reconstructing the response of the table top of the vibration table, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f) ; and/or Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 5 , the method of claim 4, recites wherein through nonlinear parameter identification method, the modification process of the finite element model of the bridge structure is completed, which 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; a specific process of solving the structural dynamics problems by using the energy conservation integral method comprises the following steps: a time discrete form of equation of motion of a bridge nonlinear system is shown in formula (1) wherein, M, C are mass and damping matric of the bridge nonlinear system, x indicates a state variable of state space equation, k is a time step, F k is external force of vehicle bridge at k time step, L is load position matrix, X k , X k and X k are acceleration, velocity and displacement response of the bridge structure at k time step, R k (x) is nonlinear structural restoring force of the bridge nonlinear system at k time step; extending parameter discrete point amplitude to the state quantity, and obtaining the relationship between speed and acceleration at adjacent time steps by using the constant acceleration Newmark-P method, as shown in formula (3), and completing parameter identification of the bridge finite element model by discrete motion differential equations; wherein ∆ t is a time step length and k is a time step; according to formula (1), obtaining an expression of system speed Xk+1 with k+1 as a time step: 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; the system equation of motion in formula (1) is written as follows: after right multiplication (x k+1 - x k ) T of formula (1), obtaining a new equation of motion: regarding equation (8) as an energy transfer process, and using the energy conservation integral method to solve structural dynamics problems. The additional elements amount to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) since a person can reasonably perform the limitations with/without the aid of pen/paper; and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 6 , the method of claim 5, recites wherein the damping matrix of the bridge nonlinear system is Rayleigh damping matrix: wherein a i and a 2 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 , the method of claim 5, 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: 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness. Claim s 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, Lina. Bridge load rating with model updating and stochastic analysis of vehicle-bridge interaction . Diss. University of Western Australia, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “ Ding ”), in view of Kim, Junhee , et al. "Truck-based mobile wireless sensor networks for the experimental observation of vehicle–bridge interaction." Smart Materials and Structures 20.6 (2011): 065009 (hereinafter referred to as “ Kim ”) , further in view of Anthonis , Jan, P. Kennes , and Herman Ramon. "Design and evaluation of a low-power mobile shaker for vibration tests on heavy wheeled vehicles." Journal of terramechanics 37.4 (2000): 191-205 (hereinafter referred to as “ Anthonis ”). Regarding claim 1 , Ding discloses A bridge model updating method based on modification of vehicle-bridge coupling force “The proposed method combines advantages of the dynamic field testing, sensitivity-based model updating and nonlinear FEA.” Ding [Pg.35 Sec.3.1 P.1]) , comprising the following steps: obtaining a dynamic response of a bridge structure under the action of heavy duty vehicle load by sensors arranged on the bridge structure (“Measurements of the dynamic response of the bridge were taken over a predetermined grid of location points over the deck of the bridge. A schematic plan of the grid configuration for accelerometers is shown in Figure 3-20.” Ding [Pg.60 Sec.3.7.2]) wherein the measured obtained dynamic response of the bridge structure comprises vertical vibration acceleration and vertical deflection of a bridge; ( The measurements are interpreted to comprise vertical vibration acceleration and vertical deflection because “ The response of the coupled vehicle-bridge system consists of two components, deterministic component from gravity of the vehicle and random component generated from vertical vibrations of the vehicle owing on the road with rough surface conditions [...] i ) applying the Runge- Kutta method to solve Equation (4.70) for calculating the displacement ( i.e. deflection ) and velocity of the system ” Ding [Pg. 89-90 Sec.4.7 ] ) , according to the vertical vibration acceleration a o and the vertical deflection y o of the bridge at a center of gravity o of the overloaded vehicle and a speed of the heavy duty vehicle U vehicle , reconstructing a response of a table top of a vibration table, and obtaining interaction force of a vehicle-bridge coupling model (“ calculating the dynamic interaction forces with Equations (4.107) and (4.108) ” Ding [Pg. 90 P.3 ]) ; establishing a nonlinear finite element model of the bridge structure (“ A comprehensive nonlinear FE model is first established ” Ding [Pg. 35 Sec. 3.1 P.1 ]) , 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 finite element model of the bridge structure through a nonlinear parameter identification method. (“Dynamic test are performed for verifying the global system behaviour and dynamic properties, while static or semi-static test can provide data also for refined modelling of local behaviour [...] Processing of the measurement data is made to detect and correct errors and to obtain data that is conditioned for structural parameter identification [...] Automatic model updating is then performed to further improve the correlation between the FE model and experimental properties by taking into account a large number of parameters. The resulting ''updated" model is then validated using a set of data not used for calibration.” Ding [Pg.15 P.1-4]) Ding fails to disclose according to the vertical vibration acceleration a o and the vertical deflection y o of the bridge at a center of gravity o of the overloaded vehicle and a speed of the heavy duty vehicle U vehicle and reconstructing a response of a table top of a vibration table . However, Anthonis discloses reconstructing a response of a table top of a vibration table (“For each excitation the amplitude of the shaker ( i.e. vibration table ) was measured through the LVDT sensor and the most important resonance frequencies and their corresponding mode shapes ( i.e. response ) were recorded (Table 1).” Anthonis [Pg.200 Sec.5]) Anthonis is analogous art as it relates to heavy-duty vehicle vibrational testing. Anthonis discloses “This paper describes the design and the evaluation of a low-power, one degree of freedom, mobile, vertical shaker, which enables the evaluation of the vibrational characteristics of mobile machinery [...] Equations describing the dynamic behaviour of a shaker with and without a parallel spring are derived” [Pg.192-193 Sec.2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reconstructing a response of a table top of a vibration table, as Anthonis discloses, with the bridge model updating method of Ding, in order to precisely measure vehicle-bridge interaction forces in order to establish a more accurate bridge model . Ding and Anthonis fail to specifically disclose according to the vertical vibration acceleration a o and the vertical deflection y o of the bridge at a center of gravity o of the overloaded vehicle and a speed of the heavy duty vehicle U vehicle . However, Kim discloses according to the vertical vibration acceleration a o and the vertical deflection y o of the bridge at a center of gravity o of the overloaded vehicle and a speed of the heavy duty vehicle U vehicle ( See Examiner’s “overloaded vehicle” interpretation in 35 USC 112 section above. “A mathematical model for vehicle tracking begins with consideration of a vehicle in which an accelerometer is installed at the center of gravity to measure horizontal acceleration ( i.e. speed ). The one-dimensional trajectory of the horizontally moving vehicle is x t = x t -δ x t with initial conditions x (0) and x 0 whe re x t is the true horizontal acceleration of the vehicle and x ( t ) is the measured horizontal acceleration.” Kim [Pg.7 Sec.3.2]. Note: Referenced “vehicle” is interpreted as “heavy duty vehicle” due to Kim’s disclosure “In this study, a mobile wireless sensor network is proposed for installation on a heavy truck to capture the vertical acceleration, horizontal acceleration and gyroscopic pitching of the truck as it crosses a bridge.” [Abstract]) Kim is analogous art as it relates to heavy-duty vehicle-bridge interaction. Kim teaches “a mobile wireless sensor network is proposed for installation on a heavy truck to capture the vertical acceleration, horizontal acceleration and gyroscopic pitching of the truck as it crosses a bridge. The vehicle-based wireless monitoring system is designed to interact with a static, permanent wireless monitoring system installed on the bridge.” [Abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include vertical vibration acceleration and the vertical deflection of the bridge at a center of gravity of the heavy-duty vehicle and a speed of the heavy duty vehicle, as Kim discloses, with reconstructing a response of a vibration table, as Anthonis and Ding discloses, in order to establish a full “understanding the dynamic behavior of bridges under live load conditions” Kim [Pg.1 Col.2]. Regarding claim 2 , Ding-Kim- Anthonis disclose the limitations of claim 1, Ding further discloses wherein the sensors are arranged at quarter points of a girder of each span of the bridge . (“ Measurements of the dynamic response of the bridge were taken over a predetermined grid of location points over the deck of the bridge. A schematic plan of the grid configuration for accelerometers is shown in Figure 3-20. The accelerometers were placed in seven rows corresponding to the seven girders. There are 19 measurement points in each row and 133 measurement points in total. ” Ding [Pg. 60 Sec.3.7.2 ]. Ding discloses an array of sensors , thus it’s reasonable the sensors may be arranged at quarter points of a girder of each span of the bridge should Ding deem necessary ). Regarding claim 4 , Ding-Kim- Anthonis disclose the method of claim 1, although Ding-Kim fail to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 4. However, Anthonis further discloses wherein, the process of reconstructing the response of the table top of the vibration table and obtaining the interaction force F of the vehicle-bridge coupling model comprises the following steps: parking the heavy duty vehicle on the vibration table, arranging a force plate at the bottom of each wheel, and 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, and obtaining the interaction force F of the vehicle-bridge coupling model through the force plates. (“Experiments are carried out on an agricultural tractor (International 845 4-WD) supplied with a front ballast of 300 kg. The tractor ( i.e. heavy-duty vehicle ) is h armonically excited under its left rear tire by 61 single sine waves starting at 0.5 Hz up to 21 Hz. During the experiments, the reference amplitude was kept at 0.011 m. For each excitation the amplitude of the shaker was measured through the LVDT sensor and the most important resonance frequencies and their corresponding mode shapes were recorded (Table 1) [...] The achieved measured vertical position amplitude versus frequency is depicted in Fig. 8. At the resonance frequencies with vertical components i.e. pitch, roll, jump and eventually the cab resonance, dips are observed in the graph. This is completely in agreement with (16)” Anthonis [Pg.200 Sec.5]. See experiment setup below.) Anthonis discloses the limitations of claim 4 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Ding-Kim as claim 1. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding , in view of Kim , in view of Anthonis , and in further view of González, Arturo. Vehicle-bridge dynamic interaction using finite element modelling . Sciyo , 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “ Gonzalez ”) Regarding claim 3 , Ding-Kim- Anthonis disclose the method of claim 2, but fail to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 3. However, Gonzalez discloses wherein the measured obtained dynamic response of the bridge structure comprises the vertical vibration acceleration and vertical deflection of the bridge, during the process of the dynamic response of the bridge, the vertical deflection deformation and vertical vibration acceleration of the bridge at the center of gravity of the heavy duty vehicle in the whole process of crossing the bridge need to be obtained by interpolation method . (“ u i -j is related to the nodal displacements and rotations { wb } (e) of the bridge element where the wheel i -j is located through the displacement interpolation functions {N( x , y )} of the element. The values of {N( x , y )} are a function of the coordinates ( x , y ) of the wheel contact point with respect to the coordinates of the bridge element [...] the number of DOFs ( i.e. Degrees of freedom ) of the system can be reduced by considering the following relationship between the displacements of the centroids ( i.e. center of gravity ) of tractor and trailer” Gonzalez [Pg.12 P.2 and 4]) Gonzalez is analogous art as it relates to vehicle-bridge interaction using finite element modeling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Ding-Kim- Anthonis combination to include Gonzalez’ interpolation method in order “for simulating the response of a bridge to the passage of a road vehicle [ ] to the implementation of the interaction between both” Gonzalez [Pg.21 P.1]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ding, Lina. Bridge load rating with model updating and stochastic analysis of vehicle-bridge interaction . Diss. University of Western Australia, 2010 , discloses “a load rating procedure for accurately estimating the load carrying capacity of existing bridges” [Abstract P.2] but fails to specifically disclose all of the limitations of claims 5-7. Kim, Junhee , et al. "Truck-based mobile wireless sensor networks for the experimental observation of vehicle–bridge interaction." Smart Materials and Structures 20.6 (2011): 065009, discloses “a mobile wireless sensor network is proposed for installation on a heavy truck to capture the vertical acceleration, horizontal acceleration and gyroscopic pitching of the truck as it crosses a bridge” [Abstract], but fails to specifically disclose the limitations of claims 5-7. Anthonis , Jan, P. Kennes , and Herman Ramon. "Design and evaluation of a low-power mobile shaker for vibration tests on heavy wheeled vehicles." Journal of terramechanics 37.4 (2000): 191-205, discloses heavy-duty vehicle vibrational testing, but fails to specifically disclose the limitations of claims 5-7. González, Arturo. Vehicle-bridge dynamic interaction using finite element modelling . Sciyo , 2010, discloses vehicle-bridge dynamic interactions using finite element modelling, but fails to disclose all of the limitations of claims 5 and 7. Conclusion The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mei, Zhu, et al. "Hybrid simulation with online model updating: application to a reinforced concrete bridge endowed with tall piers." Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 123 (2019): 533-553. “In this paper, we propose an HS ( hybrid simulation ) method with model updating of parameters of constitutive models, where parameters are identified by the UKF (i.e. Unscented Kalman Filter ) and updated to models in NSs. [ ] where parameters are identified by the UKF ( i.e. unscented Kalman filter ) and updated to models” [Pg.535 Sec.1.2]. Krenk , Steen. "Energy conservation in Newmark based time integration algorithms." Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 195.44-47 (2006): 6110-6124. “The equation of motion (1) leads to an energy conservation relation by multiplication with the velocity vector u T .” [Pg.6111 P.4 Ln.2] Kim, Chul Woo, Mitsuo Kawatani , and Ki Bong Kim. "Three-dimensional dynamic analysis for bridge–vehicle interaction with roadway roughness." Computers & structures 83.19-20 (2005): 1627-1645. “A three-dimensional means of analysis is proposed for the bridge–vehicle interaction to investigate the dynamic responses of a steel girder bridge and vehicles” [Abstract] Green, M. F., and D. Cebon . "Dynamic response of highway bridges to heavy vehicle loads: theory and experimental validation." Journal of Sound and Vibration 170.1 (1994): 51-78. “A calculation procedure is developed to predict the dynamic response of a bridge to a given set of vehicle wheel loads. [ ] The method is then extended by an iterative procedure to include dynamic interaction between the bridge and an arbitrary mathematical model of a vehicle.” [Abstract] Green, M. F., and D. Cebon . "Dynamic interaction between heavy vehicles and highway bridges." Computers & structures 62.2 (1997): 253-264. “This paper discusses the importance of dynamic interaction (coupling) between heavy vehicles and highway bridges” [Abstract] Duym, S., and Joannes Schoukens . "Design of excitation signals for the restoring force surface method." Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 9.2 (1995): 139-158. “it is shown that a uniform covering of the state plane can be obtained using a periodic kinematic signal (i.e. displacement , velocity and acceleration ) with a user speci fi ed amplitude spectrum by making a proper choice for the associated phases” [Abstract] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1036 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday, 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, 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