DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 12-20-2022. Claims 1-10 are pending and have been considered below:
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 represent method, system and medium type claims. Therefore claims 1-10 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claims 1 and 6:
2A Prong 1:
dividing the sample data into a training sample and a test sample; calculating a degree of correlation between the height of a confined water rising zone of the multiple confined water rising zones and a correlation factor value sequence of the multiple correlation factor value sequences using a grey relational analysis (GRA) method for the height of any confined water rising zone and any correlation factor value sequence in the training sample; screening the correlation factors according to the degree of correlation between the height of each of the multiple confined water rising zones and each of the multiple correlation factor value sequences to obtain screened correlation factors; calculating weights of the screened correlation factors using an entropy weight method (EWM);
determining an indicator system according to the screened correlation factors, and calculating a value of each indicator in the indicator system corresponding to the height of each of the multiple confined water rising zones in the training sample according to the standardized screened correlation factor value sequences and the weights of the screened correlation factors
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-dividing data, calculating correlation, screening (observation) and determining can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
obtaining sample data, wherein the sample data comprises heights of multiple confined water rising zones and multiple correlation factor value sequences; each of the multiple correlation factor value sequences comprises values of a same correlation factor of all of the multiple confined water rising zones; and correlation factors comprise a mining depth of a coal seam, a unit water inflow exposed by a confined floor, a thickness of an aquifer, a permeability coefficient of the confined floor, a slope length of a working face, an advancing speed, a mining height, a damage variable of a coal seam floor, a fault strength index, a fault fractal dimension, a pressure of floor confined water, a liquid surface tension coefficient, a fracture coefficient, and a density of floor aquifer water;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
performing dimensionless processing on correlation factor value sequences corresponding to the screened correlation factors using a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to obtain standardized screened correlation factor value sequences;
obtaining a height prediction model of a confined water rising zone based on principal component analysis (PCA)-particle swarm optimization (PSO)-support vector regression (SVR), the value of each indicator in the indicator system corresponding to the height of each of the multiple confined water rising zones in the training sample, and the test sample, wherein the height prediction model of a confined water rising zone is configured to predict the height of the confined water rising zone
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
obtaining module configured to
training sample and test sample generation module configured to
correlation degree calculation module configured to
correlation factor screening module configured to
weight calculation module configured to
standardizing module configured to
module for determining
indicator calculation module configured to
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
obtaining sample data, wherein the sample data comprises heights of multiple confined water rising zones and multiple correlation factor value sequences; each of the multiple correlation factor value sequences comprises values of a same correlation factor of all of the multiple confined water rising zones; and correlation factors comprise a mining depth of a coal seam, a unit water inflow exposed by a confined floor, a thickness of an aquifer, a permeability coefficient of the confined floor, a slope length of a working face, an advancing speed, a mining height, a damage variable of a coal seam floor, a fault strength index, a fault fractal dimension, a pressure of floor confined water, a liquid surface tension coefficient, a fracture coefficient, and a density of floor aquifer water;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
performing dimensionless processing on correlation factor value sequences corresponding to the screened correlation factors using a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to obtain standardized screened correlation factor value sequences;
obtaining a height prediction model of a confined water rising zone based on principal component analysis (PCA)-particle swarm optimization (PSO)-support vector regression (SVR), the value of each indicator in the indicator system corresponding to the height of each of the multiple confined water rising zones in the training sample, and the test sample, wherein the height prediction model of a confined water rising zone is configured to predict the height of the confined water rising zone
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
obtaining module configured to
training sample and test sample generation module configured to
correlation degree calculation module configured to
correlation factor screening module configured to
weight calculation module configured to
standardizing module configured to
module for determining
indicator calculation module configured to
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Regarding claims 2 and 7:
2A Prong 1:
calculating an absolute difference between the standardized correlation factor value sequence and the standardized height of the confined water rising zone; obtaining a correlation coefficient between the height of the confined water rising zone and the correlation factor value sequences according to the absolute difference; and calculating the degree of correlation between the height of the confined water rising zone and the correlation factor value sequences according to the correlation coefficient.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion- calculating and obtaining can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
performing dimensionless processing on the height of the confined water rising zone and the correlation factor value sequence using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for the height of any confined water rising zone and any correlation factor value sequence in the training sample to obtain a standardized correlation factor value sequence and a standardized height of the confined water rising zone;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
standardizing unit configured to
absolute difference calculation unit configured to
correlation coefficient calculation unit configured to
correlation degree calculation unit configured to
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
performing dimensionless processing on the height of the confined water rising zone and the correlation factor value sequence using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for the height of any confined water rising zone and any correlation factor value sequence in the training sample to obtain a standardized correlation factor value sequence and a standardized height of the confined water rising zone;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
standardizing unit configured to
absolute difference calculation unit configured to
correlation coefficient calculation unit configured to
correlation degree calculation unit configured to
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Regarding claims 3 and 8:
2A Prong 1:
calculating an average value of the multiple correlation factor value sequences and an average value of the heights of the multiple confined water rising zones in the training sample according to the multiple correlation factor value sequences and the heights of the multiple confined water rising zones in the training sample; obtaining a standard deviation of the multiple correlation factor value sequences and a standard deviation of the heights of the multiple confined water rising zones in the training sample according to the average value of the multiple correlation factor value sequences, the average value of the heights of the multiple confined water rising zones, and the multiple correlation factor value 26 sequences and the heights of the multiple confined water rising zones in the training sample; and standardizing the correlation factor value sequence and the height of the confined water rising zone according to the average value of the multiple correlation factor value sequences, the average value of the heights of the multiple confined water rising zones, the standard deviation of the multiple correlation factor value sequences, and the standard deviation of the heights of the multiple confined water rising zones in the training sample for the height of any confined water rising zone and any correlation factor value sequence in the training sample to obtain the standardized correlation factor value sequence and the standardized height of the confined water rising zone.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion- calculating and obtaining can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
average value calculation subunit configured to
standard deviation calculation subunit configured to standardizing subunit configured to
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
average value calculation subunit configured to
standard deviation calculation subunit configured to standardizing subunit configured to
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Regarding claims 4 and 9:
2A Prong 1:
calculating a weight of each indicator using PCA according to the value of each indicator in the indicator system corresponding to the height of each of the multiple confined water rising zones in the training sample; weighting the value of each indicator in the indicator system corresponding to the height of the confined water rising zone according to the weight of each indicator for the height of any confined water rising zone in the training sample to obtain a weighted indicator
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion- calculating and weighting can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
and obtaining the height prediction model of a confined water rising zone using PSO-SVR according to the weighted indicator and the test sample
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
weight calculation unit configured to
weighting unit configured to
unit for determining
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
and obtaining the height prediction model of a confined water rising zone using PSO-SVR according to the weighted indicator and the test sample
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
weight calculation unit configured to
weighting unit configured to
unit for determining
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Regarding claims 5 and 10:
2A Prong 1:
determining whether a target model is an optimal target model according to the test sample to obtain a first determination result, wherein the target model is an SVR model corresponding to a parameter with maximum fitness; and responsive to determining that the target model is an optimal target model according to the test sample, determining that the target model is the height prediction model of a confined water rising zone; and responsive to determining that the target model is not an optimal target model according to the test sample, updating the particle swarm and substituting the weighted indicator into an SVR model corresponding to each group of parameters to obtain fitness of the SVR model corresponding to each group of parameters of the updated particle swarm
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
initializing a particle swarm, wherein the particle swarm comprises multiple groups of parameters of an SVR model, and each group of parameters comprises a penalty factor coefficient and a kernel function; substituting the weighted indicator into an SVR model corresponding to each group of parameters to obtain fitness of the SVR model corresponding to each group of parameters;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
initializing subunit configured to
fitness calculation subunit configured to
determination subunit configured to
first result determination subunit configured to
second result determination subunit configured to
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
initializing a particle swarm, wherein the particle swarm comprises multiple groups of parameters of an SVR model, and each group of parameters comprises a penalty factor coefficient and a kernel function; substituting the weighted indicator into an SVR model corresponding to each group of parameters to obtain fitness of the SVR model corresponding to each group of parameters;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
initializing subunit configured to
fitness calculation subunit configured to
determination subunit configured to
first result determination subunit configured to
second result determination subunit configured to
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
obtaining module,
training sample and test sample generation module,
correlation degree calculation module,
correlation factor screening module,
weight calculation module,
standardizing module, module for determining, indicator calculation module,
standardizing unit, absolute difference calculation unit,
correlation coefficient calculation,
correlation degree calculation unit,
average value calculation subunit,
standard deviation calculation subunit,
standardizing subunit, weight calculation unit,
weighting unit, unit for determining,
initializing subunit, fitness calculation subunit
determination subunit, first result determination subunit
second result determination subunit “configured to” in claim 6-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The structure for the claims does not appear to be provided in the specification.
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.
Claims 6-10 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. No structure for claimed modules, units and subunits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are allowable over prior art. However the claims are rejected under 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
20200296906 A1
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
4-16-2026
Prosecution Insights