DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 7-9-2026. 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 by performing training in the computer system 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
(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)).
inputting measured data of correlation factors of a zone to be predicted into the height prediction model of the confined water rising zone to predict a height of the confined water rising zone of the zone to be predicted, thereby judging water inrush risk of a coal mine floor and guiding a safety production of the coal mine.
(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)).
wherein the method is executed by a computer system including a processor and a memory
a processor; and a storage for storing instructions, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform operations
(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 by performing training in the computer system 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
(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)).
inputting measured data of correlation factors of a zone to be predicted into the height prediction model of the confined water rising zone to predict a height of the confined water rising zone of the zone to be predicted, thereby judging water inrush risk of a coal mine floor and guiding a safety production of the coal mine.
(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)).
wherein the method is executed by a computer system including a processor and a memory
a processor; and a storage for storing instructions, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform operations
(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)).
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)).
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.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
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)).
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)).
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 at a first time: 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 at a second time: 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)).
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)).
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejection of claims 6-10 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are allowable over prior art. However, the claims remain under 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims remain rejected under 101. The incorporated processor and memory only provide generic computer components. Further, the inputting step is an analysis of data in order to make an evaluation and judgement which is considered a mental process.
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)).
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
8-18-2026
Prosecution Insights