DETAILED ACTION
Claims 11-18 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Regarding the claim amendments
The Examiner notes that the present claim amendments are not, as per 37 CFR 1.52(a)(1)(v): “presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition”.
Also see MPEP § 502.05(I)(B)(4): “When the USPTO successfully receives PDF documents filed in accordance with the EFS-Web requirements, the USPTO will convert the PDF files submitted by users into Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) image files and then store the TIFF image files in the IFW as part of the official record, in addition to those drawings which are stored in the Supplemental Complex Repository for Examiners (SCORE) as part of the official record (i.e., color and grayscale drawings and drawings submitted in design applications).”
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments, the 112 rejection of the claims is from the previous action Withdrawn in part and Maintained in part.
The terms in claim 18 were not addressed. Additionally each variable must be defined in the claim, a specification reference is not sufficient.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument: A person could not reasonably perform the claimed features mentally.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as Applicant has not provided any evidence as to why the equations are too complex, making this argument conclusory. Additionally, the claims are still a mathematical concept, which makes them properly classified as an abstract idea.
Applicant’s Argument: The claim is not an abstract idea as it is computer implemented and requires complex computations.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as an abstract idea performed on a computer is still an abstract idea MPEP2106.04. Also, math calculations performed on a computer are still an abstract idea. With pencil and paper, a person of ordinary skill could perform the calculations by hand with the equations that are listed in the claim. The number of iterations of the equations is not claimed.
Applicant’s Argument: The claim is the practical application of math.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the abstract idea itself cannot provide the improvement; it must be from the additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”. Here, the application is not expressed through the additional elements as there are no additional elements in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not contain a practical application.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are analogous to Thales.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees as there is no particular configuration of sensors in the claims. Thales Visionix was found to be an improvement to technology because of the particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Here, the claims at issue do not have a particular arrangement of sensors and do not use a particular method with raw sensor data. The claims require the obtaining of a finite element model and a series of mathematical calculations. The use of a single processor without using sensor data and a particular method of using raw data, makes the current claims distinguishable from Thales Visionix. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that the claims do recite an abstract idea.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims solve a technical problem, use specialized techniques, and improve the functioning of structural analysis systems through parameter estimation.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the abstract idea itself cannot provide the improvement; it must be from the additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”. Here, the application is not expressed through the additional elements as there are no additional elements in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The equations are blurry and illegible. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will refer back to the previously filed set of equations that are legible. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The amendment starts with a capital letter. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will refer back to the previously filed set of equations that are legible. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The amendment starts with a capital letter. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will refer back to the previously filed set of equations that are legible. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11-18 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.
The term "sufficiently" in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” 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.
The term "high-fidelity", “accurately”, “fine”, “precise”, “realistic”, “comprehensive” in claim 18 are all relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are 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.
The following variables are undefined, which renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear.
PNG
media_image1.png
35
59
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in claim 11
PNG
media_image2.png
40
71
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in claim 11
PNG
media_image3.png
62
171
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in claim 13
PNG
media_image4.png
37
25
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in claim 15 (as the updated L does not appear to be in the equation)
PNG
media_image5.png
38
29
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 15
PNG
media_image6.png
23
19
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 16
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Regarding claims 11-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 11-18 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 11-18 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of determining a structural dynamic parameter using a series of calculations, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "Obtaining an approximate but sufficiently accurate finite element model of the structural behavior by proportionally scaling the structural system;” covers mental processes including evaluating a structure and judging how to create a model that reflects it. Additionally, the limitation of “determining a probability distribution function for dynamic parameters in the finite element model using prior knowledge, and employing a Latin hypercube sampling method to generate a dynamic parameter space sample set according to the probability distribution function; wherein the dynamic parameters comprise a dynamic elastic modulus of a dam, a density of the dam, a Poisson's ratio of the dam, a dynamic elastic modulus of a dam foundation, a density of the dam foundation, and a Poisson's ratio of the dam foundation;” covers mathematical concepts including using a probability density function and a Latin hypercube sampling method to generate a parameter space, as well as mental processes including making a judgement about how to represent parameters and evaluating the parameters based on the function and method. Additionally, the limitation of “analyzing the dynamic parameter space sample set using a probabilistic finite element method and establishing a structural system response space sample set driven by the dynamic parameter space sample set;” covers mathematical concepts including performing a series of calculations, as well as mental processes including evaluating the parameters. The limitation of " obtaining the rPCK surrogate model by mapping the dynamic parameter space sample set to the structural system response space sample set;” covers mathematical concepts including performing calculations to map a parameter space as well as mental processes including evaluating parameters and judging how to they map together. The limitation of "using a measured response of the structural system to drive the rPCK surrogate model; applying Bayesian inference to identify structural dynamic parameters of the structural system, and utilizing Bayesian posterior mean values as structural dynamic parameter estimates for the dynamic elastic modulus of the dam, the density of the dam, the dynamic elastic modulus of the dam foundation, and the density of the dam foundation;” covers mathematical concepts including performing a series of calculations as well as mental processes including performing a series of calculations. The remaining limitations are a series of mathematical concepts in the form of equations and calculations. These calculations are not defined in such a way that they are too complex to be a mental process in the form of an evaluation that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept as well as a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 12-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not contain any additional elements for consideration. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 12-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do not contain any additional elements for consideration. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 12-16 are directed to further defining the equations and calculations used, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” as well as “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 17 is directed to generating a sample set and a prediction model using the sample set, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” as well as “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 18 is directed to generating a model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” as well as “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that no prior art has been applied to the claims. See allowability section of the Non-Final Office Action dated 6/6/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schobi et al. “Polynomial-Chaos-based Kriging”: Also teaches the used of PCE with surrogate models to quantify a system.
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 MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights