DETAILED ACTION
The office action is responsive to a preliminary amendment filed on 4/4/23 and is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-8 are pending.
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. 202211208063.7, filed on 9/30/22.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claim 1
Regarding step 1, claim 1 is directed towards a method which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “step 1: making a theoretical analysis of surrounding rock pressure on a tunnel to be analyzed”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “monitoring a tunnel site in combination with tunnel design data”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “step 2: taking collapse of a shallow buried section of the tunnel as a starting point, analyzing causes of the collapse in combination with the summarized monitoring data at the tunnel site and a theory of tunnel deformation to determine main causes of the tunnel collapse”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and analyzing tunnel displacement fields of different distances within a period from tunnel excavation to tunnel collapse to determine a displacement and a stress response generated when tunnel collapse occurs”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “step 3: according to the displacement and the stress response generated when the tunnel collapse occurs, analyzing factors affecting tunnel deformation and surrounding rock instability according to a control variate method to obtain a mechanism of deformation responses of a stratum and a tunnel to various factors”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “step 4: conducting, based on the extracted numerical simulation results and the degree of influence of each factor on the tunnel and the stratum, deformation-related quantitative calculation on factors affecting the tunnel deformation using a statistical analysis method of grey relational analysis-entropy evaluation method”. This limitation is conducting deformation-related quantitative calculations on factors affecting the tunnel deformation using a statistical analysis method. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “sorting a relevancy degree of each factor to the deformation of the shallow buried unsymmetrical loading tunnel section of the tunnel to obtain main influence factors in tunnel deformation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and determining quantitative influence of each factor on tunnel deformation.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and collecting, analyzing, concluding and summarizing monitoring data of the tunnel site” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “simulating the collapse leading straight to a ground surface during tunnel construction by using finite element numerical simulation software” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the causes the collapse of the tunnel. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “extracting numerical simulation results to obtain deformation characteristics in the process of tunnel construction” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “fitting deformation caused by the factors based on the data, and determining the degree of influence of each factor on the tunnel and the stratum” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the factors are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim language also does not include a computer or components of a computer, but if written with, for example, a processor, the claim language would still not be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For example, adding the phrase "by a processor" to the claim language, would encompass the processor be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and collecting, analyzing, concluding and summarizing monitoring data of the tunnel site” and “extracting numerical simulation results to obtain deformation characteristics in the process of tunnel construction” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “simulating the collapse leading straight to a ground surface during tunnel construction by using finite element numerical simulation software” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the causes the collapse of the tunnel. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “fitting deformation caused by the factors based on the data, and determining the degree of influence of each factor on the tunnel and the stratum” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the factors are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) docs/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein in step 1, the monitoring content at the tunnel site comprises required monitoring items and optional monitoring items, the required monitoring items comprise observation inside and outside a tunnel, ground surface settlement, vault settlement and horizontal convergence during tunnel construction”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 2 recites “and the optional monitoring items comprise internal force measurement for a steel arch, a seepage pressure, a surrounding rock pressure of the tunnel and axial force of an anchor bolt.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. The limitation is stating that the optional monitoring items comprise internal force measurement. The limitation is not actually measuring the internal force for a steel arch, etc. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein in step 1, when the monitoring data of the tunnel site are collected, analyzed, concluded and summarized, based on an advanced geological forecast, proportions of surrounding rock at grade III, surrounding rock at grade IV and surrounding rock at grade V at a tunnel face are determined”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the advanced geological forecast is or what portions of the surrounding rock are at the different grades. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claim 3 recites “and mechanism summarization and characteristic analysis are conducted with tunnel deformation data of the surrounding rock at different grades to determine different deformation stages of surrounding rock of a tunnel.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the deformation stages of surrounding rock of a tunnel are classified into a growth stage and a stabilization stage, and the growth stage is divided into a rapid growth stage and a slow growth stage.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein in step 2, a whole process of tunnel construction is reproduced using the finite element numerical simulation software”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the tunnel construction is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claim 5 recites “three-dimensional inversion of a collapse accident occurring during tunnel construction is carried out”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 5 recites “and in combination with data simulation and cause analysis, a whole process of tunnel deformation and surrounding rock failure accompanying the tunnel collapse is determined.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the cause analysis is or how the surrounding rock has failed. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein in step 3, the factors affecting tunnel deformation and surrounding rock instability comprise an over-excavation height, a displacement distance of a face and an elastic modulus of surrounding rock”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 6 recites “and different gradients are set for the over-excavation height, the displacement distance of a face and the elastic modulus of surrounding rock when analysis is conducted according to a control variate method.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein in step 3, said determining the degree of influence of each factor on the tunnel and the stratum specifically comprises taking ground surface settlement, a middle rock wall between the neighborhood tunnel and tunnel deformation as a judgment basis”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 7 recites “obtaining deformation curves under different working conditions”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 7 recites “extracting and summarizing data of ground surface deformation and tunnel deformation to obtain rules of responses of different factors to the tunnel and stratum”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 7 recites “and obtaining characteristic values of each factor.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein in step 4, said conducting deformation-related quantitative calculation specifically comprises taking tunnel vault deformation and horizontal convergence as a judgment basis”. The limitation of conducting deformation-related quantitative calculation includes taking tunnel vault deformation and horizontal convergence as a judgment basis. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “calculating to obtain a relevancy degree of each factor to the tunnel deformation”. This limitation is calculating a deformation-related quantitative. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “and sorting the relevancy degree in a descending order.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1-8 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
online reference Study of the unexpected collapse of the Ampurda´n tunnel (Spain) using a finite elements model, written by Alija et al.
With respect to claim 1, Alija et al. discloses “A multi-factor quantitative analysis method for deformation of a neighborhood tunnel” as [Alija et al. (Abstract “This paper presents the case study of the Ampurda´n tunnel that suffered an unexpected partial collapse
during construction due to the weathering of the claystone groundmass after excavation and wetting by infiltration water.”, Alija et al. Pg. 453, Instrumentation of the tunnel, 1st paragraph, “In the NATM, appropriate auscultation and systematic control of the excavation works and support is essential, requiring the implementation of geometric and topographical monitoring, the measurement of convergences and the auscultation of cross sections. Geometric and topographical monitoring was based on external triangulation and the constant checking of the internal position of the tunnel axis and on the layout of the support elements.”)];
“step 1: making a theoretical analysis of surrounding rock pressure on a tunnel to be analyzed, monitoring a tunnel site in combination with tunnel design data, and collecting, analyzing, concluding and summarizing monitoring data of the tunnel site” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 453, Instrumentation of the tunnel, 1st paragraph, “In the NATM, appropriate auscultation and systematic control of the excavation works and support is essential, requiring the implementation of geometric and topographical monitoring, the measurement of convergences and the auscultation of cross sections. Geometric and topographical monitoring was based on external triangulation and the constant checking of the internal position of the tunnel axis and on the layout of the support elements.”, Alija et al. Pg. 462, right col., 1st paragraph, “The fact that the usual monitoring indicators used to evaluate the behaviour of the tunnel did not give warning about the failure that subsequently occurred, highlights the
importance of using preventive procedures in the tunnels excavated in similar softrock materials. Therefore, the evolution and quantification of the geomechanical properties of softrocks, when subjected to excavation, decompression, and exposure to water, is of particular importance to determine the actions to be taken during the tunnel’s construction.”, Fig. 3)];
“step 2: taking collapse of a shallow buried section of the tunnel as a starting point, analyzing causes of the collapse in combination with the summarized monitoring data at the tunnel site and a theory of tunnel deformation to determine main causes of the tunnel collapse” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 456, Materials testing, 1st – 9th paragraph, “Aiming to understand the causes of the tunnel failure and to determine the parameters responsible for the changes in the materials properties generating the collapse, a complementary site investigation campaign was carried out, and samples were collected to use in laboratory tests. The site investigation works performed were (Fig. 9), etc.”, Alija et al. Pg. 457, left col., 2nd – 5th paragraph, “Another part of the analysis focused on the information provided by the instrumentation before and after the tunnel collapse. From a detailed study of the pre-failure information, it was concluded that based on the available data, the failure couldn’t be anticipated. The behaviour of the tunnel was good, with the convergence plots showing a clear tendency towards stabilization, without any significant variations once stabilized, etc.”, Figs. 9 and 10)];
“simulating the collapse leading straight to a ground surface during tunnel construction by using finite element numerical simulation software, extracting numerical simulation results to obtain deformation characteristics in the process of tunnel construction, and analyzing tunnel displacement fields of different distances within a period from tunnel excavation to tunnel collapse to determine a displacement and a stress response generated when tunnel collapse occurs” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 457, right col., 1st – 2nd paragraph, “Considering the convergence evolution of the section presenting the largest vertical movement, convergence C-5, the following interpretation could be inferred (Alija 2010), etc.”, Alija et al. Pg. 458, Finite element simulation, 2nd – 4th paragraph, “In order to simulate the failure conditions, several attempts were made to run tests under conditions similar to those responsible for the failure, but due to the high weatherability of the claystone, the samples disintegrated in the presence of water, preventing the execution of the tests. Faced with the impossibility to do reliable laboratory tests, it was decided to use a finite elements model program to do a parametric study and thus to determine the evolution of the geotechnical parameters during the claystone weathering process. The stresses and strains induced by the
excavation, as well as the identification of the variables that may had greater incidence in their development, could be inferred by the finite element model. The determination of the geotechnical parameters dependent on weathering is also vital for a suitable design of the construction procedures and the support solutions.
To compute the tunnel’s elastoplasticity a numerical simulation was used. The models were computed using the finite elements method based on the bi-dimensional PLAXIS software of the company PLAXIS B.V, considering the ground as a continuum space (Brinkgreve 2004).
Finite element models can be plane strain or axisymmetric, etc.”, Alija et al. Pg. 458, right col., 7th – 8th paragraph “For the calculation, a mechanical Mohr–Coulomb constitutive model was initially considered, in order to deal with the same assumptions as those used during the construction works. To use this model, it was also taken into account that the collapse phenomenon occurred suddenly, and that on the days prior to failure no convergence
movements have been detected, nor absolute movements in the crown.
However, based on previous experience of other works with Plaxis, it is known that with the Mohr–Coulomb model the same module is taken to load and discharge, resulting in an excessive lifting of the ground (this situation was proved with the numerical model). For this reason, the model considered was the Hardening Soil (Xu and Wang 2002), which assumes that the discharge module is three times higher than the loading module. This model yielded more realistic results for the present case study, and the deformation values were closer to those actually obtained in the auscultation sections. The Hardening Soil model is a variant of the hyperbolic model, formulated within the plasticity hardening by friction. This model is suitable for the simulation of the behaviour of soft sediments and clay soils. In contrast to a perfect elastoplastic model, in the Hardening Soil, the creep surface is not fixed in the space
of the main stresses, since it can be expanded due to plastic deformations.”)];
“step 3: according to the displacement and the stress response generated when the tunnel collapse occurs, analyzing factors affecting tunnel deformation and surrounding rock instability according to a control variate method to obtain a mechanism of deformation responses of a stratum and a tunnel to various factors, fitting deformation caused by the factors based on the data, and determining the degree of influence of each factor on the tunnel and the stratum” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 457, right col., last paragraph, 1st – 4th bullet, “Based on the evaluation and interpretation of all the information previously presented, the failure mechanism of the Ampurda´n tunnel can be explained as follows: • During the advance of the tunnel, some stress release had occurred around the excavation, inducing volume changes, decompression and the increasing of the water content of the claystone.
• In the north portal the groundmass foundation the lining become embedded in water, drained through the sandstone layers and recharged by circulation in the claystone fissures of the Ampurda´n formation. The increase in the moisture content easily surpassed the plastic limit of the clays and, therefore, changed the geomechanical behaviour of the claystone in the
foundation of the lining.
• The failure is attributed to the collapse of the foundation material after the water content increase, which significantly reduced the bearing capacity of the claystone. A generalized plasticization of the clays induced a strength loss and the shear failure of the ground at the ribs foundation level.
• The mineralogy of the clays, the degree of cementation and the microtexture could also have influenced the increase of the water absorption and reduced the geomechanical behaviour of the claystone.”)];
“and step 4: conducting, based on the extracted numerical simulation results and the degree of influence of each factor on the tunnel and the stratum, deformation-related quantitative calculation on factors affecting the tunnel deformation using a statistical analysis method of grey relational analysis-entropy evaluation method” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 461, right col., 1st – 4th paragraph, “A summary of the accumulated values obtained for the
crown deformation in the Studies 2–10, is presented in the Table 5.
In Table 5 and in Fig. 14 it is evident how the deformations increment are low until Study 5, with an almost linear tendency in the six phases of excavation and support. In Study 5, the deformations in the crown slightly increase after the support phase of the left blasting (phase 4). After Study 6, the deformations dramatically increase, reaching destabilization during the bench excavation, in Studies 8 and 9. In Study 10, the excavation phase is still stable, but the failure arises during the support phase.
Considering the parametric study performed, it can be stated that the parameters of Study 10 are representative of the material of Ampurda´n claystone formation (MA) in weathered conditions, as they allowed reproducing the deformations measured in situ after the tunnel failure. These parameters are summarized in Table 6.
Comparing the values presented in Table 6, considered representative of the in situ materials properties at the time of the tunnel failure (Study 10), with the intact pre-failure
parameters assumed in the finite element simulation (Study 2), they correspond to reduce the initial values to 69 %in the apparent density and in the effective friction angle, to 12 %in
effective cohesion and to 4 % in the Young’s modulus.”, Table 5, Figs. 12 and 13)];
“sorting a relevancy degree of each factor to the deformation of the shallow buried unsymmetrical loading tunnel section of the tunnel to obtain main influence factors in tunnel deformation, and determining quantitative influence of each factor on tunnel deformation.” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 461, right col., 1st – 4th paragraph, “A summary of the accumulated values obtained for the crown deformation in the Studies 2–10, is presented in the Table 5.
In Table 5 and in Fig. 14 it is evident how the deformations increment are low until Study 5, with an almost linear tendency in the six phases of excavation and support. In Study 5, the deformations in the crown slightly increase after the support phase of the left blasting (phase 4). After Study 6, the deformations dramatically increase, reaching destabilization during the bench excavation, in Studies 8 and 9. In Study 10, the excavation phase is still stable, but the failure arises during the support phase.
Considering the parametric study performed, it can be stated that the parameters of Study 10 are representative of the material of Ampurda´n claystone formation (MA) in weathered conditions, as they allowed reproducing the deformations measured in situ after the tunnel failure. These parameters are summarized in Table 6.
Comparing the values presented in Table 6, considered representative of the in situ materials properties at the time of the tunnel failure (Study 10), with the intact pre-failure
parameters assumed in the finite element simulation (Study 2), they correspond to reduce the initial values to 69 %in the apparent density and in the effective friction angle, to 12 %in
effective cohesion and to 4 % in the Young’s modulus.”, Table 5, Figs. 12, 13 and 14, As shown in Table 5 and Fig. 14 of the Alija et al. reference, the increments of the deformations of the tunnel are shown in different studies. It shows that the parameters of Study 10 represent the material of the Ampurda´n claystone formation. The examiner considers the sorting to be determining which study has deformations that are representative of the failure of the Ampurda´n tunnel)];
With respect to claim 2, Alija et al. discloses “wherein in step 1, the monitoring content at the tunnel site comprises required monitoring items and optional monitoring items, the required monitoring items comprise observation inside and outside a tunnel, ground surface settlement, vault settlement and horizontal convergence during tunnel construction” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 453, left col., 2nd paragraph, “To control and verify the stress and strain conditions, a surveillance system was implemented to ensure an early detection of the tunnel behaviour.”, Alija et al. Pg. 453, right col., Instrumentation of the tunnel, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “In the NATM, appropriate auscultation and systematic control of the excavation works and support is essential, requiring the implementation of geometric and topographical monitoring, the measurement of convergences and the auscultation of cross sections. Geometric and topographical monitoring was based on external triangulation and the constant checking of the internal position of the tunnel axis and on the layout of the support elements. The convergence measurements inside the tunnel were controlled in sections equipped with two bolts in the sidewalls for the use of strain gauge tape and a topographic target in the crown. This allowed the control of relative movements in the sidewalls, and absolute movements in
the crown.”, Fig. 3, The examiner considers the crown to be the vault settlement, since the vault settlement is the crown of a tunnel)];
“and the optional monitoring items comprise internal force measurement for a steel arch, a seepage pressure, a surrounding rock pressure of the tunnel and axial force of an anchor bolt.” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 453, left col., 5th paragraph, “The main section of the tunnel was identified as type S-III. In this section, the excavation would take place by passes of 0.5–1.0 m. The support would be based on a 5 cm sealing of shotcrete reinforced with fibres, heavy HEB-160 steel ribs and shotcrete reinforced with fibres 30 cm thick (excluding the 5 cm sealing). The excavation would be done by subphases with passes of 1.0–2.0 m extending the support as the excavation progresses.”, Alija et al. Pg. 453, right col., 1st paragraph, “The portals section (S–E) was considered to be of ‘‘heavy’’ type, being in a superficial zone, more weathered and decompressed than the interior of the groundmass, due to the previous excavation of the portal slopes and to the reduced tunnel overburden. The proposed S–E section consists of a heavy umbrella of micropiles 20 m long, 150 mm drill diameter, spaced 0.5 m between their axes and reinforced with steel pipes 110 mm diameter, 8 mm thick and filled with mortar. The sequence of excavation and support for this section would be similar to that of the S-III with the difference that the steel ribs placed below the umbrella would be of type HEB-180.”, Alija et al. Pg. 453, left col., 2nd paragraph, “To control and verify the stress and strain conditions, a surveillance system was implemented to ensure an early detection of the tunnel behaviour.”, Alija et al. Pg. 458, left col., 1st bullet “• The failure is attributed to the collapse of the foundation material after the water content increase, which significantly reduced the bearing capacity of the claystone. A generalized plasticization of the clays induced a strength loss and the shear failure of the ground at the ribs foundation level.”, The examiner considers the collapse of the foundation material after the water content increase to be the seepage pressure, since seepage pressure is pressure exerted by water on soil particles)];
With respect to claim 5, Alija et al. discloses “wherein in step 2, a whole process of tunnel construction is reproduced using the finite element numerical simulation software, three-dimensional inversion of a collapse accident occurring during tunnel construction is carried out, and in combination with data simulation and cause analysis, a whole process of tunnel deformation and surrounding rock failure accompanying the tunnel collapse is determined.” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 458, Finite element simulation, 2nd -4th paragraph “In order to simulate the failure conditions, several attempts were made to run tests under conditions similar to those responsible for the failure, but due to the high weatherability of the claystone, the samples disintegrated in the presence of water, preventing the execution of the tests. Faced with the impossibility to do reliable laboratory tests, it was decided to use a finite elements model program to do a parametric study and thus to determine the evolution of the geotechnical parameters during the claystone weathering process. The stresses and strains induced by the
excavation, as well as the identification of the variables that may had greater incidence in their development, could be inferred by the finite element model. The determination of the geotechnical parameters dependent on weathering is also vital for a suitable design of the construction procedures and the support solutions.
To compute the tunnel’s elastoplasticity a numerical simulation was used. The models were computed using the finite elements method based on the bi-dimensional PLAXIS software of the company PLAXIS B.V, considering the ground as a continuum space (Brinkgreve 2004). Finite element models can be plane strain or axisymmetric.
In this case, since it could be assumed a uniform cross section, having uniform stress conditions and loads along the tunnel (direction z), flat deformation models (plane strain) were considered. Triangular elements of 15 nodes were used to model the tunnel, providing a fourth order interpolation for the displacements, and the numerical integration embraced 12 Gauss points (evaluation stress points).”, Alija et al. (Pg. 458, right col., last paragraph, “The study of the tunnel’s behaviour related to the variation of these properties was the basis for the parametric study to determine the causes of the tunnel failure. The geotechnical parameters initially used in the calculation for the materials crossed by the Ampurda´n tunnel are presented in Table 3.”, Alija et al. (Pg. 459, left col., 1st paragraph, “As section C-5 presented the largest deformation when the tunnel collapsed, it was chosen for the calculations. In this section, the tunnel overburden is around 30 m. The support parameters for the modelling have been adapted according to those corresponding to section type S-III. The advance line was considered at a height of 6.0 m being the excavation and support phases analysed according to the implementation of the works: top heading advance in one phase with 1 m passes, and bench demolition in two phases with 2 m passes.”, Table 3”, The finite element method based on the bi-dimensional PLAXIS software simulates the deformation of the Ampurda´n tunnel, where the behavior of properties of the tunnel are studied to determine the causes of the tunnel failure.)];
With respect to claim 6, Alija et al. discloses “wherein in step 3, the factors affecting tunnel deformation and surrounding rock instability comprise an over-excavation height” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 459, left col., “As section C-5 presented the largest deformation when the tunnel collapsed, it was chosen for the calculations. In this section, the tunnel overburden is around 30 m. The support parameters for the modelling have been adapted according to those corresponding to section type S-III. The advance line was considered at a height of 6.0 m being the excavation and support phases analysed according to the implementation of the works: top heading advance in one phase with 1 m passes, and bench demolition in two phases with 2 m passes.”, The examiner considers the height of 6 meters to be the over-excavation height, since this is the depth for protective and fall prevention measures)];
“a displacement distance of a face and an elastic modulus of surrounding rock” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 460, left col., 3rd paragraph, “Based on the previous assumptions, it was concluded that the values for the Young’s modulus obtained in the pressure meter tests could be closer to the real values of the material under natural conditions. Thus, taking into account the routine geotechnical correlations used in the study phases, it could be considered that for a deformation modulus of 200 MPa, a value of 100 kPa for the effective cohesion and of 35_ for the effective friction angle could be acceptable (Jime´nez Salas et al. 1976; Justo Alpan˜es 1968). A new modelling study (Study 2: modified initial situation) was undertaken using these last parameters. In this study, phase 6 of support of the right bench can be reached with acceptable results of 10 mm maximum accumulated displacement in the sidewalls, and 14 mm in the crown. Once the initial situation model was determined to correspond to the real conditions of the tunnel before the subsidence processes, the reduction in the geotechnical characteristics of the materials that gave rise to the tunnel subsidence was done. The parameters considered the most relevant, are the following:
• Secant elastic modulus: E50
• Effective cohesion: cl
• Internal friction angle: ϕ’
• Apparent density: ρ”, The examiner considers the displacement of the sidewalls and the crown to be the displacement distance a face and an elastic modulus of surrounding rock, since the surrounding rock surrounds the sidewalls and the crown of the tunnel.)];
“and different gradients are set for the over-excavation height, the displacement distance of a face and the elastic modulus of surrounding rock when analysis is conducted according to a control variate method.” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 458, right col., last paragraph, “The study of the tunnel’s behaviour related to the variation of these properties was the basis for the parametric study to determine the causes of the tunnel failure. The geotechnical parameters initially used in the calculation for the materials crossed by the Ampurda´n tunnel are presented
in Table 3.”, The examiner considers the variation of the properties of the tunnel to be the different gradients of the over-excavation height, the displacement distance of a face and the elastic modulus of surrounding rock, since these properties go into the construction of the tunnel.)];
With respect to claim 7, Alija et al. discloses “wherein in step 3, said determining the degree of influence of each factor on the tunnel and the stratum specifically comprises taking ground surface settlement, a middle rock wall between the neighborhood tunnel and tunnel deformation as a judgment basis” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 453, right col., Instrumentation of the tunnel, 2nd – 3rd paragraph, “The convergence measurements inside the tunnel were controlled in sections equipped with two bolts in the sidewalls for the use of strain gauge tape and a topographic target in the crown. This allowed the control of relative movements in the sidewalls, and absolute movements in the crown.
In auscultation cross sections, the control elements are (Fig. 3):
• Total pressure cells: three units arranged between the support and the permanent lining in the crown and sidewalls.
• Rod strain gauges: three units installed in the crown and sidewalls. Each strain gauge comprised three rods of 2, 4 and 6 m in length, measured from the inner side of the support.
obtaining deformation curves under different working conditions”, Fig. 3)];
“extracting and summarizing data of ground surface deformation and tunnel deformation to obtain rules of responses of different factors to the tunnel and stratum, and obtaining characteristic values of each factor.” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 458, right col., 1st paragraph, “In this case, since it could be assumed a uniform cross section, having uniform stress conditions and loads along the tunnel (direction z), flat deformation models (plane strain) were considered. Triangular elements of 15 nodes were used to model the tunnel, providing a fourth order interpolation for the displacements, and the numerical integration embraced 12 Gauss points (evaluation stress points).”, Alija et al. Pg. 460, left col., 3rd paragraph, “Based on the previous assumptions, it was concluded that the values for the Young’s modulus obtained in the pressure meter tests could be closer to the real values of the material under natural conditions. Thus, taking into account the routine geotechnical correlations used in the study phases, it could be considered that for a deformation modulus of 200 MPa, a value of 100 kPa for the effective cohesion and of 35° for the effective friction angle could be acceptable (Jime´nez Salas et al. 1976; Justo Alpan˜es 1968). A new modelling study (Study 2: modified initial situation) was undertaken using these last parameters. In this study, phase 6 of support of the right bench can be reached with acceptable results of 10 mm maximum accumulated displacement in the sidewalls, and 14 mm in the crown. Once the initial situation model was determined to correspond to the real conditions of the tunnel before the subsidence processes, the reduction in the geotechnical characteristics of the materials that gave rise to the tunnel subsidence was done. The parameters considered the most relevant, are the following:
• Secant elastic modulus: E50
• Effective cohesion: cl
• Internal friction angle: ϕ’
• Apparent density: ρ”, Alija et al. Pg. 461, lefty col., 1st – 2nd paragraph, “In Study 9, the reduction in the ground parameters led to the failure of the tunnel in the bench excavation phase. At the end of phase 2 (support in top heading) the deformations surrounding the tunnel were very high, particularly in the floor, next to the sidewalls, reaching deformations around 260 mm.
Considering values representative of a cohesive material of soft consistency, that were used in Study 10, the excavation of the top heading (phase 1) is close to failure. The floor deforms 95 mm into the tunnel, while the crown drops about 20 mm. During the support of the top heading, the tunnel collapse was produced. Figure 13 presents the deformations towards the interior of the tunnel, reaching 800 mm in the crown, and in the floor in the foundation area of the ribs, reached 1,430 mm.”, Table 5, Figs. 12 and 13)];
With respect to claim 8, Alija et al. discloses “wherein in step 4, said conducting deformation-related quantitative calculation specifically comprises taking tunnel vault deformation and horizontal convergence as a judgment basis” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 461, right col., 1st – 4th paragraph, “A summary of the accumulated values obtained for the crown deformation in the Studies 2–10, is presented in the Table 5.
In Table 5 and in Fig. 14 it is evident how the deformations increment are low until Study 5, with an almost linear tendency in the six phases of excavation and support. In Study 5, the deformations in the crown slightly increase after the support phase of the left blasting (phase 4). After Study 6, the deformations dramatically increase, reaching destabilization during the bench excavation, in Studies 8 and 9. In Study 10, the excavation phase is still stable, but the failure arises during the support phase.
Considering the parametric study performed, it can be stated that the parameters of Study 10 are representative of the material of Ampurda´n claystone formation (MA) in weathered conditions, as they allowed reproducing the deformations measured in situ after the tunnel failure. These parameters are summarized in Table 6.
Comparing the values presented in Table 6, considered representative of the in situ materials properties at the time of the tunnel failure (Study 10), with the intact pre-failure
parameters assumed in the finite element simulation (Study 2), they correspond to reduce the initial values to 69 %in the apparent density and in the effective friction angle, to 12 %in
effective cohesion and to 4 % in the Young’s modulus.”, The examiner considers the tunnel vault deformation to be the crown deformation, since the vault settlement is the crown of a tunnel)];
“calculating to obtain a relevancy degree of each factor to the tunnel deformation” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 461, right col., 1st – 4th paragraph, “A summary of the accumulated values obtained for the crown deformation in the Studies 2–10, is presented in the Table 5.
In Table 5 and in Fig. 14 it is evident how the deformations increment are low until Study 5, with an almost linear tendency in the six phases of excavation and support. In Study 5, the deformations in the crown slightly increase after the support phase of the left blasting (phase 4). After Study 6, the deformations dramatically increase, reaching destabilization during the bench excavation, in Studies 8 and 9. In Study 10, the excavation phase is still stable, but the failure arises during the support phase.
Considering the parametric study performed, it can be stated that the parameters of Study 10 are representative of the material of Ampurda´n claystone formation (MA) in weathered conditions, as they allowed reproducing the deformations measured in situ after the tunnel failure. These parameters are summarized in Table 6.
Comparing the values presented in Table 6, considered representative of the in situ materials properties at the time of the tunnel failure (Study 10), with the intact pre-failure
parameters assumed in the finite element simulation (Study 2), they correspond to reduce the initial values to 69 %in the apparent density and in the effective friction angle, to 12 %in
effective cohesion and to 4 % in the Young’s modulus.”, Table 5, Figs. 12 and 13)];
“and sorting the relevancy degree in a descending order.” as [Alija et al. (Pg. 461, right col., 1st – 4th paragraph, “A summary of the accumulated values obtained for the crown deformation in the Studies 2–10, is presented in the Table 5.
In Table 5 and in Fig. 14 it is evident how the deformations increment are low until Study 5, with an almost linear tendency in the six phases of excavation and support. In Study 5, the deformations in the crown slightly increase after the support phase of the left blasting (phase 4). After Study 6, the deformations dramatically increase, reaching destabilization during the bench excavation, in Studies 8 and 9. In Study 10, the excavation phase is still stable, but the failure arises during the support phase.
Considering the parametric study performed, it can be stated that the parameters of Study 10 are representative of the material of Ampurda´n claystone formation (MA) in weathered conditions, as they allowed reproducing the deformations measured in situ after the tunnel failure. These parameters are summarized in Table 6.
Comparing the values presented in Table 6, considered representative of the in situ materials properties at the time of the tunnel failure (Study 10), with the intact pre-failure
parameters assumed in the finite element simulation (Study 2), they correspond to reduce the initial values to 69 %in the apparent density and in the effective friction angle, to 12 %in
effective cohesion and to 4 % in the Young’s modulus.”, Table 5, Figs. 12, 13 and 14, As shown in Table 5 and Fig. 14 of the Alija et al. reference, the increments of the deformations of the tunnel are shown in different studies. It shows that the parameters of Study 10 represent the material of the Ampurda´n claystone formation. The examiner considers the sorting to be determining which study has deformations that are representative of the failure of the Ampurda´n tunnel)];
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alija et al. in
view of Lin et al. (WO 2020228380).
With respect to claim 3, Alija et al. discloses the method of claim 1.
While Alija et al. teaches conducting a deformation-related quantitative calculation on factors affecting the tunnel deformation, Alija et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein in step 1, when the monitoring data of the tunnel site are collected, analyzed, concluded and summarized, based on an advanced geological forecast, proportions of surrounding rock at grade III, surrounding rock at grade IV and surrounding rock at grade V at a tunnel face are determined, and mechanism summarization and characteristic analysis are conducted with tunnel deformation data of the surrounding rock at different grades to determine different deformation stages of surrounding rock of a tunnel.”
Lin et al. discloses “wherein in step 1, when the monitoring data of the tunnel site are collected, analyzed, concluded and summarized, based on an advanced geological forecast, proportions of surrounding rock at grade III, surrounding rock at grade IV and surrounding rock at grade V at a tunnel face are determined” as [Lin et al. (Pg. 8, 6th - 7th paragraph, “The protruding degree prediction device of the tunnel face analyzes the protruding degree of the tunnel face axis at each time point, and predicts the protrusion speed of the tunnel face axis and the maximum protrusion degree of the tunnel face;
Of course, the tunnel face protrusion degree prediction algorithm is stored in the tunnel face protrusion degree prediction device. The algorithm for predicting the axis protrusion speed and the protrusion degree of the tunnel face can be a Gaussian process regression algorithm or a BP neural network algorithm. Through the above two optimization algorithms, it is possible to predict the axis protrusion speed of the tunnel face and the maximum protrusion degree of the tunnel face. The forecast data is automatically transferred to the data storage module.”, Lin et al. Pg. 8, 11th paragraph, “The threshold analyzer is placed on the vehicle body, and the initial threshold of the protrusion degree of the tunnel face is set according to the grade of the surrounding rock. The initial threshold of grade I surrounding rock is A0, and the initial threshold of grade II to III surrounding rock is B0, Ⅳ～Ⅴ The initial threshold of grade-class surrounding rock is C0 (A0﹤B0﹤C0)”)];
“and mechanism summarization and characteristic analysis are conducted with tunnel deformation data of the surrounding rock at different grades to determine different deformation stages of surrounding rock of a tunnel.” As [Lin et al. Pg. 8, 11th paragraph, “The threshold analyzer is placed on the vehicle body, and the initial threshold of the protrusion degree of the tunnel face is set according to the grade of the surrounding rock. The initial threshold of grade I surrounding rock is A0, and the initial threshold of grade II to III surrounding rock is B0, Ⅳ～Ⅴ The initial threshold of grade-class surrounding rock is C0 (A0﹤B0﹤C0)”)];
Alija et al. and Lin et al. are analogous art because they are from the same
field endeavor of analyzing the deformation of a tunnel.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Alija et al. of conducting a deformation-related quantitative calculation on factors affecting the tunnel deformation by incorporating wherein in step 1, when the monitoring data of the tunnel site are collected, analyzed, concluded and summarized, based on an advanced geological forecast, proportions of surrounding rock at grade III, surrounding rock at grade IV and surrounding rock at grade V at a tunnel face are determined, and mechanism summarization and characteristic analysis are conducted with tunnel deformation data of the surrounding rock at different grades to determine different deformation stages of surrounding rock of a tunnel as taught by Lin et al. for the purpose of monitoring the deformation of a tunnel.
Alija et al. in view of Lin et al. teaches wherein in step 1, when the monitoring data of the tunnel site are collected, analyzed, concluded and summarized, based on an advanced geological forecast, proportions of surrounding rock at grade III, surrounding rock at grade IV and surrounding rock at grade V at a tunnel face are determined, and mechanism summarization and characteristic analysis are conducted with tunnel deformation data of the surrounding rock at different grades to determine different deformation stages of surrounding rock of a tunnel.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Lin et al. teaches that by using a vehicle-mounted tunnel collapse monitoring and early-warning system, the ability to predict the conditions such as the degree of protrusion of a tunnel face and the tunnel rock mass stability can be accomplished. This allows a way to give an early warning of an occurrence of a collapse of a tunnel (Lin et al. Abstract “The system can perform fully-automatic real-time monitoring, data analysis and prediction on conditions such as the degree of protrusion of a tunnel face, the tunnel rock mass stability and the like, so as to give an early warning of the occurrence of a collapse.”).
With respect to claim 4, Alija et al. discloses the method of claim 1.
While Alija et al. teaches conducting a deformation-related quantitative calculation on factors affecting the tunnel deformation, Alija et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein the deformation stages of surrounding rock of a tunnel are classified into a growth stage and a stabilization stage, and the growth stage is divided into a rapid growth stage and a slow growth stage”
Lin et al. discloses “wherein the deformation stages of surrounding rock of a tunnel are classified into a growth stage and a stabilization stage, and the growth stage is divided into a rapid growth stage and a slow growth stage.” as [Lin et al. (Pg. 4, 7th paragraph, “As an optional solution in one or more embodiments, the processor includes an early warning module that sets an initial threshold for the protrusion of the tunnel face according to the level of the surrounding rock. Or/and when the maximum protrusion of the tunnel face exceeds the set initial threshold, an alarm is issued.”, Lin et al. Pg. 8, 11th paragraph “The threshold analyzer is placed on the vehicle body, and the initial threshold of the protrusion degree of the tunnel face is set according to the grade of the surrounding rock. The initial threshold of grade I surrounding rock is A0, and the initial threshold of grade II to III surrounding rock is B0, Ⅳ～Ⅴ The initial threshold of grade-class surrounding rock is C0 (A0﹤B0﹤C0)”, Lin et al. Pg. 9, 9th paragraph “In some embodiments, the basic quality index BQ of surrounding rock can be used to determine the classification of surrounding rock”, The examiner considers the level of the surrounding rock to be the different stages of the surrounding rock, since the surrounding rock is different when it’s at different levels)];
Alija et al. and Lin et al. are analogous art because they are from the same
field endeavor of analyzing the deformation of a tunnel.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Alija et al. of conducting a deformation-related quantitative calculation on factors affecting the tunnel deformation by incorporating wherein the deformation stages of surrounding rock of a tunnel are classified into a growth stage and a stabilization stage, and the growth stage is divided into a rapid growth stage and a slow growth stage as taught by Lin et al. for the purpose of monitoring the deformation of a tunnel.
Alija et al. in view of Lin et al. teaches wherein the deformation stages of surrounding rock of a tunnel are classified into a growth stage and a stabilization stage, and the growth stage is divided into a rapid growth stage and a slow growth stage.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Lin et al. teaches that by using a vehicle-mounted tunnel collapse monitoring and early-warning system, the ability to predict the conditions such as the degree of protrusion of a tunnel face and the tunnel rock mass stability can be accomplished. This allows a way to give an early warning of an occurrence of a collapse of a tunnel (Lin et al. Abstract “The system can perform fully-automatic real-time monitoring, data analysis and prediction on conditions such as the degree of protrusion of a tunnel face, the tunnel rock mass stability and the like, so as to give an early warning of the occurrence of a collapse.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of online reference Tunnel failure mechanism during loading and unloading processes through physical model testing and DEM simulation, written by Xiang et al. is having a comparative analysis between the loading and unloading processes for the rock mass surrounding a tunnel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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 F 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights