DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Responsive to the communication dated 05/31/2023
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination
Priority
ADS dated 05/31/2023 claims priority to foreign application CN 202310332859.1 dated 03/31/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
There is no information disclosure statement provided and thus will not be considered.
Drawings
The drawings dated 05/31/2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 05/31/2023 has 90 words, 7 lines, and no legal phraseology. The abstract is accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “treating the rainwater in the mine wasteland based on the visual three-dimensional model”. It is recommended to be worded as “perform rainwater treatment in the mine wasteland based on the visual three-dimensional model”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a data collection module used for collecting rainwater data", "a data calculation module connected with the data collection module and used for extracting the parameters", "a model construction module connected with the data calculation module and used for constructing the visual three-dimensional model", "a processing module connected with the model construction module and used for treating the rainwater", " a rainwater collection unit used for acquiring the rainwater data", "an image acquisition unit used for acquiring the environmental image data", "a feature extraction unit used for extracting features", "a modeling unit used for establishing the mine three-dimensional model", " a data matching unit used for matching the rainwater parameters", " an anomaly acquisition unit used for acquiring rainwater storage positions”, “a rainwater treatment unit used for treating rainwater” in claims 6-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 and 6 recites the limitation "rainwater data" in “collecting rainwater data of the mine wasteland, and processing the rainwater data of the mine wasteland to generate rainwater data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined rainwater data in the claim as it could refer to the original data or newly generated data. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a different data set of rainwater.
Claim 1 and 6 recites the limitation "parameters" in “extracting parameters from the rainwater data to obtain rainwater parameters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as parameters could refer to the same rainwater parameters or different parameters entirely. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as reading: “extracting rainwater parameters from the rainwater data to obtain the rainwater parameters”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a total runoff" in “wherein the terrains and the total runoff of the mine wasteland are obtained based on measurement; and the rainwater parameters comprise a recoverable rainwater flow, an initial rainwater discharge quantity, a total runoff, rainwater collection parameters, a water pressure, a lift and flow parameters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as parameters could refer to the total runoff previously mentioned or new runoff. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as reading: “and the rainwater parameters comprise a recoverable rainwater flow, an initial rainwater discharge quantity, the total runoff, rainwater collection parameters, a water pressure, a lift and flow parameters”.
The term “rainwater collection parameters” in claim 3 is an unknown term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rainwater collection parameters” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the phrase, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase could comprise of a variety of quantity of rainwater, pH, temperature, or color. For the purposes of examination, the phrase will be considered under its plain language, a collection of rainwater (i.e., a quantity of rainwater).
The term “optimized regional target index” in claim 3 is an unknown term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimized regional target index” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the phrase, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase does not define what comprises or is understood to be an index for a region, nor what an optimization of said index is. For purposes of examination, the phrase will be considered to mean any value or number that is representative of a region.
The term “rainwater parameters comprise…a lift” in claim 3 is an unknown term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a lift” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the phrase, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Properties of water could be construed as "a lift" such as pressure, density, or proportions of density like buoyancy but none are explicitly a lift. As defined in
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 are subsequently rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) as they are dependent on claims 1 and 6.
Claim limitations "data collection module", "data calculation module", "model construction module", "processing module", "rainwater collection unit", "feature extraction unit", "image acquisition unit", "modeling unit", "data matching unit", "anomaly acquisition unit", "rainwater treatment unit" from claims 6-9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the instant specification, Paragraphs 79-98 were used to determine the corresponding structures for the limitations listed above. However, the description as provided are nearly exact copies of the limitations and provide no clear structure or materials for achieving the claims. At best, Paragraphs 84-88 describe a reservoir and various plants but does not clearly link a "module" or "unit" that comprise them. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As claims 6-9 were previously rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for lacking the corresponding structure in the instant specification, the claims are also necessarily rejected un.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A rainwater treatment method”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites, in pertinent part: “…applied to mine wasteland, comprising following steps: collecting rainwater data (i.e., observation of numerical values) of the mine wasteland, and processing the rainwater data (i.e., evaluating numerical values) of the mine wasteland to generate rainwater data ; extracting parameters from the rainwater data to obtain rainwater parameters (i.e., evaluating which numerical values to keep); constructing a mine three-dimensional model (i.e., a person can construct a visualization in the mind based on judgement or opinion of the observed data), and inputting the rainwater parameters (i.e., evaluating parameters based on observed data) into the mine three-dimensional model to generate a visual three-dimensional model (i.e., a person can construct a visualization in the mind); ” which is a recitation of a mental process or a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim recites: “treating the rainwater in the mine wasteland based on the visual three-dimensional model” which is interpreted as post-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not implement the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely recites the gathering of data, inserting data into a function to get an output, then using the output to select a treatment method. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activities with functional equivalents listed in the MPEP and therefore are well understood, routine and conventional. Indeed, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The rainwater treatment method applied to mine wasteland according to claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “…wherein a process of generating rainwater data comprises: acquiring rainfall data (i.e., observation of numerical values) of the mine wasteland based on sensors; acquiring environmental image data (i.e., observation of numerical values that represent an image) of the mine wasteland based on an unmanned aerial vehicle; and extracting features from the rainfall data and the environmental image data to generate the rainwater data (i.e., evaluating which numerical values to keep)” which is a recitation of mental process or otherwise mathematical concept.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites the elements “…based on sensors…” and “…based on an unmanned aerial vehicle…”, these features merely select a particular data source for numerical values to be gathered from. As such, these elements amount to insignificant pre-solution data gathering and are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely recites the gathering of data, specifying a source to gather the data from, then determining which values or combination of values to keep. These elements amount to insignificant pre-solution activities. Indeed, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55;
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The rainwater treatment method applied to mine wasteland according to claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “…wherein a process of acquiring the rainwater parameters comprises: acquiring optimized regional target index (i.e., observing a numerical value) based on terrains and a total runoff of the mine wasteland; acquiring rainwater collection parameters based on the rainwater data (i.e., observing a numerical value from the data); generating the rainwater parameters based on the optimized regional target index and the rainwater collection parameters (i.e., evaluating a value from other values); ” which is a recitation of mental process or otherwise mathematical concept.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites the elements “…based on terrains and total runoff…” and “…terrains and the total runoff…are obtained based on measurement …”, these features merely select a particular data source for numerical values to be gathered from. As such, these elements amount to insignificant pre-solution data gathering and are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element of “the rainwater parameters comprise a recoverable rainwater flow, an initial rainwater discharge quantity, a total runoff, rainwater collection parameters, a water pressure, a lift and flow parameters” merely specifies the type of numerical values to be outputted after the judicial exception. As such it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and is not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely recites the gathering of data, specifying a source to gather the data from, then determining which values or combination of values to keep. These elements amount to insignificant pre-solution activities. Indeed, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The rainwater treatment method applied to mine wasteland according to claim 1”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “…wherein a process of generating the visual three-dimensional model comprises: establishing a mine building information model (BIM) three-dimensional model (i.e., a person can construct a visualization in the mind based on judgement or opinion of the observed data); and matching the rainwater parameters with the mine BIM three-dimensional model (i.e., evaluating which values to input into the model) to obtain the visual three-dimensional model” which is a recitation of mental process of evaluating which numerical values to retain.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, the establishment of a BIM for a mine to conduct further analysis of a subject (i.e., rainwater) is also well understood, routine and conventional as outlined in Wenjing_2021 (“With the promotion of BIM in mine engineering construction (Song et al., 2019; Yanglong, 2015), the construction of a mine working information model has also been considered. In this study, the mine working information model was constructed via a thorough analysis of physical and functional information. The correlation between information and 3D visual representation of physical entities relevant to mine working was also discussed”).
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The rainwater treatment method applied to mine wasteland according to claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “…wherein a process of treating the rainwater in the mine wasteland based on the visual three-dimensional model comprises: ” which lists additional extra-solution elements to claim 1 and inherits the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The additional elements of “installing a liquid level sensor” and “constructing a reservoir to obtain rainwater” amount to insignificant post-solution activities since they are mentioned in such a high level of generality that it does not explain how the visual 3D model, obtained from the judicial exception, is used to install the level sensor and reservoir. Essentially, they are additional activities that impart tangentially related limitations to the invention and therefore do not amount to meaningfully more. Importantly, these elements also do not amount to the use of a particular machine. As claimed, the level sensor and reservoir do not meaningfully contribute to the process of “treating the rainwater” other than simply existing; at best, the reservoir contributes nominally to holding the rainwater which is not indicative of a practical application.
While the claim recites “treating the rainwater to be treated based on a separated rainwater processor to obtain purified rainwater” such limitations are not indicative of a practical application because these elements amount to post-solution activity. Importantly, these elements do not amount to a particular machine since a “separated rainwater processor” is a general description of a water processor. Therefore, “based on” amounts to insignificant application (See MPEP 2105.05(g)) and does not implement the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim is an insignificant pre-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the inventive concept.
Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A rainwater treatment system applied to mine wasteland”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “comprising: collecting rainwater data (i.e., observation of numerical values) of the mine wasteland, and processing the rainwater data (i.e., evaluating numerical values) of the mine wasteland to generate a rainwater data set; extracting the parameters (i.e., mathematical calculation to alter the values) from the rainwater data to obtain the rainwater parameters; constructing the visual three-dimensional model based on the rainwater parameters(i.e., a person can construct a visualization in the mind based on judgement or opinion of the observed data); ” which is a recitation of further mathematical relationship, formulas, equations, or calculations.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 and does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim recites: “treating the rainwater in the mine wasteland based on the visual three-dimensional model” which is interpreted as post-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not implement the judicial exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites elements like “a data collection module”, “data calculation module”, “model construction module”, and a “processing module” these modules, at best, refer to the use of a generic computer and is not indicative of a practical application because these are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and the mere use of a generic computer is not a practical application. (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. These elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activities with functional equivalents listed in the MPEP and therefore are well understood, routine and conventional. Indeed, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
As outlined above the claim, at best, merely recites a computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea but merely using a generic computer does not make an improvement to the functioning of the computer and the recited computer is a generalized one and is therefore not a particular machine. This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The rainwater treatment system applied to mine wasteland according to claim 6”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “acquiring the rainwater data (i.e., observing numerical values) of the mine wasteland; acquiring the environmental image data (i.e., observing numerical values representing an image) of the mine wasteland; extracting features from the rainfall data and the environmental image data to generate a rainwater data set (i.e., evaluating which values to keep)” which is a recitation of mental process of evaluating which numerical values to retain.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim recites limitations similar to claim 2 and does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites elements like “image acquisition unit” and “feature extraction unit” these modules, at best, refer to the use of a generic computer and is not indicative of a practical application because these are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and the mere use of a generic computer is not a practical application. (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
STEP 2B: NO. As outlined above the claim, at best, merely recites a computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea but merely using a generic computer does not make an improvement to the functioning of the computer and the recited computer is a generalized one and is therefore not a particular machine. This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The rainwater treatment system applied to mine wasteland according to claim 6”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “wherein the model construction module comprises: (i.e., a person can construct a visualization in the mind based on judgement or opinion of the observed data); matching the rainwater parameters with the mine BIM three-dimensional model (i.e., evaluating which values to input into the model) to obtain the visual three-dimensional model” which is a recitation of mental process of evaluating which numerical values to retain.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim recites limitations similar to claim 4 and does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites elements like “modeling unit” and “data matching unit” these modules, at best, refer to the use of a generic computer and is not indicative of a practical application because these are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and the mere use of a computer is not a practical application. (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above the claim merely recites a computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea but merely using a computer does not make an improvement to the functioning of the computer and the recited computer is a generalized one and is therefore not a particular machine. This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The rainwater treatment system applied to mine wasteland according to claim 6”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “wherein the processing module comprises: acquiring rainwater storage positions (i.e., observing three numerical coordinates) of the mine wasteland and acquiring a water storage area to be treated (i.e., evaluating a location to choose); ” which is a recitation of mental process of evaluating which coordinate values should be the location.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim recites limitations similar to claim 5 and does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites elements like “anomaly acquisition unit” this, at best, refer to the use of a generic computer and is not indicative of a practical application because these are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and the mere use of a computer is not a practical application. (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
The additional element of “rainwater treatment unit” does not amount to a particular machine as it is so general as to encompass entirely different machines (i.e., a simple paper filter, UV light, reverse osmosis). Therefore; these elements do not amount to implementations into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above the claim merely recites a computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea but merely using a computer does not make an improvement to the functioning of the computer and the recited computer is a generalized one and is therefore not a particular machine. This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
(1) Claim(s) 1, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu_2020 (2020 Estimating dewatering in an underground mine by using a 3D finite element model. PLoS ONE) in view of Chai_2020 (US 2023/0416129 A.
Claims 1 and 6. Claims 1 and 6 are substantially similar.
Hu_2020 teaches “A rainwater treatment method applied to mine wasteland, comprising following steps: collecting rainwater data (Hu_2020 page 7 “Precipitation observational data are monitored by DRC Huakan Geological Services Co., Ltd. Groundwater abstractions from different mines”) of the mine wasteland (Hu_2020 Abstract “Groundwater inflow to an underground mine will seriously affect its mining plan and engineering geology safety.”), and processing the rainwater data of the mine wasteland to generate rainwater data (Hu_2020 page 4 “The average annual precipitation from 1979 to 2017 is approximately 1144.90 mm and the average annual evaporation is approximately 1860.00 mm. The maximum annual precipitation is 1826.00 mm (in 1986), and the minimum annual precipitation is 803.50 mm (in 1993).” NOTE: “to generate” amounts to intended use and may not have patentable weight.); extracting parameters from the rainwater data to obtain rainwater parameters (Hu_2020 page 7 “In the model, the infiltration recharge rate is calculated by multiplying the annual average precipitation infiltration by the infiltration coefficient”); constructing a mine three-dimensional model (Hu_2020 page 5 “This study collects much data, such as precipitation, river runoff, groundwater level and the results of pumping tests, and constructs a three-dimensional groundwater flow model in an area of interest with a 3D geology model used to aid in the prediction of the dewatering of underground mines.”), and inputting the (Hu_2020 page 8 “The refined 3D geological model in the area of interest is produced using borehole data; the breccia zone is separately described in the geology model…Fig 5 shows the detailed zonation of hydrogeological parameters at the regional (Fig 5A and 5B) and local (Fig 5C and 5D) scales.” NOTE: Figure 5 is a visual of the generated 3D model)”.
While Hu_2020 teaches dewatering mines using a visual 3D model, Hu_2020 does not explicitly teach “treating” the water “based on the visual three-dimensional model”.
Chai_2022; however, teaches “treating the rainwater bioretention pond for rainwater treatment");
Hu_2020 and Chai_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called water management. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hu_2020 and Chai_2022. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the 3D visual modeling and water removal process taught by Hu_2020 with the water retention and treatment pond of Chai_2022 because of the inexpensive denitrification of rainwater caused by the bioretention pond (Chai_2022 par 5).
Claim 3. Additionally, Hu_2020 teaches the further limitations of “wherein a process of acquiring the rainwater parameters comprises: acquiring optimized regional target index (page 6: “information about the seasonal Dilala River and the Luilu River is collected, and it is assumed that groundwater gains the recharge from the rivers and the infiltration rate is estimated by 5 to 10% of the runoff in this study”) based on terrains (page 4: “The overall terrain is high in the south and low in the north, with varying elevations from 1250 m to 1550 m”) and a total runoff of the mine wasteland (page 4: “During the dry season, the measured runoff of the Dilala River on the east side of the mine area is about 0.085 m3/s.”); acquiring rainwater collection parameters (page 4:“The average annual precipitation from 1979 to 2017 is approximately 1144.90 mm and the average annual evaporation is approximately 1860.00 mm.”) based on the rainwater data (page 7: “Precipitation observational data are monitored by DRC Huakan Geological Services Co., Ltd.”); generating the rainwater parameters (page 4: “In the model, the infiltration recharge rate is calculated by multiplying the annual average precipitation infiltration by the infiltration coefficient”) based on the optimized regional target index (page 6: “information about the seasonal Dilala River and the Luilu River is collected, and it is assumed that groundwater gains the recharge from the rivers and the infiltration rate is estimated by 5 to 10%”) and the rainwater collection parameters (page 4:“The average annual precipitation from 1979 to 2017 is approximately 1144.90 mm and the average annual evaporation is approximately 1860.00 mm.”); wherein the terrains and the total runoff (page 4: “The overall terrain is high in the south and low in the north, with varying elevations from 1250 m to 1550 m …During the dry season, the measured runoff of the Dilala River on the east side of the mine area is about 0.085 m3/s.”) of the mine wasteland are obtained based on measurement (page 4: “The overall terrain is high in the south and low in the north, with varying elevations from 1250 m to 1550 m…During the dry season, the measured runoff of the Dilala River on the east side of the mine area is about 0.085 m3/s.”); and the rainwater parameters comprise a recoverable rainwater flow (page 19: “The model mainly uses the infiltration from precipitation in the dry season to estimate groundwater recharge”), an initial rainwater discharge quantity (page 17: “The precipitation is 1952 mm/year and 1200 mm/year for wet season and normal season, respectively”) a total runoff (page 4 “During the dry season, the measured runoff of the Dilala River on the east side of the mine area is about 0.085 m3/s.”), rainwater collection parameters (page 4:“The average annual precipitation from 1979 to 2017 is approximately 1144.90 mm and the average annual evaporation is approximately 1860.00 mm.”), a water pressure (page 17 “The dewatering activities will alter the water pressure conditions”), a lift and flow parameters (page 19 “the precipitation in wet years has different effects on the change of groundwater flow.”).”
(2) Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu_2020 (2020 Estimating dewatering in an underground mine by using a 3D finite element model. PLoS ONE) in view of Chai_2020 (US 2023/0416129 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kleinmann_2007 (Prediction of Water Quality at Surface Coal Mines 2007) in view of Nizami_2020 (US 2020/0074023 A1)
Claim 2. Hu_2020 and Chai_2021 teach the method according to claim 1. Hu_2020 and Chai_2021 does not teach “a process of generating rainwater data comprises: acquiring rainfall data of the mine wasteland based on sensors; acquiring environmental image data
Kleinmann_2007; however, teaches the further limitations of “a process of generating rainwater data comprises: acquiring rainfall data of the mine wasteland based on sensors (Kleinmann_2007 page 130: “Field tests can be divided into three basic types, all of which mimic column tests: 1) small tubs or barrels …The units are then allowed to weather under natural rainfall conditions, and the effluent or leachate is collected after each rainfall event.”; page 131: “The wooden tubs are lined with plastic and an outflow/discharge pipe is incorporated into the base. The leachate is diverted to a collection device. Large tanks have also been used. Rainfall must be monitored as well as volume of leachate collected.”);”
Hu_2020 and Chai_2022 and Kleinmann_2007 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called underground mine water removal. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hu_2020 and Kleinmann_2007. The rationale for doing so would have been that Hu_2020 teaches the collection, modeling, and removal of water (including rainwater) from underground mines. Kleinmann_2007 teaches methods to estimate pollutants (i.e., acidity, heavy metals) from water collected from surface mines using a variety of methods (including 3d modeling) for treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the water removal estimation method taught by Hu_2020 with the pollutant estimation method taught by Kleinmann_2007 for the benefit of predicting water quality from underground mines (Kleinmann 2007 page 2 par 4).
While Hu_2020 and Chai_2022 and Kleinmann_2007 it does not explicitly teach using an “unmanned aerial vehicle”.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nizami_2020; however, teaches “acquiring environmental image data (Nizami_2020 par 53 “Examples of field data 106 include… (i) imagery data (for example, imagery and light spectrum information from an agricultural apparatus sensor, camera, computer, smartphone, tablet, unmanned aerial vehicle, planes or satellite)”); and extracting features from the rainfall data and the environmental image data to generate the rainwater data (Nizami_2020 par 53: “ Examples of field data 106 include…(h) weather data (for example, precipitation, rainfall rate, predicted rainfall, water runoff rate region, temperature, wind, forecast, pressure, visibility, clouds, heat index, dew point, humidity, snow depth, air quality, sunrise, sunset)”; fig 7 elements 708 and 718)”.
Hu_2020 and Chai_2022 and Kleinmann_2007 and Nizami_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called geologic mapping of landforms. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kleinmann_2007 and Nizami_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Kleinmann_2007 teaches using three-dimensional modeling for surface mines (Kleinmann_2007 page 161). Nizami_2020 teaches gathering geometry data for a field from unmanned aerial vehicles to use to model the field (Nizami_2020 abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the mine modeling taught by Kleinmann_2007 with the geometric data gathering method of Nizami_2020 because of a “need for a tool...to generate a subfield-based soil moisture model for a high-granularity topographical map” (Nizami_2020 par [0008]) .
(3) Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu_2020 (2020 Estimating dewatering in an underground mine by using a 3D finite element model. PLoS ONE) in view of Chai_2020 (US 2023/0416129 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wenjing_2021 (Information modeling of mine working based on BIM technology, Wuhan University 2021).
Claims 4 and 8. Claims 4 and 8 are substantially similar.
Hu_2020 and Chai_2022 teaches three-dimensional modeling of a mine with visual representations and combines it with information of the mine (i.e., groundwater conditions, rock compositions) which may properly imply to one of ordinary skill in the art the notion of a mining information model (i.e., a building information model for mines), Hu_2020 and Chai_2022 does not explicitly teach “a mine building information model three-dimensional model”.
Wenjing_2021; however, teaches “wherein a process of generating the visual three-dimensional model comprises: establishing a mine building information model (BIM) three-dimensional model (page 2: "With the promotion of BIM in mine engineering construction (Song et al., 2019; Yanglong, 2015), the construction of a mine working information model has also been considered. In this study, the mine working information model was constructed via a thorough analysis of physical and functional information."); and matching the rainwater parameters with the mine BIM three-dimensional model to obtain the visual three-dimensional model (page 2: “The correlation between information and 3D visual representation of physical entities relevant to mine working was also discussed”).
Hu_2020 and Chai_2022 and Wenjing_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called three-dimensional modeling of mines. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hu_2020 and Wenjing_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been Hu_2020 teaches combining geological data with 3D data to create a 3D geology model (Hu_2020 page 8). Wenjing_2021 teaches using BIM technology to act as a data standard for mine data to increase efficiency in mine management (Wenjing_2021 page 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the geological and 3D data from Hu_2020 with the BIM technology in Wenjing_2021 to “increase efficiency of mine management” (Wenjing_2021 page 2 par 2).
(4) Claim(s) 5, 9 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu_2020 (2020 Estimating dewatering in an underground mine by using a 3D finite element model. PLoS ONE) in view of Chai_2020 (US 2023/0416129 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kleinmann_2007 (Prediction of Water Quality at Surface Coal Mines 2007).
Claim 5. Claim 9 is substantially the same as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Additionally, Chai_2022 teaches the further limitations of “constructing a reservoir to obtain rainwater to be treated (Interpreted in view of paragraphs [0075-0077] of the specification as submitted; Fig 1 depicts a bioretention pond that holds rainwater to be treated; Abstract "A bioretention pond for rainwater treatment"); and treating the rainwater to be treated based on a separated rainwater processor (par 27: "During a light rain, the rainwater runoff flows along the gravel drainage ditch 11 and the filter plate 6 successively, and then enter the overflow weir 5. The gravel drainage ditch 11 separates large particles from the rainwater runoff and the filter plate 6 filters out small particles, such as plastic and fallen leaves, to allow a smooth flow of the water in the layered substrate.") to obtain purified rainwater (par 27: “The purified runoff is then discharged into the rainwater pipeline through the perforated pipe 7”).
Hu_2020 and Chai_2022 does not teach “wherein a process of treating the rainwater in the mine wasteland based on the visual three-dimensional model comprises: installing a liquid level sensor based on the visual three-dimensional model”
Kleinmann_2007; however, teaches the further limitations of “wherein a process of treating the rainwater in the mine wasteland based on the visual three-dimensional model comprises: installing a liquid level sensor based on the visual three-dimensional model” (page 207: “Static water level in wells should be measured as specified in the QA/QC plan. The most common methods use a chalked steel measuring tape or an electronic water level (conductivity sensing) probe with a visual or audible indicator attached to a graduated wire cord.)”
Hu_2020 and Chai_2022 and Kleinmann_2007 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called underground mine water removal. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hu_2020 and Kleinmann_2007. The rationale for doing so would have been that Hu_2020 teaches the collection, modeling, and removal of water (including rainwater) from underground mines. Kleinmann_2007 teaches methods to estimate pollutants (i.e., acidity, heavy metals) from water collected from surface mines using a variety of methods (including 3d modeling) for treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the water removal estimation method taught by Hu_2020 with the pollutant estimation method taught by Kleinmann_2007 for the benefit of predicting water quality from underground mines (Kleinmann_2007 page 2).
Claim 9. Additionally Hu_2020 teaches the additional element of “an anomaly acquisition unit used for acquiring rainwater storage positions of the mine wasteland (Hu_2020 page 10 “the angle between the direction of the anisotropy principal axis of hydraulic conductivity and the axis of the Cartesian coordinate system is generalized as the same value in the study area, and the x, y z angles of the principal axes are 60, 20 and 20 degrees”; page 11 “the hydraulic conductivities…are the controlling factors which should be considered in the calibration period.”; page 12 “The 28 observation wells mentioned above are selected as the fitting object to estimate the hydrogeological parameters”) and acquiring a water storage area to be treated; and a rainwater treatment unit used for treating rainwater based on the water storage area to be treated to obtain purified rainwater (Interpreted in view of paragraphs [0075-0077] of the specification as submitted; Fig 1 depicts a bioretention pond that holds rainwater to be treated; Abstract "A bioretention pond for rainwater treatment"; par 27: "During a light rain, the rainwater runoff flows along the gravel drainage ditch 11 and the filter plate 6 successively, and then enter the overflow weir 5. The gravel drainage ditch 11 separates large particles from the rainwater runoff and the filter plate 6 filters out small particles, such as plastic and fallen leaves, to allow a smooth flow of the water in the layered substrate."; par 27: “The purified runoff is then discharged into the rainwater pipeline through the perforated pipe 7”) and a feature extraction unit used for extracting features from the rainfall data and the environmental image data to generate a rainwater data set.
Claim 7. Hu_2020 and Chai_2021 teach the method according to claim 1. Additionally, Hu_2020 teaches “an image acquisition unit used for acquiring the environmental image data of the mine wasteland (Hu_2020 page 8: “The ground elevation data used in this model are obtained by highly resolution elevation data from BIGEMAP software”; Fig 1 depicts image of the mine region)”; and a feature extraction unit used for extracting features from the rainfall data and the environmental image data to generate a rainwater data set. (Hu_2020 page 8 “To analyze the hydrogeological
conditions of the Musonoi mine area and accurately estimate the dewatering…a large-scale pumping test is carried out by DRC Huakan Geological Services Co., Ltd.”; page 19 “Pumping test data in the area of interest are used to calibrate the model…The model mainly uses the infiltration from precipitation in the dry season to estimate groundwater recharge,”)”
Hu_2020 and Chai_2021 does not teach “wherein the data collection module comprises: a rainwater collection unit used for acquiring the rainwater data of the mine wasteland”
Kleinmann_2007; however, teaches the further limitations of “wherein the data collection module comprises: a rainwater collection unit used for acquiring the rainwater data of the mine wasteland; (Kleinmann_2007 page 130: “Field tests can be divided into three basic types, all of which mimic column tests: 1) small tubs or barrels …The units are then allowed to weather under natural rainfall conditions, and the effluent or leachate is collected after each rainfall event.”; page 131: “The wooden tubs are lined with plastic and an outflow/discharge pipe is incorporated into the base. The leachate is diverted to a collection device. Large tanks have also been used. Rainfall must be monitored as well as volume of leachate collected.”); and a feature extraction unit used for extracting features from the rainfall data and the environmental image data to generate a rainwater data set.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim_2018 (SIMPL: A Simplified Model-Based Program for the Analysis and Visualization of Groundwater Rebound in Abandoned Mines to Prevent Contamination of Water and Soils by Acid Mine Drainage. 2018) discusses the use of a mine 3D model to calculate groundwater and aquifer recharge from rainwater.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIS HOANG TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (7:30 am - 5:30 pm) ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights