Detailed Action
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 06/01/2023.
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Priority
The Application Data Sheet dated 06/01/2023 has the earliest claimed priority as the provisional application 63/347,890 dated 06/01/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 10/26/2023 has been reviewed. The IDS was corrected via interview and accepted. The publication date of the #5 document in the IDS has been corrected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Poisson's is misspelled as "poisons" in Figure 13. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: F0 in paragraph 0080 is not in Fig. 5A or 5B.. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract dated 06/01/2023 has 58 words, 5 lines, 1 paragraph, and no legal phraseology. The abstract is accepted.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0003, “horizonal” should read “horizontal”
In paragraph 0006, it is recommended to place the word “to” before “contribute” for grammatical clarity
A comma is recommended after “lateral load” in paragraph 0037
In paragraph 0054, the substitution is unclear because there are two equal signs in Equation (3). It has been assumed that the left side of the Equation (3) has been substituted into Equation (2) using the right side of Equation (3)
The final sentence of paragraph 0067 is not a full sentence
A
In paragraph 0070, it is recommended to place commas around "or calculating" for grammatical clarity
In paragraph 0073, F0 should read "Q0" in correspondence with Fig. 11
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term MATLAB in paragraphs 0061, 0063, and 0069, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The use of the term ANSYS in paragraph 0039, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following each term. See 0038 for a correct example.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: "sored" should read "stored".
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: (f) has a superfluous word “calculate” after “calculating”
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: (g) is missing the first parentheses after the word “condition”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-10 are rejected as a result of their dependency upon Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites many variables. The variables have no inherent characteristics. The metes and bounds of the variables in this claim are considered unascertainable. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13 14, 17, and 18 recite “[are] assumed to [be]”. The language is ambiguous. The examiner “assumes” the claims would remain the same if “[are] assumed to [be]” were omitted. The term “assumed” is not clearly defined and is interpretable as exemplary claim language, rendering the scope of the claims unclear.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the executable instructions. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 and Claim 1, upon which claim 7 depend, do not have executable instructions. Therefore, it is unclear what Claim 7 is referring to. For examination purposes, Claim 7 will be interpreted as dependent upon Claim 6.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the action of. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 and Claim 8, upon which claim 10 depend, do not have actions. Therefore, it is unclear what Claim 10 is referring to. For examination purposes, Claim 10 will be interpreted as “deflection caused by the vertical load…”.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 19 recite vertical and pile head. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 9 and 18, upon which claims 10 and 19 depend, both attempt to define vertical and pile head, however the terms may not be defined in this manner within the claims. The use of parentheses must have a consistent use case throughout claim language, and the use of parentheses in other claims is appropriate. If the lack of parentheses renders the claims indefinite, the claims are rejected. Examiner suggests to use consistent terminology. The examiner interprets the terms axial and vertical to be equivalent. The examiner interprets the terms pile head and head of the pile to be equivalent.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 12-19 are rejected as a result of their dependency upon Claim 11.
Claim 11 recites many variables. The variables have no inherent characteristics. The metes and bounds of the variables in this claim are considered unascertainable. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 12-19 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 11.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the action of. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 and Claim 18, upon which claim 19 depend, do not have actions. Therefore, it is unclear what Claim 10 is referring to. For examination purposes, Claim 19 will be interpreted as “deflection caused by the vertical load…”.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites many variables. The variables have no inherent characteristics. The metes and bounds of the variables in this claim are considered unascertainable. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites many variables. The variables have no inherent characteristics. The metes and bounds of the variables in this claim are considered unascertainable. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “a method…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites
“… for analyzing displacement responses (i.e., numerical values) of a pile subjected to at least one loading condition (i.e., hypothetical scenario) selected from the group consisting of an axial load, a lateral load, and a bending moment, said method comprising:
Inputting values… (i.e., numerical input values representing a hypothetical condition of the hypothetical scenario);
Calculating… (i.e., numerical values);
Determining integrations of soil parameters… (i.e., numerical values representing a hypothetical condition of the hypothetical scenario);
Calculating soil dimensionless function… (i.e., numerical output value);
Calculating pile displacement… (i.e., numerical output value);
Calculating… (i.e., numerical output value);
Determining whether a condition … is true (i.e., hypothetical input value)
Repeating” the above steps to complete a mathematical formula. Indeed, the claim is directed towards “analyzing” which is an evaluation that is accomplished by performing mathematical calculations using numeric values representing hypothetical scenarios. Therefore; the claim is directed towards an abstract idea: mathematical concepts.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
While the claim recites the word “pile”, this only limits the mathematical calculations to a field of use known as civil engineering. As outlined above in the STEP 2A PRONG ONE analysis using annotations to the claim elements, each other element viewed individually recites a variable or calculation. Each element viewed together uses mathematical calculations for a field of use, but once the displacement response is calculated, nothing is done. The claim is nothing more than a mathematical exercise resulting in, for example, ∆ѵ.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs a mathematical calculation for a hypothetical scenario until a condition is true.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
Claim 2 inherits the limitations of Claim 1. The claim recites an additional element dependent upon Claim 1, which has previously been determined to be at least one judicial exception, as recited above.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim recites “wherein the pile is installed in nonlinear soil”. The element recited in the claim does not include any additional elements which rely on or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way that is more than mere claim construction. The pre-solution activity of the claim is incidental to the primary process of Claim 1. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider whether the practical application in Step 2A Prong Two recites significantly more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See (MPEP 2106.07 (a)(III)(C)):
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication could include a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry.”
Basu et al., Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Multilayered Soil Deposits, p. 6-7 [2008] “Piles are commonly used to transfer vertical (axial) forces, arising primarily from gravity
(e.g., the weight of a superstructure). Examples of structures where piles are commonly used as
foundations are tall buildings, bridges, offshore platforms, defense structures, dams and lock
structures, transmission towers, earth retaining structures, wharfs and jetties.” The reference Basu teaches installation of piles are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The additional elements of the claim individually do not integrate the judicial exception. In combination with Claim 1, the claim, when viewed as a whole, does not meaningfully limit Claim 1, because the pile being installed in soil does not sufficiently limit the mathematical calculations of Claim 1. No additional elements to the claim were found in the specification. It is determined that the claim limitations are not significant (i.e. they impose no meaningful limits on the claim such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention).
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 2…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein the soil is assumed to be nonlinear elastic and perfectly plastic”, which is an observable set of characteristics. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably observe the soils’ characteristics. The observable characteristics of the environment may be considered constants or boundary conditions for the mathematical concepts of Claim 1. It is assumed that the measurable, observable properties of “nonlinear”, “elastic”, and “perfectly plastic” can be assigned values that govern the use of the mathematical calculations.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim viewed individually and as a whole merely assumes a type of soil input and does not recite any elements or combination of elements which rely on or use these characteristics in any meaningful way. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
The considerations under Step 2B overlap with those of Step 2A and therefore need not be reevaluated. The examiner did not state that any element was extra-solution activity under Step 2A.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 2…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein soil moduli (λ and G0) are assumed to vary in radial, circumference and depth directions according to strain and stress levels”.
The claim merely defines two variables used in the method, which is comprised of steps to complete a mathematical formula. Therefore; the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
As stated in the STEP 2A PRONG ONE analysis, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Claim 4 is dependent upon Claim 2 and inherits the additional elements found in Claim 2. The analysis is found above in Claim 2. (See MPEP 2106.05(g))
STEP 2B: NO.
Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider whether the practical application in Step 2A Prong Two recites significantly more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Claim 4 as recited adds no significant additional elements to the judicial exception.
See (MPEP 2106.07 (a)(III)(C)):
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication could include a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry.”
Basu et al., Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Multilayered Soil Deposits, p. 6-7 [2008] “Piles are commonly used to transfer vertical (axial) forces, arising primarily from gravity
(e.g., the weight of a superstructure). Examples of structures where piles are commonly used as
foundations are tall buildings, bridges, offshore platforms, defense structures, dams and lock
structures, transmission towers, earth retaining structures, wharfs and jetties.” The reference Basu teaches installation of piles are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The additional elements of the claim individually do not integrate the judicial exception. In combination with Claims 1 & 2, the claim, when viewed as a whole, does not meaningfully limit Claims 1 & 2, because the pile being installed in soil does not sufficiently limit the mathematical calculations of Claims 1 & 2. No additional elements to the claim were found in the specification. It is determined that the claim limitations are not significant (i.e. they impose no meaningful limits on the claim such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention).
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein the pile comprises a plurality of piles”. The claim recites an additional element dependent upon Claim 1, which was determined to be at least one judicial exception. The claim recites the word “pile”, this only limits the mathematical calculations to a field of use known as civil engineering. Each element viewed together uses mathematical calculations for a field of use, but once the displacement response is calculated, nothing is done.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The element recited in the claim does not include any additional elements which rely on or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way that is more than mere claim construction.
Step 2A Prong Two also asks whether Claim 5’s additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The element amounts to merely indicating a field of use in which to apply the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.5(h)) Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider whether the practical application in Step 2A Prong Two recites significantly more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements of the claim individually do not integrate the judicial exception. In combination with Claim 1, the claim, when viewed as a whole, does not meaningfully limit Claim 1, because the pile’s construction does not sufficiently limit the mathematical calculations of Claim 1. It is determined that the claim limitations are not significant (i.e. they impose no meaningful limits on the claim such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider whether the claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception. It is found that the composition of the pile is merely linking the use of mathematical equations to a field of use and is not significantly more.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein the method is coded into executable instructions, sored in a memory, and executed by a processor”. The claim recites an additional element dependent upon Claim 1, which was determined to be at least one judicial exception.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The element recited in the claim does not include any additional elements which rely on or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way. Integration into a computer system does not change the direction of the claims to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B: NO.
The Supreme Court provides a rationale for why this claim amounts to nothing significantly more than instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer:
The Court considered the additional elements individually, noting that all the computer functions were "‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry," each step "does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions", and the recited hardware was "purely functional and generic" (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85); and The Court considered the additional elements "as an ordered combination," and determined that "the computer components … ‘[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’" and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer." 573 U.S. at 225 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that the claims amounted to "‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer", and therefore held the claims ineligible because they were directed to a judicial exception and failed the second part of the Alice/Mayo test. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-27, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 5…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “where in the executable instructions are executed using a finite difference method (FDM)”. The claim is directed toward mathematical functions and inherits the judicial exceptions of Claim 1 and Claim 5.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not recite any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim 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 any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations until a condition is true.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein soil moduli (λ and G0) are assumed to vary in radial, circumference and depth directions according to strain and stress levels”. The claim merely defines two variables used in the method, which is comprised of steps to complete a mathematical formula. Therefore; the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not recite any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim 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 any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs a mathematical calculation, now with two well-defined variables, λ and G0, for a hypothetical scenario until a condition is true.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein the loading condition is the axial (vertical) load and a head of the pile (pile head) is assumed to be free, and a tip of the pile is assumed to be clamped”, which is an observable set of characteristics. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably observe the pile’s characteristics. Therefore, the claim taken alone recites a mental process. The claim taken in combination with Claim 1 recites a mental process and mathematical calculations. The claim elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim viewed individually and as a whole merely verifies a placement (and load) of the pile and does not recite any elements or combination of elements which rely on or use this mental verification in any meaningful way. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B:
The considerations under Step 2B overlap with those of Step 2A and therefore need not be reevaluated. The examiner notes that it is typical for one of ordinary skill in the art using a pile to have the (non-infinite) pile clamped at the tip by soil.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 8…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein calculating pile displacement ѵ comprises determining pile head deflection caused by the action of the vertical load at the pile head”. The claim merely defines the variable ѵ, which is comprised of steps (determining) to complete a mathematical formula. Therefore; the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not claim the process of acting upon the pile as part of the invention, merely to calculate pile head deflection. The claim inherits the analyses of Claim 8 and Claim 1. The claim does not recite any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim 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 any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs a mathematical calculation, now with a well-defined variable ѵ, for a hypothetical scenario.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “comprising instructions executable by a processing resource of a computing device to cause the processing resource to perform a method of analyzing displacement responses (i.e., numerical values) of a pile subjected to at least one loading condition (i.e., hypothetical scenario) selected from the group consisting of an axial load, a lateral load, and a bending moment, said method comprising:
Inputting values… (i.e., numerical input values representing a hypothetical condition of the hypothetical scenario);
Calculating… (i.e., numerical values);
Determining integrations of soil parameters… (i.e., numerical values representing a hypothetical condition of the hypothetical scenario);
Calculating soil dimensionless function… (i.e., numerical output value);
Calculating pile displacement… (i.e., numerical output value);
Calculating… (i.e., numerical output value);
Determining whether a condition … is true (i.e., hypothetical input value)
Repeating” the above steps to complete a mathematical formula. Indeed, the claim is directed towards “analyzing” which is an evaluation that is accomplished by performing mathematical calculations using numeric values representing hypothetical scenarios. The claim is a product, which contains a method comprised of steps to complete a mathematical formula. The above elements are not a practical application. The recitation of the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium is merely a computer at a high degree of generality and is invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application. Therefore; the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
While the claim recites the word “pile”, this only limits the mathematical calculations to a field of use known as civil engineering. As outlined above in the STEP 2A PRONG ONE analysis using annotations to the claim elements, each other element viewed individually recites a variable or calculation. Each element viewed together uses mathematical calculations for a field of use, but once the displacement response is calculated, nothing is done. The claim is nothing more than a mathematical exercise resulting in, for example, ∆ѵ.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to a significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs a mathematical calculation on a computing device for a hypothetical scenario until a condition is true. The Supreme Court provides a rationale for why this claim amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using an unspecified, generic computer:
The Court considered the additional elements individually, noting that all the computer functions were "‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry," each step "does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions", and the recited hardware was "purely functional and generic" (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85); and The Court considered the additional elements "as an ordered combination," and determined that "the computer components … ‘[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’" and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer." 573 U.S. at 225 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that the claims amounted to "‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer", and therefore held the claims ineligible because they were directed to a judicial exception and failed the second part of the Alice/Mayo test. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-27, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 11…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein the pile is installed in nonlinear soil” which does, in this case, recite a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. The pile cannot be installed in soil inside a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium. If the term “soil” were interpreted to have patentable weight, the term would be considered a set of variables in a simulation in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium. The claim recites an additional element dependent upon Claim 11, which has previously been determined to be at least one judicial exception.
STEP 2B PRONG TWO: NO.
The element recited in the claim does not include any additional elements which rely on or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way that is more than mere claim construction. The pre-solution activity of the claim is incidental to the primary product of Claim 11. Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
Under Step 2B, the examiner should consider whether the practical application in Step 2A Prong Two recites significantly more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements of the claim individually do not integrate the judicial exception. In combination with Claim 11, the claim, when viewed as a whole, does not meaningfully limit Claim 11, because the pile being installed in soil does not sufficiently limit the mathematical calculations of Claim 11. No additional elements to the claim were found in the specification. It is determined that the claim limitations are not significant (i.e. they impose no meaningful limits on the claim such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention).
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 12…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein the soil is assumed to be nonlinear elastic and perfectly plastic”. which is an observable set of characteristics. If the term “soil” were interpreted to have patentable weight, the term would be considered a set of variables in a simulation in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably observe the simulated soil’s characteristics. Therefore, the claim taken alone recites a mental process. The claim taken in combination with Claim 11 and Claim 12 recites a mental process and mathematical calculations. The claim elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim viewed individually and as a whole merely verifies a type of soil input and does not recite any elements or combination of elements which rely on or use this mental verification in any meaningful way. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B:
The considerations under Step 2B overlap with those of Step 2A and therefore need not be reevaluated. The examiner did not state that any element was extra-solution activity under Step 2A.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 12…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein soil moduli (λ and G0) are assumed to vary in radial, circumference and depth directions according to stress and strain levels”. The claim merely defines two variables used in the product, which contains a method comprised of steps to complete a mathematical formula. Therefore; the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
As stated in the STEP 2A PRONG ONE analysis, the claim does not recite any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim taken in combination with Claim 11 and Claim 12 recites mathematical calculations.
STEP 2B: NO.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations, now with two well-defined variables λ and G0, for a hypothetical scenario of the product.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 11…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “where in the pile comprises a plurality of piles”. The claim recites an additional element dependent upon Claim 11, which was determined to be at least one judicial exception. The claim is a product which analyzes displacement responses. The claim recites a product which contains a method comprised of steps to complete a mathematical formula.
STEP 2B PRONG TWO: NO.
The element recited in the claim does not include any additional elements which rely on or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way that is more than mere claim construction. The pre-solution activity of the claim is incidental to the primary process of the product of Claim 11. Therefore, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
The additional elements of the claim individually do not integrate the judicial exception. In combination with Claim 11, the claim, when viewed as a whole, does not meaningfully limit Claim 11, because the pile’s construction does not sufficiently limit the mathematical calculations of the product of Claim 11. It is determined that the claim limitations are not significant (i.e. they impose no meaningful limits on the claim such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention).
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “where in the instructions executable by a processing resource are executed using a finite difference method (FDM)”. The claim is a product directed toward mathematical functions and inherits the judicial exceptions of Claim 11 and Claim 15.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not recite any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim 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 any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations until a condition is true.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 11…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein soil moduli (λ and G0) are assumed to vary in radial, circumference and depth directions according to strain and stress levels”. The claim merely defines two variables used in the product’s method, which is comprised of steps to complete a mathematical formula. Therefore; the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not recite any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim 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 any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply recites a product which performs mathematical calculations, now with two well-defined variables, λ and G0, for a hypothetical scenario.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 11…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein the loading condition is the axial (vertical) load and a head of the pile (pile head) is assumed to be free, and a tip of the pile is assumed to be clamped”, which is an observable set of characteristics of the product. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably observe the simulated pile’s characteristics. Therefore, the claim taken alone recites a mental process. The claim taken in combination with Claim 11 recites a mental process and mathematical calculations. The claim elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim viewed individually and as a whole merely verifies a placement (and load) of the pile and does not recite any elements or combination of elements which rely on or use this mental verification in any meaningful way. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B:
The considerations under Step 2B overlap with those of Step 2A and therefore need not be reevaluated. The examiner notes that it is typical for one of ordinary skill in the art using a pile to have the pile clamped at the tip (in non-infinite cases) by soil.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “wherein calculating pile displacement ѵ comprises determining pile head deflection caused by the action of the vertical load at the pile head”. The claim merely defines the variable ѵ. The claim is a product which analyzes displacement responses. The claim recites a product which contains a method comprised of steps (determining) to complete a mathematical formula. Therefore; the claim is directed towards the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
The claim does not claim the process of acting upon the pile as part of the invention, merely to calculate pile head deflection. The claim inherits the analyses of Claim 18 and Claim 11. The claim does not recite any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim 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 any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs a product’s mathematical calculations, now with a well-defined variable ѵ, for a hypothetical scenario.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “a method…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites
“… for analyzing displacement responses (i.e., numerical values) of a pile subjected to a lateral loading condition, said method comprising the following steps:
Inputting values… (i.e., numerical input values representing a hypothetical condition of the hypothetical scenario);
Calculating… (i.e., numerical values);
Determining integrations of soil parameters… (i.e., numerical values representing a hypothetical condition of the hypothetical scenario);
Calculating soil dimensionless function… (i.e., numerical output value);
Calculating pile displacement… (i.e., numerical output value);
Calculating calculate… (i.e., numerical output value);
Determining whether a condition … is true (i.e., hypothetical input value)
Repeating” the above steps to complete a mathematical formula. Indeed, the claim is directed towards “analyzing” which is an evaluation that is accomplished by performing mathematical calculations using numeric values representing hypothetical scenarios. Therefore; the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
As outlined above in the STEP 2A PRONG ONE analysis using annotations to the claim elements, the claim does not recite any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim 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 any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs a mathematical calculation for a hypothetical scenario until a condition is true.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 21.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “comprising instructions executable by a processing resource of a computing device to cause the processing resource to perform a method of analyzing displacement responses (i.e., numerical values) of a pile subjected to a lateral load condition (i.e., hypothetical scenario), said method comprising:
Inputting values… (i.e., numerical input values representing a hypothetical condition of the hypothetical scenario);
Choosing… (i.e. mental process);
Calculating… (i.e., numerical values);
Calculating… (i.e., numerical values);
Using the deviatoric strain to calculate… (i.e. numerical values);
Calculate… (i.e. numerical values);
Calculating pile displacement… (i.e., numerical output value);
Calculating calculate… (i.e., numerous numerical output values);
Determining whether a condition … is true; (i.e., hypothetical input value)
and Repeating” the above steps to complete a mathematical formula. Indeed, the claim is directed towards “analyzing” which is an evaluation that is accomplished by performing mathematical calculations using numeric values representing hypothetical scenarios. The claim is a product, which contains a method comprised of steps to complete mathematical calculations and mental processes. The above elements are not a practical application. The recitation of the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium is merely a computer at a high degree of generality and is invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application. Therefore; the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
As outlined above in the STEP 2A PRONG ONE analysis using annotations to the claim elements, the claim does not recite any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements or combination of additional claim 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 any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim as a whole simply performs mathematical calculations and mental processes on a computing device for a hypothetical scenario until a condition is true. The Supreme Court provides a rationale for why this claim amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using an unspecified, generic computer:
The Court considered the additional elements individually, noting that all the computer functions were "‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry," each step "does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions", and the recited hardware was "purely functional and generic" (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85); and The Court considered the additional elements "as an ordered combination," and determined that "the computer components … ‘[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’" and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer." 573 U.S. at 225 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that the claims amounted to "‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer", and therefore held the claims ineligible because they were directed to a judicial exception and failed the second part of the Alice/Mayo test. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-27, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Therefore; the U.S. Patent Office finds that the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Basu_2008 ("Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Multilayered Soil Deposits", 2008).
Claim 1. Basu_2008 teaches calculations for analyzing displacement responses of a pile subjected to at least one loading condition selected from the group consisting of an axial load, a lateral load, and a bending moment (p. 6: “The report documents the development of a new method of analysis of laterally loaded piles.”) with identical input values and steps of the method, comprising:
inputting values r0, L, λ, G0, Ep, Pt, and v;
r0 is the radius of the circular cross section of the pile as found in specification ¶ 0045.
Basu_2008 teaches a pile “with a circular cross section radius rp” (p. 67).
L represents the length of a pile as found in the specification ¶ 0045.
Basu_2008 teaches Lp represents the length of the pile (p 37, 67).
λ and G0 represent elastic constants of the soil as found in the specification ¶ 0052.
Basu_2008 teaches λs and Gs represent elastic constants of the soil known as Lame’s constants (p. 67). The subscripts of variables change throughout the specification as well as the teachings of Basu_2008, i.e. Claim 1 claims G0 while the specification may simply state G. Variable names are not assumed to change the purpose of a variable.
Ep represents the elastic Young modulus of the pile per ¶ 0051 of the specification.
Basu_2008 teaches “Ep is Young’s modulus of the pile” (p. 29).
Pt (as well as the corresponding variable F) represents the load on the pile ¶ 0051 (as well as ¶ 0073).
Basu_2008 teaches F represents the force acted upon the pile (p. 29)
v represents vertical pile displacement as found in the specification ¶ 0051.
Basu_2008 teaches w represents the pile deflection (p. 30). These variables are analogous. It is noted that v seems to be defined on page 9 as a function instead of an input variable. No input non-vertical displacement variable is elaborated upon in the claims. Basu_2008 also teaches “we discussed the statics and kinematics of pile response against vertical and lateral loads…” (p. 132) in Summary.
calculating γ1,old and γ2,old;
γ of various subscripts represents calculated “dimensionless constants” (p. 76) in Basu_2008 while γ1,old and γ2,old represent calculated dimensionless parameters in equations 15 and 16. γ is used throughout the prior art and is analogous to the applicant’s specification even though γ1,old and γ2,old values are stated to be assumed.
determining integrations of soil parameters C, k and m;
C, k, and m are mathematically defined in the specification ¶ 0058 and are referred to as soil and geometry related parameters.
Basu_2008 teaches the “ki and ti, profiles of pile deflection and slope are obtained using the method of initial parameters. Using these values, m” is calculated (p. 116). “Strains and subsequently soil moduli are recalculated to again calculate ki and ti, which are then used to calculate pile deflection” (p. 116). Therefore, Basu_2008 teaches determining C, k, and m soil parameters, where C is equivalent to ti and the other variables correspond by variable name and “m is the total number of nodes” (p. 109).
calculating soil dimensionless function ϕ;
ϕ, defined as ϕr and ϕθ are dimensionless soil displacement functions varying… , can be found in ¶ 0080 of the specification.
Basu_2008 teaches the dimensionless soil functions for ϕ, ϕr and ϕθ, are solved using an iterative process and are defined throughout the teachings (p. 109-110).
calculating pile displacement ν;
ν is the pile displacement as found in applicant’s specification ¶ 0045.
Basu_2008 teaches the expression for pile displacement represented by the variable w̃ (p. 44).
calculating γ1,new and γ2,new;
γ1,new and γ2,new are needed to evaluate ϕ and ν and are prescribed as new values γ1 and γ2 in the specification ¶ 0069. These become treated as γ1,new and γ2,new respectively.
Basu_2008 teaches the same γ1,new and γ2,new to be used in a method just before step g in Figure 4-7 (p. 117). The figure is below.
determining whether a condition (γold - γ2new) / γold < 0.001 is true; and
This condition is found in the applicant’s specification ¶ 0069 and ¶ 0070.
Basu_2008 teaches the same condition being used in the same field also being used as the seventh step in a method (p. 117 Figure 4-7 is below). Basu_2008 teaches “the convergence criterion, 10-3”, of an identical condition using repetition until convergence (p. 114). For the purposes of examination, 0.001 and 10-3 are treated as equivalent values.
repeating steps (a)-(g) until the condition is true.
This step is enumerated in several places in the specification including ¶ 0070.
Basu_2008 teaches repeating the same steps until the condition is true in Figure 4-7 (p. 117). This is denoted in the prior art as a set of cyclical flow chart arrows that cycle from the diamond.
Figure 4-7 Nonlinear Solution Flow Chart (relevant portion shown below)
PNG
media_image1.png
704
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2. Basu_2008 teaches the method of claim 1 and that the pile is in nonlinear soil. “It is important to take into account soil nonlinearity in the analysis of laterally loaded piles” (p. 91). Section 4.3 Soil Nonlinearity of Basu_2008 expands upon piles in nonlinear soil.
Claim 3. Basu_2008 teaches the method of claim 2/1, and that the soil is assumed to be nonlinear elastic and perfectly plastic. The “elastic analysis was extended to account for soil nonlinearity in an approximate way by assuming elastic-perfectly plastic soil” (p. 21) in the prior art. The soil is nonlinear, as the applicant states. The soil is elastic, as the applicant states. The soil is perfectly plastic, also as the applicant states.
Claim 4. Basu_2008 teaches the method of claim 1, the method of claim 2, and that soil moduli vary in radial, circumference, and depth directions according to strain and stress levels. “…the soil particles constantly change their position during the application of a load, the resistance offered by the soil mass against deformation also changes; the results in the change in the value of soil modulus with increase in strain” (p. 93). Basu_2008 teaches that “we consider the same multi-layered problem described in chapter 3 with the added condition that the soil within each layer is not linear elastic but nonlinear elastic (i.e., the constants λs and Gs within each layer are not constants but is a function of soil strain or stress)… the soil modulus varies in the radial direction… the modulus varies in the tangential direction as well… Consequently, the elastic constants (e.g., the Lame’s constants) within each layer, at any instance of loading, are functions of both r and θ. The elastic constants are functions of z as well, but its variation along z is taken into account by considering the soil layering” (p. 101). Basu_2008 further teaches a “nonlinear algorithm for pile deflection after obtaining the correct values of soil modulus based on the correct displacement, strain and the stress fields, which are consistent with the applied loads” (p. 115). The teaching of Basu_2008 “assum[es] (typically) a linear variation of k with depth” and a “gradual variation of soil properties with depth has been assumed in many continuum-based analyses as well” (p. 27). Therefore, Basu_2008 also teaches that soil moduli vary in the depth directions.
Claim 5. Basu_2008 teaches the method of claim 1 and a method for analysis of pile groups throughout Chapter 5 (p. 131). A plurality of piles is treated as equivalent to a pile group. Basu_2008 teaches “the single-pile analysis is modified to obtain the nonlinear response of pile groups” (p. 126). Basu_2008 teaches “analysis of pile group was also performed by modifying the soil resistance depending on the number of piles in a group and the relative position of the piles” (p. 132).
Claim 7. Basu_2008 teaches the method of claim 1, the method of claim 5, and that the executable instructions are executed using a finite difference method (FDM). Basu_2008 teaches “in the case of nonlinear soils, the equations are nonlinear, and numerical methods like the finite element method or the finite difference method are generally used to solve the problem” (p. 27). Basu_2008 teaches an iterative solution algorithm to take the “three-dimensional interaction of the pile with the surrounding soil and [produce] pile response comparable with that from a three-dimensional (3D) finite element method (FEM)” (p. 132). “Equations of soil displacements were solved using the one-dimensional finite difference method” (p. 132).
Claim 8. Basu_2008 teaches the method of claim 1 and that soil moduli vary in radial, circumference, and depth directions according to strain and stress levels. “Since, the soil particles constantly change their position during the application of a load, the resistance offered by the soil mass against deformation also changes; the results in the change in the value of soil modulus with increase in strain” (p. 93). Basu_2008 teaches that “we consider the same multi-layered problem described in chapter 3 with the added condition that the soil within each layer is not linear elastic but nonlinear elastic (i.e., the constants λs and Gs within each layer are not constants but is a function of soil strain or stress)… the soil modulus varies in the radial direction… the modulus varies in the tangential direction as well… Consequently, the elastic constants (e.g., the Lame’s constants) within each layer, at any instance of loading, are functions of both r and θ. The elastic constants are functions of z as well, but its variation along z is taken into account by considering the soil layering” (p. 101). Basu_2008 further teaches a “nonlinear algorithm for pile deflection after obtaining the correct values of soil modulus based on the correct displacement, strain and the stress fields, which are consistent with the applied loads” (p. 115). The teaching of Basu_2008 “assum[es] (typically) a linear variation of k with depth” and a “gradual variation of soil properties with depth has been assumed in many continuum-based analyses as well” (p. 27). Therefore, Basu_2008 also teaches that soil moduli vary in the depth directions.
Claim 9. Basu_2008 teaches the method of claim 1 and that the loading condition is the axial (vertical) load and a head of the pile (pile head) is assumed to be free, and a tip of the pile is assumed to be clamped. “The pile head is assumed to be free; however no condition for pile base is required to be stated explicitly” (p. 58). The pile base (tip) is clamped if there is no base shear or shear force at or below the tip. The right-hand side of equation 3-44 is 0. Basu_2008 teaches “the right-hand side of equation (3-44) represents the shear force just below the pile base (note that the right-hand side does not contain any shear from the pile section because below the pile base the contribution can come only from the soil). This base shear acts only if the pile base displaces horizontally (i.e., if the base is floating, which results in nonzero wn+1)” (p. 80). Basu_2008 teaches that the tip of the pile, also known as the base, is clamped by soil and not floating. The pile head is explicitly assumed to be free at the same time as the axial load is the loading condition, which causes a pile deflection calculated throughout chapter 3.3.7 in the teachings of Basu_2008. Basu_2008 teaches that “a part of the axial load is transferred to the ground through the bottom of the pile (commonly referred to as the pile base). As a pile tries to move down, the soil mass below the pile base offers compressive resistance to the movement… The total resistance (shaft friction plus end-bearing resistance) keeps a pile in equilibrium with the applied load” (p. 8).
Claim 10. Basu_2008 teaches the method of claim 8, the method of claim 1, and that calculating pile displacement ѵ comprises determining pile head deflection caused by the action of the vertical load at the pile head. Basu_2008 teaches another, older method for calculating pile displacement comprising head deflection for axially-loaded piles (p. 91).
Claim 20, Basu_2008 teaches identical subject matter throughout. Basu_2008 teaches calculations (a method) for analyzing displacement responses of a pile subjected to a lateral loading condition, with identical input values and steps of said method, comprising:
inputting values r0, L, λ, G0, Ep, Ep, and Ip, and applying force and moments, Q0 and M0;
r0 is the radius of the circular cross section of the pile as found in specification ¶ 0045.
Basu_2008 teaches “a pile with a circular cross section radius rp” (p. 67).
L represents the length of a pile as found in the specification ¶ 0045.
Basu_2008 teaches Lp represents the length of the pile (p. 37, 67).
λ and G0 represent elastic constants of the soil as found in the specification ¶ 0052.
Basu_2008 teaches λs and Gs represent elastic constants of the soil known as Lame’s constants (p. 67). The subscripts of variables change throughout the specification as well as the teachings of Basu_2008, i.e. claim 1 claims G0 while the specification may simply state G. Variable names are not assumed to change the purpose of a variable.
Ep represents the elastic Young modulus of the pile per ¶ 0051 of the specification.
Basu_2008 teaches “Ep is Young’s modulus of the pile” (p. 29).
Ip is entirely undefined in the specification though it is a factor in determining the total potential energy of the pile-soil system in the specification ¶ 0082.
Basu_2008 teaches Ip represents “the second moment of inertia of the pile” (p. 29). This is believed to be the same in the teachings of Basu_2008 and the application.
Q0 represents ‘a force’ as found in the specification ¶ 0094. Q0 is never used in the specification.
Fa is a variable used to represent a force on the head of the pile. Usually, this force is lateral. Basu_2008 teaches Fa as a force that is assumed to be equivalent to Q0 throughout, including Figure 2-2 (p. 30).
M0 represents ‘a bending moment’ as found in the specification ¶ 0073.
Basu_2008 teaches “M is the bending moment acting at the cross section” of a pile (p. 29). M has various subscripts such as Ma throughout the teaching.
choosing initial values of y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, y6, y7, and y8, and calculating ϕr and ϕθ;
y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, y6, y7, and y8 represent some numbers needed for obtaining soil displacement. y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, y6, y7, and y8 are used to evaluate ϕr and ϕθ as found in the specification ¶ 0092 and ¶ 0093.
The equivalent variables are taught in Basu_2008 as “dimensionless pile deflection and slope” used in calculating ϕr and ϕθ (p. 80-81).
ϕr and ϕθ represent dimensionless displacement functions varying with the radial coordinate r, and θ is measured from a vertical reference section (r = r0) as found in the specification ¶ 0080.
Basu_2008 teaches ϕr and ϕθ are dimensionless displacement functions that “describe the equilibrium configuration of the pile-soil system” describing displacement varying “with increasing radial distance from the pile axis” (p. 75, p. 70).
calculate deviatoric strain εq, and using the deviatoric strain to calculate soil stiffness, G, where
G
=
G
0
ε
q
ε
q
0
n ;
G represents decay of soil stiffness with strain using a power law to describe the stress-strain behavior in the specification ¶ 0067.
Basu_2008 teaches that “the variation of Gs with strain or stress is well documented in the literature” (p. 99). The equivalent calculation for soil stiffness based on strain or stress can be found in equation 4-18 (p. 99).
calculate ns1, ns2, ms1, ms2, and ms3;
ns1, ns2, ms1, ms2, and ms3 represent calculations found in the specification ¶ 0090.
Basu_2008 teaches ŋs1, ŋs2, ms1, ms2, and ms3 calculations (p. 74).
calculating pile displacement u;
u represents pile displacement as found in the specification ¶ 0087.
Basu_2008 teaches w is pile deflection caused governed by a more generic version of the equation for u. Basu_2008 teaches that pile deflection can be calculated and stored into a variable (p. 110). Basu_2008 teaches analyzing deflection responses of a pile or group of piles throughout.
calculating calculate y1new, y2new, y3new, y4new, y5new, y6new, y7new, and y8new;
y1new, y2new, y3new, y4new, y5new, y6new, y7new, and y8new represent new “initial” values of y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, y6, y7, and y8 respectively as hinted at in the applicant’s specification ¶ 0094. They are used to recalculate ϕr and ϕθ.
γ1 et al. are considered equivalent variables in the prior art. The superscripts and subscripts are similar to the applicant’s. Basu_2008 teaches recalculating γ1 et al. to recalculate ϕr and ϕθ (p. 85).
determining whether a condition yold – ynew) / yold < 0.001 is true; and
The condition is stated in the applicant’s specification ¶ 0069. The evaluation for whether the condition is true after calculation is assumed to be trivial.
Basu_2008 teaches this calculation and determination in Figure 4-7, Figure 3-5, and on page 85 (p. 117, p. 87, p. 85).
repeating steps (a)-(g) until the condition is true.
The step is elaborated in the specification and 1214 Figure 12 ¶ 0094. The goal of the applicant’s claim 20 seems to be to calculate pile displacement u. The equivalent variable in Figure 3-5 is w.
Basu_2008 teaches that the entire process is repeated until convergence on each of the γ’s is attained. The details of the solution are given in the form of a flow chart in Figure 3-5 (p. 85).
Figure 3-5 (below) can generally be used to map applicant’s claims to teachings of Basu_2008.
PNG
media_image2.png
816
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 6-7, 11-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu_2008 ("Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Multilayered Soil Deposits", 2008) in view of Wani_2017 (US 2017/0169534).
Claim 6. Basu_2008 teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Basu_2008 does not explicitly teach a method is coded into executable instructions, sored in a memory, and executed by a processor.
However, Wani_2017 teaches a method is coded into executable instructions, stored in a memory, and executed by a processor. Wani_2017 teaches, in civil engineering, modeling structural damage with executable code [0187], a memory [0193], and a processor [0043].
Wani_2008 teaches “one general aspect includes a system, including: a memory including instructions, and one or more computer processors. The instructions, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations…” [0043]. One such motivation for using a memory and processor in the prior art: Wani_2017 teaches “In some example embodiments, the type of each building is identified, and the fragility functions of the buildings are identified based on the type. Then, a structural engineering assumption is made” [0119]. Doing so would aid in using a computer together with the claimed method for analyzing displacement responses of a pile.
Basu_2008 and Wani_2017 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mitigating deteriorating earth conditions in civil engineering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Basu_2008 to incorporate teachings of Wani_2008 and provide coded instructions, store them in a memory, and execute those instructions by means of a processor.
Claim 7. Basu_2008 in view of Wani_2017 teaches the method of claim 6, as described above. It is assumed that claim 7 depends upon the method of claim 6 instead of claim 5. Basu_2008 teaches using a finite difference method (FDM) “in the case of nonlinear soils, the equations are nonlinear, and numerical methods like the finite element method or the finite difference method are generally used to solve the problem” (p. 27). Basu_2008 teaches an iterative solution algorithm to take the “three-dimensional interaction of the pile with the surrounding soil and [produce] pile response comparable with that from a three-dimensional (3D) finite element method (FEM)” (p. 132). Equations of soil displacements were solved using the one-dimensional finite difference method” (p. 132). Wani_2017 teaches executable instructions as described above.
Claim 11. Basu_2008 teaches calculations (a method) for analyzing the displacement responses of piles subjected to an axial load, a lateral load, and a bending moment with identical input values and steps of the method, comprising:
inputting values r0, L, λ, G0, Ep, Pt, and v;
r0 is the radius of the circular cross section of the pile as found in specification ¶ 0045.
Basu_2008 teaches a pile “with a circular cross section radius rp” (p. 67).
L represents the length of a pile as found in the specification ¶ 0045.
Basu_2008 teaches Lp represents the length of the pile (p. 37, 67).
λ and G0 represent elastic constants of the soil as found in the specification ¶ 0052.
Basu_2008 teaches λs and Gs represent elastic constants of the soil known as Lame’s constants (p. 67). The subscripts of variables change throughout the specification as well as the teachings of Basu_2008, i.e. claim 1 claims G0 while the specification may simply state G. Variable names are not assumed to change the purpose of a variable.
Ep represents the elastic Young modulus of the pile per ¶ 0051 of the specification.
Basu_2008 teaches “Ep is Young’s modulus of the pile” (p. 29).
Pt (as well as the corresponding variable F) represents the load on the pile ¶ 0051 (as well as ¶ 0073).
Basu_2008 teaches F represents the force acted upon the pile (p. 29)
v represents vertical pile displacement as found in the specification ¶ 0051.
Basu_2008 teaches w represents the pile deflection (p. 30). These variables are analogous. It is noted that v seems to be defined on page 9 of the application’s specification as a function instead of an input variable. No input non-vertical displacement variable is elaborated upon in the claims. Basu_2008 also teaches “we discussed the statics and kinematics of pile response against vertical and lateral loads…” (p. 132) in Summary.
calculating γ1,old and γ2,old;
γ of various subscripts represents calculated “dimensionless constants” (p. 76) in Basu_2008 while γ1,old and γ2,old represent calculated dimensionless parameters in equations 15 and 16. γ is used throughout the prior art and is analogous to the applicant’s specification even though γ1,old and γ2,old values are stated to be assumed.
determining integrations of soil parameters C, k and m;
C, k, and m are mathematically defined in the specification ¶ 0058 and are referred to as soil and geometry related parameters.
Basu_2008 teaches the “ki and ti, profiles of pile deflection and slope are obtained using the method of initial parameters. Using these values, m” is calculated (p. 116). “Strains and subsequently soil moduli are recalculated to again calculate ki and ti, which are then used to calculate pile deflection” (p. 116). Therefore, Basu_2008 teaches determining C, k, and m soil parameters, where C is equivalent to ti and the other variables correspond by variable name and “m is the total number of nodes” (p. 109).
calculating soil dimensionless function ϕ;
ϕ, defined as ϕr and ϕθ are dimensionless soil displacement functions varying… , can be found in ¶ 0080 of the specification.
Basu_2008 teaches the dimensionless soil functions for ϕ, ϕr and ϕθ, are solved using an iterative process and are defined throughout the teachings (p. 109-110).
calculating pile displacement ν;
ν is the pile displacement as found in applicant’s specification ¶ 0045.
Basu_2008 teaches the expression for pile displacement represented by the variable w̃ (p. 44).
calculating γ1,new and γ2,new;
γ1,new and γ2,new are needed to evaluate ϕ and ν and are prescribed as new values γ1 and γ2 in the specification ¶ 0069. These become treated as γ1,new and γ2,new respectively.
Basu_2008 teaches the same γ1,new and γ2,new to be used in a method just before step g in Figure 4-7 (Basu, p. 117). The figure is below.
determining whether a condition (γold - γ2new) / γold < 0.001 is true; and
This condition is found in the applicant’s specification ¶ 0069 and ¶ 0070.
Basu_2008 teaches the same condition being used in the same field also being used as the seventh step in a method (p. 117 Figure 4-7 is below). Basu_2008 teaches “the convergence criterion, 10-3”, of an identical condition using repetition until convergence (p. 114). For the purposes of examination, 0.001 and 10-3 are treated as equivalent values.
repeating steps (a)-(g) until the condition is true.
This step is enumerated in several places in the applicant’s specification including ¶ 0070.
Basu_2008 teaches repeating the same steps until the condition is true in Figure 4-7 (p. 117). This is denoted in the prior art as a set of cyclical flow chart arrows that cycle from diamond.
Figure 4-7 Nonlinear Solution Flow Chart (relevant portion shown below)
PNG
media_image1.png
704
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Basu_2008 fails to teach a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium or a processing resource of a computing device.
However, Wani_2017 teaches, in civil engineering, modeling structural damage with a “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which are stored the instructions” “executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations…” [0191]. This is analogous to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a processing resource of a computing device to cause the processing resource to perform…” The motivation for combining Basu_2008 with Wani_2017, for example, is “to improve predictive performance” [0132].
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations of Claim 12 are substantially the same as those of Claim 2. Claim 12 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations of Claim 13 are substantially the same as those of Claim 3. Claim 13 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations of Claim 14 are substantially the same as those of Claim 4. Claim 14 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of Claim 15 are substantially the same as those of Claim 5. Claim 15 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations of Claim 16 are substantially the same as those of Claim 7. Claim 16 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations of Claim 17 are substantially the same as those of Claim 8. Claim 17 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations of Claim 18 are substantially the same as those of Claim 9. Claim 18 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations of Claim 19 are substantially the same as those of Claim 10. Claim 19 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for Claim 10.
Claim 21. Basu_2008 teaches calculations (a method) for analyzing displacement responses of a pile subjected to a lateral loading condition, with identical input values and steps of said method, comprising:
inputting values r0, L, λ, G0, Ep, Ep, and Ip, and applying force and moments, Q0 and M0;
r0 is the radius of the circular cross section of the pile as found in applicant’s specification ¶ 0045.
Basu_2008 teaches “a pile with a circular cross section radius rp” (p. 67).
L represents the length of a pile as found in the specification ¶ 0045.
Basu_2008 teaches Lp represents the length of the pile (p. 37, 67).
λ and G0 represent elastic constants of the soil as found in the specification ¶ 0052.
Basu_2008 teaches λs and Gs represent elastic constants of the soil known as Lame’s constants (p. 67). The subscripts of variables change throughout the specification as well as the teachings of Basu_2008, i.e. claim 1 claims G0 while the specification may simply state G. Variable names are not assumed to change the purpose of a variable.
Ep represents the elastic Young modulus of the pile per ¶ 0051 of the specification.
Basu_2008 teaches “Ep is Young’s modulus of the pile” (p. 29).
Ip is entirely undefined in the specification though it is a factor in determining the total potential energy of the pile-soil system in the specification ¶ 0082.
Basu_2008 teaches Ip represents “the second moment of inertia of the pile” (p. 29). This is believed to be the same in the teachings of Basu_2008 and the application.
Q0 represents ‘a force’ as found in the specification ¶ 0094. Q0 is never used in the specification.
Fa is a variable used to represent a force on the head of the pile. Usually, this force is lateral. Basu_2008 teaches Fa as a force that is assumed to be equivalent to Q0 throughout, including Figure 2-2 (p. 30).
M0 represents ‘a bending moment’ as found in the specification ¶ 0073.
Basu_2008 teaches “M is the bending moment acting at the cross section” of a pile (p. 29). M has various subscripts such as Ma throughout the teaching.
choosing initial values of y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, y6, y7, and y8, and calculating ϕr and ϕθ;
y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, y6, y7, and y8 represent some numbers needed for obtaining soil displacement. y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, y6, y7, and y8 are used to evaluate ϕr and ϕθ as found in the specification ¶ 0092 and ¶ 0093.
The equivalent variables are taught in Basu_2008 as “dimensionless pile deflection and slope” used in calculating ϕr and ϕθ (p. 80-81).
ϕr and ϕθ represent dimensionless displacement functions varying with the radial coordinate r, and θ is measured from a vertical reference section (r = r0) as found in the specification ¶ 0080.
ϕr and ϕθ are dimensionless displacement functions that “describe the equilibrium configuration of the pile-soil system” describing displacement varying “with increasing radial distance from the pile axis” (p. 75, p. 70) in Basu_2008.
calculate deviatoric strain εq, and using the deviatoric strain to calculate soil stiffness, G, where
G
=
G
0
ε
q
ε
q
0
n ;
G represents decay of soil stiffness with strain using a power law to describe the stress-strain behavior in the instant specification ¶ 0067.
Basu_2008 teaches “The variation of Gs with strain or stress is well documented in the literature” (p. 99). Equation 4-18 (p. 99).
calculate ns1, ns2, ms1, ms2, and ms3;
ns1, ns2, ms1, ms2, and ms3 represent calculations found in the specification ¶ 0090.
Basu_2008 teaches ŋs1, ŋs2, ms1, ms2, and ms3 calculations (p. 74).
calculating pile displacement u;
u represents pile displacement as found in the specification ¶ 0087.
w is pile deflection caused governed by a more generic version of the equation for u. Basu_2008 teaches that pile deflection can be calculated and stored into a variable (p. 110). Basu_2008 teaches analyzing deflection responses of a pile or group of piles throughout.
calculating calculate y1new, y2new, y3new, y4new, y5new, y6new, y7new, and y8new;
y1new, y2new, y3new, y4new, y5new, y6new, y7new, and y8new represent new “initial” values of y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, y6, y7, and y8 respectively as hinted at in the applicant’s specification ¶ 0094. They are used to recalculate ϕr and ϕθ.
γ1 et al. are considered equivalent variables. The superscripts and subscripts are similar to the applicant’s. Basu_2008 teaches recalculating γ1 et al. to recalculate ϕr and ϕθ (p. 85).
determining whether a condition yold – ynew) / yold < 0.001 is true; and
The condition is stated in the applicant’s specification ¶ 0069. The evaluation for whether the condition is true after calculation is assumed to be trivial.
Basu_2008 teaches this calculation and determination in Figure 4-7, Figure 3-5, and on page 85 (p. 117, p. 87, p. 85).
repeating steps (a)-(g) until the condition is true.
The step is elaborated in the applicant’s specification ¶ 0094 for the step at 1214 of Figure 12. The goal of the applicant’s claim 20 seems to be to calculate pile displacement u. The equivalent variable in Figure 3-5 is w.
Basu_2008 teaches that the entire process is repeated until convergence on each of the γ’s is attained. The details of the solution are given in the form of a flow chart in Figure 3-5 (p. 85).
Basu_2008 fails to teach a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium or a processing resource of a computing device.
However, Wani_2017 teaches, in civil engineering, modeling structural damage with a “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which are stored the instructions” “executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations…” [0191]. This is analogous to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a processing resource of a computing device to cause the processing resource to perform…” The motivation for combining Basu_2008 with Wani_2017, for example, is “to improve predictive performance” [0132].
Figure 3-5 (below) can generally be used to map applicant’s claims to the teachings of Basu.
PNG
media_image2.png
816
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Basu_2008 fails to teach a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium or a processing resource.
However, Wani_2017 teaches, in the field of civil engineering, modeling structural damage with a “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which are stored the instructions” “executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations…” [0191]. This is analogous to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a processing resource of a computing device to cause the processing resource to perform…” The motivation for combining Basu_2008 with Wani_2017, for example, is “to improve predictive performance” [0132].
Conclusion
Claims 1-21 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The 2020 patent Avoiding Water Breakthrough in Unconsolidated Sands, US 10 The prior art makes use of construction techniques in different soil strata.
The 2014 patent Sleep Wake Event Logging, US 8,635,468 B2 by Ethan Bold, Joe Liu, Jonathan Barbero, and Dean Reece. The prior art uses a non-transitory machine readable storage medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R BRODERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5391. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:00 AM - 5:00 PM) EST.
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 5712723652. 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.
/BENJAMIN REEDER BRODERICK/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights