The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 06/06/2023, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 18206094.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 06/06/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2023 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 18206094 filed 06/06/2023; claims foreign priority to 202210819156.7, filed 07/13/2022.
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: modules in claims 8-9.
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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable with respect to prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. See MPEP §608.01(n). Examiner notes here that allowability depends on overcoming all rejections, including 101 rejection.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture; hence, the claims fall under statutory category of Step 1.
Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
1. A mining eco-environment damage evaluation method, comprising the following steps: S100: acquiring a data source, determining an environmental condition according to the data source, and obtaining an eco-environment influence factor according to the environmental condition; S200: classifying and screening the data source based on the eco-environment influence factor to obtain evaluation index information of a mining eco-environment damage; S300: constructing a mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system according to the evaluation index information; S400: establishing n loss evaluation models according to the mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system; and S500: performing loss calculation on the n loss evaluation models, and performing damage evaluation on a mining eco-environment according to a loss calculation result.
[or]
8. A mining eco-environment damage evaluation system, comprising: a preprocessing module, configured to acquire a data source, determine an environmental condition according to the data source, and obtain an eco-environment influence factor according to the environmental condition; a classification module, connected to the preprocessing module and configured to classify and screen the data source based on the eco-environment influence factor to obtain evaluation index information of a mining eco-environment damage; a construction module, connected to the classification module and configured to construct a mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system according to the evaluation index information; a processing module, connected to the construction module and configured to establish n loss evaluation models according to the mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system; and a calculation module, connected to the processing module and configured to perform loss calculation on the n loss evaluation models, and perform damage evaluation on a mining eco-environment according to a loss calculation result.
[or]
10. A computer readable storage medium storing computer readable instructions, wherein the computer readable instructions, when executed by a processor, implement steps of the mining eco-environment damage evaluation method according to claim 1.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following summarization of the abstract idea which includes a mining eco-environment damage evaluation system executed by the additional element(s) of memory medium, processor and/or modules. This falls into at least the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mental Processes since the information can be analyzed by an abstract evaluation judgment process. Thus, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity since the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion).
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion).
Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The memory medium, processor and/or modules is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic memory medium, processor and/or modules limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, perform damage evaluation on a mining eco-environment by a memory medium, processor and/or modules is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B.
Per Step 2B, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: memory medium, processor and/or modules. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, perform damage evaluation on a mining eco-environment by a memory medium, processor and/or modules is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0134 wherein “In still another aspect, Embodiment 1 of the present invention further provides a computer readable storage medium storing computer readable instructions, wherein the computer readable instructions, when executed by a processor, implement the steps of the mining eco-environment damage evaluation method.” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims).
The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because Applicant has claimed a computer readable medium which could reasonably comprise a transitory propagating signal per se. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. In this instance, the Applicant’s specification states:
[0134] In still another aspect, Embodiment 1 of the present invention further provides a computer readable storage medium storing computer readable instructions, wherein the computer readable instructions, when executed by a processor, implement the steps of the mining eco-environment damage evaluation method.
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited computer readable medium could be interpreted as a transitory propagating signal per se. As such, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (US 20200311319 A1) hereinafter referred to as Qiao in view of Choi et al. (US 20150317844 A1) hereinafter referred to as Choi.
Qiao teaches:
Claim 1. A mining eco-environment damage evaluation method, comprising the following steps:
S100: acquiring a data source, determining an environmental condition according to the data source, and obtaining an eco-environment influence factor according to the environmental condition (¶0014 1) the project construction verification and change analysis method comprising the following steps: comparing construction details of a specific channel project after an EIA with construction and evaluation details in an EIA stage, checking construction bid sections, construction activities and implementation details according to ecological environmental impact source items and mitigation countermeasures of the specific channel project, analyzing specific changes compared with the EIA stage, identifying corresponding changes in ecological environmental impacts, and putting forward supplementary countermeasures and suggestions);
S200: classifying and screening the data source based on the eco-environment influence factor to obtain evaluation index information of a mining eco-environment damage (¶0016 3) the method for establishing a multi-level comprehensive index system of an ecological environmental impact comprises using an index system based on mechanism analysis to systematically displays comprehensive evaluation results of ecological environmental impacts of channel projects and mitigation countermeasures thereof and to guide identification, design, monitoring, investigation, analysis and evaluation of key indexes in ecological channel construction; the index system comprises horizontal and vertical main architectures and branch architectures of the horizontal and vertical main architectures each comprise four levels with an inclusion relation, and include 4 impact process index subsystems, 15 impact type index modules, 39 groups of impact factor indexes and a plurality of single-factor classification item index indexes; the correlation is that the presentation of its own index results needs to be based on implementation results of the other five analysis and evaluation methods);
S300: constructing a mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system according to the evaluation index information (¶0017 4) the method for establishing a compliance evaluation index system of an ecological channel comprises constructing a compliance classification item index system for an ecological channel comprising three levels, eight classification indexes and 32 item indexes contained therein to reflect connotations of safety guarantee type, ecological construction type, environmental coordination type and human-water harmony type of an ecological channel, constructing an item grading index status qualitative or quantitative evaluation criterion system and a scoring rule system in a matching way to provide a quantifiable technical criterion system and a method for conveniently evaluating a channel ecological compliance index (URECI), and constructing an ecological compliance evaluation criterion system in a matching way to evaluate the ecological compliance represented by the URECI for specific channel projects; and the correlation is that the state evaluation of its own indexes needs to be based on the implementation results of the other five analysis and evaluation methods, and it is required to form a good interactive connection);
S400: establishing n loss evaluation models according to the mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system (¶0018 5) the method for tracking, monitoring and evaluation based on long-term time series satellite remote sensing comprises providing a long-term time series satellite remote sensing analysis process and method to analyze and evaluate ecological environmental impacts such as erosion and deposition changes, shoreline changes and water area morphologic changes of channel projects, and performing tracking and monitoring of easily identifiable target project construction details, comparison of project impact scope consistency and project implementation effect evaluation, thereby realizing tracking of spatial-temporal changes of impacts); and
S500: performing loss calculation on the n loss evaluation models, and performing damage evaluation on a mining eco-environment according to a loss calculation result (¶0019 6) the method for analyzing and evaluating a superimposed and cumulative impact model comprises developing, based on mechanism analysis of ecological environmental impacts of channel projects, a quantitative model of superimposed and cumulative impacts to analyze and evaluate a superimposed cumulative area and impact of suspended solids (SS) concentration exceeding a standard in water caused by construction operations, as well as the superimposed cumulative mortality and impact on benthic organisms caused by the construction operations, thus realizing the combination of qualitative and quantitative impact analysis; the correlation is that the impact analysis is based on the method for analyzing a fine classification impact mechanism and countermeasures thereof).
Although not explicitly taught by Qiao, Choi teaches in the analogous art of method of processing and analysing vehicle driving big data:
obtain evaluation index information of a mining eco-environment damage (¶0105 As another example, the processing unit 330 may estimate fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions based on the records of the fields for the RPM, the number of rapid acceleration, the number of idling, and the like with respect to the energy-consumption driver type and generate fuel consumption index information and environment index information by indexing the estimated results. The dangerous driving index information, the fuel consumption index information, and the environment index information are provided to the driver through the controller 350 (see FIG. 1) and the user interface 370 (see FIG. 1) to allow the driver to improve driving habits. Further, the dangerous driving index information is provided to a transportation business operator and the like to which the driver belongs through the controller 350 (see FIG. 1) and the user interface 370 (see FIG. 1) to allow the transportation business operator to manage, supervise, and educate the driver. Further, in one embodiment, the processing unit 330 may perform mining for analyzing a correlation between specific index information and a specific field of the tendency statistical data or between the specific index information and a specific field of the refined vehicle driving data, and extract result information indicating an interaction analysis result therebetween (S3375). Referring to FIGS. 3 and 11, the processing unit 330 may perform a data mining analysis at a long-term viewpoint by using the refined vehicle driving data, the acquired statistical data, the generated index information, and the like to generate specific result information (S3390).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of processing and analysing vehicle driving big data of Choi with the system for method for evaluating ecological environmental impact of channel project and countermeasures thereof based on mechanism analysis of Qiao for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Qiao ¶0011 teaches that it is desirable to have evaluation of ecological environmental impacts and countermeasures thereof suitable for scientifically and systematically tracking and guiding the construction of ecological channel projects;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Qiao Abstract teaches a method for evaluating an ecological environmental impact of a channel project and countermeasures thereof based on mechanism analysis, and Choi Abstract teaches method of processing and analyzing vehicle driving big data, the method including: refining vehicle driving data of raw data; acquiring statistical data based on the refined vehicle driving data; and performing mining analysis based on at least one of the refined vehicle driving data and the acquired statistical data; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Qiao at least the above cited paragraphs, and Choi at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the method of processing and analysing vehicle driving big data of Choi with the system for method for evaluating ecological environmental impact of channel project and countermeasures thereof based on mechanism analysis of Qiao. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Qiao teaches:
Claim 2. The mining eco-environment damage evaluation method according to claim 1, further comprising: S600: analyzing a damage evaluation result to obtain a probability of occurrence of various environmental damage types related to different data sources; and S700: generating a mining eco-environment damage report according to a probability result (¶0055 Probability of Risk probability of oil spill and chemical leakage pollution risk accidents of ships and coast of the channel (D1-4- (C1-4-3) 3-1), Susceptible location (D1-4-3-2), statistical probability of classified wind direction and wind speed (D1-4-3-3) Emergency Emergency countermeasures and staffing (D1-4-4-1), preparedness distribution of environmentally sensitive (C1-4-4) resources (D1-4-4-2), emergency plan (D1-4-4-3), pollution early warning model (D1-4-4-4), damage compensation and repair countermeasures (D1-4-4-5) Habitat Hydrological Topographical Changes in shoreline and water depth distribution change environment change (C2-1-1) in different construction sections (D2-1-1-1) system (A2) module (B2-1) Water flow Changes in monthly or seasonal water flow, flow change (C2-1-2) direction and velocity distribution in different construction sections).
Although not explicitly taught by Qiao, Choi teaches in the analogous art of method of processing and analysing vehicle driving big data:
generating a mining eco-environment damage report according to a probability result ((¶0105 As another example, the processing unit 330 may estimate fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions based on the records of the fields for the RPM, the number of rapid acceleration, the number of idling, and the like with respect to the energy-consumption driver type and generate fuel consumption index information and environment index information by indexing the estimated results. The dangerous driving index information, the fuel consumption index information, and the environment index information are provided to the driver through the controller 350 (see FIG. 1) and the user interface 370 (see FIG. 1) to allow the driver to improve driving habits. Further, the dangerous driving index information is provided to a transportation business operator and the like to which the driver belongs through the controller 350 (see FIG. 1) and the user interface 370 (see FIG. 1) to allow the transportation business operator to manage, supervise, and educate the driver.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of processing and analysing vehicle driving big data of Choi with the system for method for evaluating ecological environmental impact of channel project and countermeasures thereof based on mechanism analysis of Qiao for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Qiao ¶0011 teaches that it is desirable to have evaluation of ecological environmental impacts and countermeasures thereof suitable for scientifically and systematically tracking and guiding the construction of ecological channel projects;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Qiao Abstract teaches a method for evaluating an ecological environmental impact of a channel project and countermeasures thereof based on mechanism analysis, and Choi Abstract teaches method of processing and analyzing vehicle driving big data, the method including: refining vehicle driving data of raw data; acquiring statistical data based on the refined vehicle driving data; and performing mining analysis based on at least one of the refined vehicle driving data and the acquired statistical data; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Qiao at least the above cited paragraphs, and Choi at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the method of processing and analysing vehicle driving big data of Choi with the system for method for evaluating ecological environmental impact of channel project and countermeasures thereof based on mechanism analysis of Qiao. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Qiao teaches:
Claim 3. The mining eco-environment damage evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein S100 comprises: S110: acquiring the data source, and determining the environmental condition according to the data source; S120: judging whether the environmental condition is influenced by a mineral resource development activity or not to obtain a judgment result; and S130: obtaining the eco-environment influence factor according to the judgment result (¶0055 an index system based on mechanism analysis systematically displays comprehensive evaluation results of ecological environmental impacts of channel projects and mitigation countermeasures thereof and is used to guide identification, design, monitoring, investigation, analysis and evaluation of key indexes in ecological channel construction; horizontal and vertical main architectures and branch architectures of the architecture are each composed of four levels with an inclusion relation, and include 4 impact process index subsystems, 15 impact type index modules, 39 groups of impact factor indexes and a plurality of single-factor classification item index indexes. See Table 2 for details. TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 List of multi-level comprehensive index system for an ecological environmental impact of a channel project Impact process Impact type Influencing subsystem (A) indicator module (B) factor index (C) Single-factor classification item index (D) Operation Construction Operation time Overall construction operation time sequence behavior operation module sequence (C1-1-1) schedule of different construction sections (D1-1-1-1) system (A1) (B1-1)).
Qiao teaches:
Claim 4. The mining eco-environment damage evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation index information comprises: ecological destruction system service function loss index information, agriculture and forestry production loss index information, environmentalpollution and health loss index information, protective cost index information, and restoration and governance cost index information (¶0017 4) the method for establishing a compliance evaluation index system of an ecological channel comprises constructing a compliance classification item index system for an ecological channel comprising three levels, eight classification indexes and 32 item indexes contained therein to reflect connotations of safety guarantee type, ecological construction type, environmental coordination type and human-water harmony type of an ecological channel, constructing an item grading index status qualitative or quantitative evaluation criterion system and a scoring rule system in a matching way to provide a quantifiable technical criterion system and a method for conveniently evaluating a channel ecological compliance index (URECI), and constructing an ecological compliance evaluation criterion system in a matching way to evaluate the ecological compliance represented by the URECI for specific channel projects; and the correlation is that the state evaluation of its own indexes needs to be based on the implementation results of the other five analysis and evaluation methods, and it is required to form a good interactive connection).
Qiao teaches:
Claim 5. The mining eco-environment damage evaluation method according to claim 4, wherein S300 comprises: S310: deriving different evaluation index information as a target layer, determining first native variables included in the different evaluation index information, and acquiring first derived variables associated with the first native variables, wherein the first native variables are corresponding constraint layer information; S320: deriving the constraint layer information, and determining second derived variables associated with second native variables included in different constraint layer information, wherein the second derived variables are corresponding criterion layer information; S330: deriving different criterion layer information, and determining third derived variables associated with third native variables included in the different criterion layer information, wherein the third derived variables are corresponding index layer information; and S340: matching the constraint layer information, the criterion layer information, and the index layer information to generate the mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system (¶0017 4) the method for establishing a compliance evaluation index system of an ecological channel comprises constructing a compliance classification item index system for an ecological channel comprising three levels, eight classification indexes and 32 item indexes contained therein to reflect connotations of safety guarantee type, ecological construction type, environmental coordination type and human-water harmony type of an ecological channel, constructing an item grading index status qualitative or quantitative evaluation criterion system and a scoring rule system in a matching way to provide a quantifiable technical criterion system and a method for conveniently evaluating a channel ecological compliance index (URECI), and constructing an ecological compliance evaluation criterion system in a matching way to evaluate the ecological compliance represented by the URECI for specific channel projects; and the correlation is that the state evaluation of its own indexes needs to be based on the implementation results of the other five analysis and evaluation methods, and it is required to form a good interactive connection).
Qiao teaches:
Claim 6. The mining eco-environment damage evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein S500 comprises: S510: performing loss calculation according to a loss evaluation model of the n loss evaluation models to obtain a loss calculation result; S520: analyzing physical loss measurement caused by environmental destruction according to the loss calculation result to obtain a physical loss measurement result; S530: monetizing the physical loss measurement result to obtain a monetization result; and S540: performing damage evaluation on the mining eco-environment according to the physical loss measurement result and the monetization result (¶0056 C74 small amount of manual input is amount of a long term, of manual is required on a required on a manual input is overgrown maintenance is regular basis. regular basis. required for a with weeds performed, and long time. the cost is very low. Comprehensive The pollution index comprehensiveof fleet C75 pollution level pollution level pollution level pollution level pollution level of fleet noise, of fleet noise, of fleet noise, of fleet noise, of fleet noise, water and air is water and air is water and air is water and air is water and air is very low. low. relatively low. medium. high.).
As per claims 8-9 and 10-14, the system and manufacture tracks the method of claims 1-2 and 1-5, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1-2 and 1-5 are applied to claims 8-9 and 10-14, respectively. Qiao discloses that the embodiment may be found as a system and manufacture (Fig. 1 and ¶0013).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210188706 A1
Bland; Alan E.
Methods and Systems for Multi-Stage Encapsulation of Wastes and Production Thereof Into Aggregate Products
WO 2014121128 A1
SIDDIQU ASIM SAROSH et al.
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIA FOR EXCHANGING GENOMIC AND/OR PATIENT INFORMATION
US 20100010968 A1
Redlich; Ron M. et al.
System and method to identify, classify and monetize information as an intangible asset and a production model based thereon
NPL
Sina Amirshenava, Morteza Osanloo,
A hybrid semi-quantitative approach for impact assessment of mining activities on sustainable development indexes
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 PM.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights