DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed 7/7/2023.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 7/7/2023 has been reviewed and considered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The first recitation of “RC beam” in the preamble of claim 1 should likely read “reinforced concrete (RC) beam” to establish a basis for the acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “is significantly affected by..”. The term “significantly” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claim 3 does not act to cure the deficiencies of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
Claim 3 recites a formula for shear strength, however the variables presented after the formula include “ρsc is the reinforcement ration of the compressed steel bar.” However, as ρsc is not provided in the formulae, it is unclear whether this variable was listed erroneously of if the intended formula is incomplete.
Claim 4 contains the trademark/trade name Abacus. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the simulation software and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-6 are directed to a method (process). As such, the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those presented in bold below:
1. A method for strengthening shear strength of a RC beam with a compressed steel bar, comprising: step one: analyzing and concluding that the compressed steel bar has a positive effect on the shear strength of the RC beam via one or both of experimental testing and establishing a truss model; step two: establishing a finite element model using simulation software in a computer, and carrying out a finite element simulation; step three: comparing a result obtained by the finite element simulation with that obtained by the experimental testing, so as to verify a reliability of the finite element model; step four: performing a systematic research about a comprehensive impact of a reinforcement ratio ρsc, of the compressed steel bar, a stirrup ratio ρsv, a reinforcement ratio ρst of a tensile longitudinal steel bar, a shear span ratio λ and a concrete strength grade fco, on the shear strength of the RC beam, via analyzing numerical parameters; and step five: obtaining a mathematical model of an increment of the shear strength via regression analysis based on a numerical simulation result in step four.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes (e.g., analyzing and concluding, establishing a model, performing research, obtaining a model, etc.). More specifically, other than reciting the use of simulation software in a computer, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These limitations, as drafted, are also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships and are therefore mathematical concepts (e.g., establishing a model, obtaining a model). The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These limitations, as drafted, further represents a process for managing relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and are therefore a method of organizing human activity (i.e., a series of steps to follow for achieving shear strengthening of a RC beam). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements, which are identifying with underlining below:
1. A method for strengthening shear strength of a RC beam with a compressed steel bar, comprising: step one: analyzing and concluding that the compressed steel bar has a positive effect on the shear strength of the RC beam via one or both of experimental testing and establishing a truss model; step two: establishing a finite element model using simulation software in a computer, and carrying out a finite element simulation; step three: comparing a result obtained by the finite element simulation with that obtained by the experimental testing, so as to verify a reliability of the finite element model; step four: performing a systematic research about a comprehensive impact of a reinforcement ratio ρsc, of the compressed steel bar, a stirrup ratio ρsv, a reinforcement ratio ρst of a tensile longitudinal steel bar, a shear span ratio λ and a concrete strength grade fco, on the shear strength of the RC beam, via analyzing numerical parameters; and step five: obtaining a mathematical model of an increment of the shear strength via regression analysis based on a numerical simulation result in step four.
The functions of the simulation software in a computer are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional element amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-3 and 5-6 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (e.g., mental processes and mathematical concepts, including formulas and associated variables). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 4 further characterizes the simulation software as Abaqus software, which amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S.B. Beheshti Aval, et al. (Estimating Shear Strength of Short Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Columns Using Nonlinear Regression and Gene Expression Programming), hereinafter Beheshti, in view of Cucchiara et al. (Effectiveness of stirrups and steel fibres as shear reinforcement), herein after Cucchiara.
Regarding Claim 1, Beheshti discloses:
1. A method for strengthening shear strength of a RC beam with a compressed steel bar, comprising:
step one: analyzing and concluding that the compressed steel bar has a positive effect on the shear strength of the RC beam via one or both of experimental testing and establishing a truss model;
Beheshti p. 14: This study is devoted to present a closed form solution based on available experimental data and supplementary analytical modeling for accurate evaluation of shear strength of the Short Rectangular RC Columns (SR-RCC). To consider a wide range of changing parameters that affect SR-RCC strength and fulfillment of all available laboratory test results; Beheshti p. 16: A database, which contains 30 laboratory test data, is collected to provide a suitable model [18,19]. The database is presented in Table 2.
step two: establishing a finite element model using simulation software in a computer, and carrying out a finite element simulation;
Beheshti, Section 2, particularly 2.1 (Concrete modeling in ABAQUS), 2.2 (Steel Modeling in ABAQUS), 2.3 (Effective variables in shear strength capacity), 2.4. (Normalizing effective variables of the model), 2.5. (Calibrating the model and obtaining required data from the numerical simulations), disclosing the numerical simulation of the calibrated FE model of SR-RCC [20].
step three: comparing a result obtained by the finite element simulation with that obtained by the experimental testing, so as to verify a reliability of the finite element model;
Beheshti, p. 16, Section 2.5 The analytical and experimental results of four specimens [7,21] are shown in Fig.2. Good correlation and accuracy can be found from comparison between the analytical models and experimental ones. This indicates the reliability and feasibility of FE models used in numerical simulation phase to achieve additional required data; Table 3
step four: performing a systematic research about a comprehensive impact of a reinforcement ratio ρsc of the compressed steel bar, a stirrup ratio ρsv, a reinforcement ratio ρst of a tensile longitudinal steel bar, a shear span ratio λ and a concrete strength grade fco on the shear strength of the RC beam, via analyzing numerical parameters; and
Beheshti, Section 2.3 The following crucial variables, which incorporate in evaluation of SR-RCC's shear strength capacity and recognized in previous researches [15] are: 2.3.1. The effect of compressive axial force (P), 2.3.2. The effect of transverse reinforcement ratio (ρw), 2.3.3. The effect of compressive strength of concrete (fc ′); 2.3.4. The effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio(ρl), 2.3.5. The effect of shear span ratio; Beheshti, abstract, The results are used to establish a Gene Expression Programming (GEP) model, which considers most effective parameters such as axial force, transverse reinforcement ratio, cross-sectional aspect ratio, compressive strength, and ductility.; see also Figure 1
Beheshti, as shown above, discloses the performance of systematic research about the impact of variables on the shear strength of the RC beam. Cucchiara, in a similar field of endeavor, provides support for consideration of additional variables in similar analysis (see at least Cucchiara, Section 2, Section 6, disclosing consideration for further variables, such as stirrup ratio and tensile reinforcement ratio, expressed based on beam configuration/design/specs).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cucchiara to analysis of Beheshti would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system capable of more efficient modeling and analysis of shear strength in RC beams having a more comprehensive range of designs and associated design variables.
The combination of Beheshti and Cucchiara further discloses:
step five: obtaining a mathematical model of an increment of the shear strength via regression analysis based on a numerical simulation result in step four.
Beheshti Section 3 Nonlinear Regression – The outcome of the model developed by NR is presented in Eq.(3).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Beheshti and Cucchiara disclose the limitations of claim 1 and further disclose: wherein in the step two, the used simulation software is Abaqus software.
Beheshti Section 2 – disclosing numerical modeling in ABAQUS
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Beheshti and Cucchiara disclose the limitations of claim 1 and further disclose: wherein in the step four, a control variable method is used in the systematic research, when one factor is considered, other factors remain unchanged.
Beheshti, Section 2.3 The following crucial variables, which incorporate in evaluation of SR-RCC's shear strength capacity and recognized in previous researches [15] are: 2.3.1. The effect of compressive axial force (P), 2.3.2. The effect of transverse reinforcement ratio (ρw), 2.3.3. The effect of compressive strength of concrete (fc ′); 2.3.4. The effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio(ρl), 2.3.5. The effect of shear span ratio; Beheshti, abstract, The results are used to establish a Gene Expression Programming (GEP) model, which considers most effective parameters such as axial force, transverse reinforcement ratio, cross-sectional aspect ratio, compressive strength, and ductility.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 6 are dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and (ii) if amended to overcome the corresponding/respective rejections of the claims under 35 USC 101 (e.g., claims 2-3 and 6) and 35 USC 112(b) (e.g., claims 2-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABBY J FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-9855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ABBY J FLYNN/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights