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 . The Response to Election/Restriction filed 08/11/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 2 and 11-13 are canceled. Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 3-6 are elected without traverse and presented for examination. Claims 7-10 are thus withdrawn from further consideration.
Noncompliant Amendment
Claims 7-10 were indicated with a status of "(Previously presented)", but they are withdrawn (non-elected).
To avoid further delay in prosecution, Examiner has examined in good faith the claims in the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 4, line 4 includes the typo “ormula”. Examiner interprets as “formula" for examination purposes.
Claim 1 uses the acronyms or variables: WA_pillar, Wtop_Across beam, WB_pillar, Wtop_Bcross beam, WD_pillar, Wtop_Dcross beam, the first use of an acronym or variable in a claim should be defined to avoid any possible indefiniteness issues.
Claim 4, line(s) 17 refer to the term “the framework profiles”, it would be better as “the ROPS framework profiles” to avoid any possible antecedent issues. Antecedent calls for “the ROPS framework profiles” (claim ,4 line 13) and not “the framework profiles".
Appropriate correction or clarification 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 1 and 3-6 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line(s) 5 "calculation specified in GB/T (National Standard / Recommended) 17922, GB/T 19930 or GB/T 19930.2" set forth features that are only passively recited and not positively recited as actual features within the body of the claim. The claims cannot rely on a table or implied definitions not positively claimed. All interrelated elements must be specifically and positively recited. Furthermore, Examiner notes that Fmax and Umax lack elaboration of what it refers to, because none of the tables in paragraphs [0149]–[0151] of the specification read Fmax or Umax.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ROPS framework" in line(s) 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are two different "ROPS framework" anteceding this limitation: "a rollover protective structure (ROPS) framework” and "an ROPS framework". The recitation of “the ROPS framework” is unclear because it is uncertain which of the two was intended.
As to claim(s) 4, 5, they are objected for the same deficiency.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the load" in line(s) 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no "load" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the ROPS lateral thrust test" in line(s) 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no "ROPS lateral thrust test" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites:
obtaining, by calculation specified in GB/T (National Standard / Recommended) 17922, GB/T 19930 or GB/T 19930.2, target values of a lateral load Fmax and lateral load energy Umax of an ROPS framework according to maximum mass of applicable machines of the ROPS framework;
(mathematical concepts)
selecting, according to features of applicable machines of a cab, a suitable cab framework structure type from a simply supported beam structural mechanics model…
(mental concepts)
based on the suitable framework structure type selected from the simply supported beam structural mechanics model and the target values of the lateral load Fmax and the lateral load energy Umax obtained by calculation, obtaining two profile sectional modulus sum values by calculation according to a maximum lateral load Fmax quick calculation formula and a maximum load energy Umax quick calculation formula, and taking the greater one of the two profile sectional modulus sum values as a final profile sectional modulus sum of all pillars and top cross beams meeting a relation; and
(mathematical concepts)
selecting suitable profiles according to the profile sectional modulus sum…
(mental concepts)
wherein, the maximum lateral load Fmax quick calculation formula is:
Fmax = 2 K σtensile stress Σ {(Σ {(WA_pillar+ Wtop_Across beam)/ LA,(WB_pillar + Wtop_Bcross beam)/ LB, n (WD_pillar + Wtop_Dcross beam)/ LD};
the maximum load energy Umax quick calculation formula is:
Umax 1.5 Smax K σtensile stress Σ {(WA_pillar + Wtop_Across beam)/ LA, (WB_pillar + Wtop_Bcross beam)/ LB, n (W D_pillar + Wtop_Dcross beam)/ LD}=0.42 K σtensile stress (WA_pillar + Wtop_Across beam)/ LA, (WB_pillar + Wtop_Bcross beam)/ LB, n (WD_pillar+ Wtop_Dcross beam)/LD};
where, n is a structure reinforcing coefficient and is determined according to the selected cab framework structure type;
the target values of the lateral load Fmax and the lateral load energy Umax obtained by calculation are used as Fmax and Umax;
K denotes a complete plastic deformation zone reinforcing coefficient and is obtained by regression analysis according to the maximum lateral load Fmax in test data;
the maximum deformation displacement Smax is a median of normal statistical data in the test data;
σtensile stress denotes a tensile stress limit value of a material and is a fixed value according to the selected material;
LA, LB, LD and Ld are given values according to the selected cab framework structure type, and respectively denote a height dimension of A-pillars, a height dimension of B-pillars, a height dimension of D-pillars, and a height dimension from highest points of D-pillars to highest points of cable-stayed beams of the framework structure reinforced with the cable-stayed beams
(mathematical concepts)
The independent claim is substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, calculations; and mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
As to the limitations "selecting, according to features of applicable machines of a cab, a suitable cab framework structure type from a simply supported beam structural mechanics model" and "selecting suitable profiles according to the profile sectional modulus sum", under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “selecting” is a mental concept. Examiner notes that both the claimed invention and the specification are mute about how the "suitable cab framework structure type" or "suitable profiles" are selected. Selections are mental in nature (mental processes including a judgment, opinion).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A Prong two: As to the limitations “a design… for a rollover protective structure (ROPS) framework", they are no more than intended use.
As to the limitations "wherein the simply supported beam structural mechanics model comprises a common cab framework structure, a framework structure reinforced with a middle cross beam, or a framework structure reinforced with cable-stayed beams" and "constructing a closed spatial framework structure according to the selected cab framework structure type", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1 Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the intended use limitations remain intended use even upon reconsideration, because no actual design for a rollover protective structure (ROPS) framework is performed in the body of the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). As to the limitations "wherein the simply supported beam structural mechanics model comprises a common cab framework structure, a framework structure reinforced with a middle cross beam, or a framework structure reinforced with cable-stayed beams", they are so broad that little is known about how they are performed. As to the limitations "wherein the simply supported beam structural mechanics model comprises a common cab framework structure, a framework structure reinforced with a middle cross beam, or a framework structure reinforced with cable-stayed beams", see for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
'[0118] FIG. 5, FIG. 6 and FIG. 7 respectively illustrate a simply supported beam structural mechanics model comprising the common cab framework structure, a simply supported beam structural mechanics model comprising the framework structure reinforced with the middle cross beam, and the simply supported beam structural mechanics model comprising the framework structure reinforced with the cable-stayed beams'
PNG
media_image1.png
605
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
539
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
628
539
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims are substantially drawn to abstract ideas as their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations "4… S2, selecting design parameters: analyzing the bending moment equilibrium formula to obtain a profile anti-bending geometric parameter, sectional modulus W, which is a key factor determining a maximum load capacity Mmax of ROPS framework profiles, wherein a relation between the sectional modulus W and the maximum load capacity Mmax is Mmax = K σtensile stress W… obtaining, by statistically analyzing a relation curve of the lateral load F and lateral deformation displacement S in a database established in S3, that load energy absorbed in the plastic deformation zone accounts for 2/3 of total load energy, displacement in the plastic deformation zone accounts for 1/2 of total deformation displacement and the maximum deformation displacement Smax, which is the median of the normal statistic data, is 0.28 m, such that the maximum load energy Umax quick calculation formula is obtained and expressed as:
Umax =0.75 Fmax Smax = 1.5 Smax K σtensile stress Σ {(WA_pillar+ Wtop_Across beam)/LA, (WB_pillar + Wtop_Bcross beam)/LB, n (WD_pillar+ Wtop_Dcross beam)/LD}0.42 K σtensile stress Σ {(WA_pillar+ Wtop_Across beam)/LA, (WB_pillar + Wtop_Bcross beam)/LB, n (WD_pillar+ Wtop_Dcross beam)/LD}", under their broadest reasonable interpretations, “selecting” and "analyzing" are mental concepts. Selections are mental in nature (mental processes including a judgment, opinion). Analyses are mental in nature (mental processes including observations, evaluations). Obtaining and expressing calculation formulas (mathematical equations) are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Dependent claims Step 2A Prong two:
As to the limitations “4… S3, obtaining test data when the framework profiles enter a complete deformation zone during the ROPS lateral thrust test, extracting the maximum lateral load Fmax, the maximum lateral load energy Umax and the maximum deformation displacement Smax in the test data, and using a median of normal statistical data in the test data as the maximum deformation displacement Smax”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power Group1. (Electric Power hereinafter). See also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claims recite data gathering at a high level of generality; and therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-6 are allowable over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No reference taken either alone or in combination discloses the mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations in claim 1, in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine any references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 8:00 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
Prosecution Insights