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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claim 13, it recites the limitation “wind parameters” which is unclear because the setup step recites setting “wind parameters,” but no subsequently recited step of the claimed method uses, or is performed on the basis of, the set wind parameters.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. 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.
Claim 13 recites steps of performing method including “ a setup step” and a step of simulating”. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification of PG PUBfor the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation:
[0080] In this embodiment, the device 10 comprises a computer, this computer comprising a memory 15 to store program instructions loadable into a circuit and adapted to cause circuit 14 to carry out the steps of the present disclosure when the program instructions are run by the circuit 14.
[0087] This computer comprises an input interface 13 for the reception of several data used for the above method according to the disclosure, for instance the gridded model, some parameters of the topography of the modelled area, some parameters of the modelled currents, etc. This computer also comprises an output interface 16 for outputting the updated geological gridded model.
[0088] To ease the interaction with the computer, a screen 11 and a keyboard 12 or a tactile screen may be provided and connected to the computer circuit 14. The various components described above may be remotely connected to one another, i.e., the memory storing the data and/or the circuit implementing the method may be remotely located with reference to the user and accessible through any suitable network.
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.
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.
4. Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Step 1) The claim 1-15 and 17-19 is directed methods and fall within the statutory category of processes.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites:
determining a direction and velocity of at least one water current occurring within the immersed area (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
determining, from the water current, a direction and intensity of a shear stress induced by the water current on the particle (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
determining a transport of the particle, from the determined direction and intensity of the shear stress induced on the particle, the granulometry and sediment type of the particle (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
Claim 13 recites:
a setup step, comprising:
defining a geological gridded model of the immersed area (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion),
setting: a reference water level, at least one supply or production process of particles to be introduced within the model, and wind parameters (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering), and
a step of simulating an evolution of the geological gridded model over a predetermined period of time T (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion), comprising:
assigning a water depth to a plurality of cells (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
determining a direction and velocity of at least one water current occurring within the immersed area (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
determining, from the water current, a direction and intensity of a shear stress induced by the water current on a particle (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
introducing at least one particle in at least one cell of the geological gridded model (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
determining a transport of the particle, from the determined direction and intensity of the shear stress induced on the particle, the granulometry and sediment type of the particle (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
updating the geological gridded model of the area according to the transport of the particles (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “computer-implemented” (Claim 1and 13), “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processor and adapted to cause the processor to carry out, when the computer program is run by the processor” (Claim 17), “computer” (Claim 18-10) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further the additional elements of “wherein the immersed area comprises a plurality of cells associated with respective water depths, and the particle is located in a cell and represents a quantity of sediments of determined granulometry and sediment type” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Further Claims recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)):
(Claim 13) “setting: a reference water level, at least one supply or production process of particles to be introduced within the model, and wind parameters (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering), and
assigning a water depth to a plurality of cells (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)”.
Further the claims recite the limitation which insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself , is equivalent to “apply it”, and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)): “(Claim 13) updating the geological gridded model of the area according to the transport of the particles (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting)”.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of of “computer-implemented” (Claim 1and 13), “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processor and adapted to cause the processor to carry out, when the computer program is run by the processor” (Claim 17), “computer” (Claim 18-10) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further as discussed above Claims 13 recites the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93): “setting: a reference water level, at least one supply or production process of particles to be introduced within the model, and wind parameters (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering), and
assigning a water depth to a plurality of cells (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)”.
Also the claims recite the limitation which insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself , is equivalent to “apply it”, and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP §2106.05(h)): “(Claim 13) updating the geological gridded model of the area according to the transport of the particles (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting)”.
Further dependent claims 2-12 and 14-15 recite:
2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising a preliminary step of defining three water layers corresponding to respective water depth ranges extending between a water surface and a water bottom of the immersed area (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or “field of use”), comprising:
a bottom layer, located at the water bottom, a plume layer, located at the water surface, and a subsurface layer, extending between the bottom layer and the plume layer (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or “field of use”), wherein the method further comprises determining the direction and intensity of a shear stress in at least one water layer (mathematical concepts and a mental process).
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the direction and intensity of a shear stress in at least one water layer is determined based on a velocity profile according to depth of the at least one water current in the at least one water layer (mathematical concepts and a mental process).
4. The method according to claim 2, further comprising determining a direction and intensity of a shear stress induced by gravity on particles located in the bottom layer (mathematical concepts and a mental process).
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the shear stress induced by gravity on particles is determined such that:
the shear stress induced by gravity on the particle is null if a topographic slope of the water bottom is null (mathematical concepts and a mental process);
the value of the shear stress induced by gravity on the particle is equal to a deposition shear stress threshold when a current velocity in the subsurface layer is null and the topographic slope of the water bottom is superior or equal to an avalanche angle determined for the particle (mathematical concepts and a mental process);
and the direction of the shear stress induced by gravity on the particle is parallel to a direction of a downward topographic slope of the water bottom (mathematical concepts and a mental process).
6. The method according to claim 2, wherein the particle is located within one of the three water layers (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering), and determining a transport of the particle comprises comparing the shear stress value in the water layer in which the particle is located to a shear stress threshold depending on the particle (mathematical concepts and a mental process):
when the particle is located in the plume layer or subsurface layer (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or “field of use”), and;
when the shear stress value in the water layer in which the particle is located is higher than a suspension shear stress threshold, transporting the particle to an adjacent cell, said adjacent cell being determined based on the determined direction of the shear stress, or
when the shear stress induced on the particle is lower than the suspension shear stress threshold, transporting the particle towards the subsurface or bottom layer, respectively, within the same cell; or
when the particle is located in the bottom layer, and when the shear stress induced on the particle is higher than a traction shear stress threshold, transporting the particle to an adjacent cell, said adjacent cell being determined based on the determined direction of the shear stress within the bottom layer, or
when the shear stress induced on the particle is lower than the traction shear stress threshold, depositing the particle. (mathematical concepts and a mental process)
7. The method according to claim 2, comprising a preliminary step of determining a thickness of an Ekman layer extending from the water surface of the immersed area, and defining the three water layers (mathematical concepts and a mental process) such that:
the bottom layer extends between the water bottom and a fixed distance thereof, the plume layer extends between the water surface and a depth determined based on the Ekman layer's depth, and the subsurface layer extends between the plume layer and the bottom layer (mathematical concepts and a mental process).
8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the preliminary step further comprises defining parameters of wind occurring over the immersed area (mathematical concepts and a mental process), and the method further comprises:
determining the direction and velocity of a wind-induced current occurring in the plume layer based on the wind parameters (mathematical concepts and a mental process); and
determining the direction and velocity of a return current occurring in the subsurface layer and resulting from the wind-induced current occurring in the plume layer (mathematical concepts and a mental process).
9. The method according to claim 8, wherein determining the direction and velocity of a wind-induced current occurring in the plume layer comprises determining the direction and velocity of an ocean surface current caused by an Ekman vortex (mathematical concepts and a mental process).
10. The method according to claim 8, wherein determining the direction and velocity of a wind-induced current occurring in the plume layer comprises determining a direction and velocity of a wave-induced current (mathematical concepts and a mental process).
11. The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the transport of a particle further comprises a preliminary modelling of aggregation of particles by flocculation, and the determining a transport of the particle is implemented on the aggregated particles (mathematical concepts and a mental process).
12. The method according to claim 11, wherein modelling of aggregation of particles by flocculation comprises computing a proportion of aggregated particles based on a set of parameters including the determined shear stress and the particles size (mathematical concepts and a mental process).
14. The method according to claim 13, wherein the step of determining the transport of the particle is repeated until all introduced particles are deposited or have exited the geological gridded model (repetition of mathematical concepts and a mental process).
15. The method according to claim 13, wherein each supply or production process is chosen among one of the following groups:
clastic supply processes, comprising at least river mouth supply and mineral spring causing travertine deposition;
carbonates production process; and
each supply or production process is associated with a depth at which a particle is introduced. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or “field of use”)
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
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.
5. Claims 1 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrera-Diaz (“Light Particle Tracking Model for Simulating Bed Sediment Transport Load in River Areas” listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023).
As per Claim 1 and 17-18, Herrera-Diaz discloses a computer-implemented method/ non-transitory computer readable storage medium/computer , having stored thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processor and adapted to cause the processor to carry out, when the computer program is run by the processor (p.1 “a three dimensional computational model for the sediment trans port, developed specifically to obtain results in a short time period. The model is supported in the Particle-In-Cell method and was implemented in MATLAB”: the computer-implemented, validated Particle-In-Cell model is the claimed computer-implemented method and the MATLAB implementation of the model is a stored computer program whose instructions are loaded into and run by the processor of the computer to carry out the particle-tracking method) of modelling transport of a particle induced by water currents in an immersed area (p.1 “The selected study case is a small port terminal in the Magdalena river in Colombia”; p.4 “the velocity field acts over every particle; therefore the velocity field is the main force that moves the particles”;: the sediment particles in the modelled river-port terminal (the “immersed area”) are transported by the computed water-current velocity field), wherein the immersed area comprises a plurality of cells associated with respective water depths (p.6 “
PNG
media_image1.png
101
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“; Fig. 6 “Bathymetry of the study area”: the regular mesh provides the plurality of cells and the bathymetry assigns a respective water depth to the cells) and the particle is located in a cell and represents a quantity of sediments of determined granulometry and sediment type (p.1 “the number of particles and their size contained in every cell”; p.12 “In Table 3 the total particle count for each cell”: each tracked particle sits in a cell and is characterized by a sediment size class, i.e., the “granulometry and sediment type” as claimed),
the method comprising:
- determining a direction and velocity of at least one water current occurring within the immersed area (p.7 “a well proven numerical hydrodynamic model was used … to generate the velocities field … The results of the simulations show different behaviors and current patterns…”; Figs. 7-8: the hydrodynamic solver yields the direction and velocity of the water current over the area);
- determining, from the water current, a direction and intensity of a shear stress induced by the water current on the particle (p.4 “
PNG
media_image2.png
198
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“, Equation (5): the shear stress on the particle is computed from the current velocity field); and
-determining a transport of the particle, from the determined direction and intensity of the shear stress induced on the particle, the granulometry and sediment type of the particle (p.4 “
PNG
media_image3.png
408
513
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
171
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“; p.12 Table 3: particle transport, deposition and resuspension are decided by comparing the induced shear stress to a critical shear stress that itself depends on particle diameter, i.e., the “granulometry and sediment type”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera-Diaz (“Light Particle Tracking Model for Simulating Bed Sediment Transport Load in River Areas” listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023) in view of Massonnat (WO 2020/229863 A1 listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023).
Herrera-Diaz teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 17, and 18 above.
As per Claim 2, Herrera-Diaz teaches wherein the method further comprises determining the direction and intensity of a shear stress in at least one water layer (Herrera-Diaz: p.4 “
PNG
media_image2.png
198
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“; Equation (5): once the water column is divided into the three layers, the shear stress computed by Herrera-Diaz is determined within a said water layer).
Herrera-Diaz fails to teach explicitly further comprising a preliminary step of defining three water layers corresponding to respective water depth ranges extending between a water surface and a water bottom of the immersed area, comprising: a bottom layer, located at the water bottom, a plume layer, located at the water surface, and a subsurface layer, extending between the bottom layer and the plume layer.
Massonnat teaches further comprising a preliminary step of defining three water layers corresponding to respective water depth ranges extending between a water surface and a water bottom of the immersed area, comprising:
a bottom layer, located at the water bottom, a plume layer, located at the water surface, and a subsurface layer, extending between the bottom layer and the plume layer (Massonnat, p.12 lines 3-19 “each water current is decomposed into a plume current, a bottom current, and at least one subsurface current, located at a determined depth between the water surface and the water bottom”, Fig. 4: the plume, bottom and subsurface currents, each applied at its own water depth, occupy the claimed plume, bottom and subsurface water layers). In particular, Massonnat teaches decomposing the water column of a modelled immersed sedimentary basin into a plume layer at the surface, a bottom layer at the water bottom, and a subsurface layer between them, and computing a current within each layer.
Herrera-Diaz and Massonnat are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, computer simulation of sediment transport within an immersed area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Massonnat into Herrera-Diaz’s invention for the purpose of simulating sediment transport within an immersed area to provide a decomposition of each water current into a plume current, a bottom current, and a subsurface current located at a determined depth between the water surface and the water bottom in order to increase the precision and accuracy of the model (Massonnat: p. 10 & p.12).
As per Claim 3, Herrera-Diaz teaches wherein the direction and intensity of a shear stress in at least one water layer is determined based on a velocity profile according to depth of the at least one water current in the at least one water layer (Herrera-Diaz: p.4 “
PNG
media_image5.png
196
508
media_image5.png
Greyscale
” : the shear stress is expressed as a function of the current velocity along the depth coordinate z, i.e., a velocity profile according to depth).
As per Claim 6, Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat teaches wherein the particle is located within one of the three water layers, and determining a transport of the particle comprises comparing the shear stress value in the water layer in which the particle is located to a shear stress threshold depending on the particle (Herrera-Diaz: p.4 “
PNG
media_image6.png
194
515
media_image6.png
Greyscale
” : the acting shear stress is compared to a particle-dependent critical threshold, within the water layers established by the combination):
when the particle is located in the plume layer or subsurface layer, and when the shear stress value in the water layer in which the particle is located is higher than a suspension shear stress threshold, transporting the particle to an adjacent cell, said adjacent cell being determined based on the determined direction of the shear stress (Herrera-Diaz: p.4 “
PNG
media_image7.png
97
510
media_image7.png
Greyscale
”, “
PNG
media_image4.png
171
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” : an above-threshold particle is resuspended and advected by the velocity field to the adjacent cell along the flow direction), or
when the shear stress induced on the particle is lower than the suspension shear stress threshold, transporting the particle towards the subsurface or bottom layer, respectively, within the same cell (Herrera-Diaz: p.4 “
PNG
media_image8.png
436
512
media_image8.png
Greyscale
” : a below-threshold particle settles downward through the water column of its cell at its fall velocity); or when the particle is located in the bottom layer, and when the shear stress induced on the particle is higher than a traction shear stress threshold, transporting the particle to an adjacent cell, said adjacent cell being determined based on the determined direction of the shear stress within the bottom layer (Herrera-Diaz: p.4 “
PNG
media_image9.png
167
505
media_image9.png
Greyscale
” : a bed particle above the critical traction threshold is resuspended and transported to the adjacent cell); or when the shear stress induced on the particle is lower than the traction shear stress threshold, depositing the particle (Herrera-Diaz: p.4 “
PNG
media_image10.png
161
510
media_image10.png
Greyscale
” : a bed particle below the critical threshold is deposited. Examiner’s Note - claim 6 does not require the “suspension shear stress threshold” and the “traction shear stress threshold” to differ in value; thus, Herrera-Diaz’s critical shear stress (p.4 “The critical shear stress term acting over the particles is calculated” in Equation (6)), applied to a particle in suspension, is read as the suspension shear stress threshold and, applied to a particle on the bed, as the traction shear stress threshold)
7. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera-Diaz (“Light Particle Tracking Model for Simulating Bed Sediment Transport Load in River Areas” listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023) in view of Massonnat (WO 2020/229863 A1 listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023), further in view of Wright (“Gravity-driven sediment transport on continental shelves: A status report” listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023).
Herrera-Diaz teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 17, and 18 above.
Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 2, 3, and 6 above.
As per Claim 4, Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat fails to teach explicitly further comprising determining a direction and intensity of a shear stress induced by gravity on particles located in the bottom layer.
Wright teaches further comprising determining a direction and intensity of a shear stress induced by gravity on particles located in the bottom layer (Wright, §4, p.2097 “
PNG
media_image11.png
178
470
media_image11.png
Greyscale
” : the downslope pressure gradient force exerted by gravity on the sediment-laden layer at the bed, balanced by the bottom shear stress, is a shear stress induced by gravity on the bottom-layer particles, its intensity scaling with the bed slope and its direction being downslope). In particular, Wright describes wave- and current-supported gravity-driven transport in which the sediment-laden layer on a sloping bed experiences a downslope pressure gradient force proportional to the sine of the bed slope that is balanced by the bottom shear stress, sediment gravity flows being self-maintaining only above a minimum shelf slope and otherwise requiring ambient waves and currents to be sustained.
Herrera-Diaz, Massonnat, and Wright are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, computer simulation of sediment transport within an immersed area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Wright into Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat’s invention for the purpose of simulating sediment transport within an immersed area to provide a decomposition of each water current into a plume current, a bottom current, and a subsurface current located at a determined depth between the water surface and the water bottom in order to increase the precision and accuracy of the model (Massonnat: Pg 10 & p.12) and to provide a downslope pressure gradient force on the sediment-laden layer of a sloping bed that is balanced by bed friction as expressed by the bottom shear stress, with a minimum shelf slope at which turbulent sediment gravity flows can be self-maintaining and attesting to the robustness (Wright: §4, p.2097, §4, p. 2105).
As per Claim 5, Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat fails to teach explicitly wherein the shear stress induced by gravity on particles is determined such that: the shear stress induced by gravity on the particle is null if a topographic slope of the water bottom is null; the value of the shear stress induced by gravity on the particle is equal to a deposition shear stress threshold when a current velocity in the subsurface layer is null and the topographic slope of the water bottom is superior or equal to an avalanche angle determined for the particle; and the direction of the shear stress induced by gravity on the particle is parallel to a direction of a downward topographic slope of the water bottom.
Wright teaches wherein the shear stress induced by gravity on particles is determined such that: the shear stress induced by gravity on the particle is null if a topographic slope of the water bottom is null (Wright, §4, p.2097 “For hyperpycnal layers on a sloping bed with slope”; §4, p.2097 “yields a downslope pressure gradient force which, in the simple case, is balanced by bed friction as expressed by the bottom shear stress”: the gravity-induced bed shear balances the quantity ρLB sin θ, which vanishes where the bed slope θ is null);
the value of the shear stress induced by gravity on the particle is equal to a deposition shear stress threshold when a current velocity in the subsurface layer is null and the topographic slope of the water bottom is superior or equal to an avalanche angle determined for the particle (Wright, §4, p.2097 “
PNG
media_image12.png
251
472
media_image12.png
Greyscale
” : with no ambient waves or currents, the gravity-induced bed shear just sustains transport at the minimum slope of Eq. (4) and the sediment is deposited on gentler slopes, so at that critical slope (i.e., the “avalanche angle” as claimed) the gravity-induced shear equals the threshold between deposition and transport.); and
the direction of the shear stress induced by gravity on the particle is parallel to a direction of a downward topographic slope of the water bottom (Wright, §4, p.2097 “
PNG
media_image13.png
178
476
media_image13.png
Greyscale
” : the gravity-induced force, and the bed shear balancing it, are directed downslope).
8. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera-Diaz (“Light Particle Tracking Model for Simulating Bed Sediment Transport Load in River Areas” listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023) in view of Massonnat (WO 2020/229863 A1 listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023), further in view of Mitchell (“Observed currents over the outer continental shelf during Hurricane Ivan” listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023).
Herrera-Diaz teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 17, and 18 above.
Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 2, 3, and 6 above.
As per Claim 7, Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat teaches … defining the three water layers such that (Massonnat: p.12 lines 3-19 “each water current is decomposed into a plume current, a bottom current, and at least one subsurface current”: the decomposition into a plume, a subsurface and a bottom current defines the three water layers):
… the subsurface layer extends between the plume layer and the bottom layer (Massonnat: p.12, lines 3-19 “located at a determined depth between the water surface and the water bottom”: the subsurface layer lies between the surface plume layer and the bottom layer).
However, Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat fails to teach explicitly comprising a preliminary step of determining a thickness of an Ekman layer extending from the water surface of the immersed area, and … the bottom layer extends between the water bottom and a fixed distance thereof; and the plume layer extends between the water surface and a depth determined based on the Ekman layer’s depth.
Mitchell teaches comprising a preliminary step of determining a thickness of an Ekman layer extending from the water surface of the immersed area (Mitchell, §3, p.2 “
PNG
media_image14.png
177
528
media_image14.png
Greyscale
” : the thickness of the surface Ekman layer, measured from the water surface, is determined), and
…the bottom layer extends between the water bottom and a fixed distance thereof (Mitchell, §3, p.2 “
PNG
media_image15.png
113
488
media_image15.png
Greyscale
” : the thin bottom Ekman layer (i.e., the “bottom layer” as claimed) occupies a fixed distance above the water bottom); and
the plume layer extends between the water surface and a depth determined based on the Ekman layer’s depth (Mitchell, §3, p.2 “
PNG
media_image16.png
169
500
media_image16.png
Greyscale
”; Figs. 3-4: the surface Ekman layer (i.e., the “plume layer” as claimed) extends from the water surface to the determined Ekman depth). In particular, Mitchell describes the surface Ekman layer thickness and its dependence on wind stress and water depth, a standard characterization of the wind-driven surface layer in the domain.
Herrera-Diaz, Massonnat, and Mitchell are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, computer simulation of sediment transport and currents within an immersed area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Mitchell into Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat’s invention for the purpose of simulating sediment transport within an immersed area to provide a decomposition of each water current into a plume current, a bottom current, and a subsurface current located at a determined depth between the water surface and the water bottom in order to increase the precision and accuracy of the model (Massonnat: p. 10 &12, lines 8-13) and to provide a rapidly deepening surface Ekman layer accurately whose thickness is determined by the wind stress and the ratio of water depth to Ekman depth (Mitchell: §2-3, p.1-2).
As per Claim 8, Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat teaches wherein the preliminary step further comprises defining parameters of wind occurring over the immersed area … (Massonnat: p.23, lines 15-30 “The winds induce the formation of waves at the vicinity of the shoreline … A first step 321 comprises the user setting a wind strength or a kind of wind”: the wind occurring over the area is parameterized by the set wind strength or kind of wind): and determining the direction and velocity of a wind-induced current occurring in the plume layer based on the wind parameters (Massonnat: p.23, lines 15-30 “The wind-induced current comprises two components which are an offshore current and a longshore current”: the wind-induced plume current is determined from the wind parameters).
However, Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat fails to teach explicitly determining the direction and velocity of a return current occurring in the subsurface layer and resulting from the wind-induced current occurring in the plume layer.
Mitchell teaches determining the direction and velocity of a return current occurring in the subsurface layer and resulting from the wind-induced current occurring in the plume layer (Mitchell, §3, p.2 “
PNG
media_image15.png
113
488
media_image15.png
Greyscale
”,
PNG
media_image16.png
169
500
media_image16.png
Greyscale
” ; Figs. 3-4: beneath the wind-aligned surface Ekman current, the measured near-bottom velocities veer off-shelf, so the flow below the surface layer returns in a direction opposed to the wind-driven surface current; Examiner’s Note – the off-shelf sub-surface flow that Mitchell measures beneath the wind-driven surface layer (Figs. 3-4) is read as the “return current” as claimed, and in the combination it occurs in the subsurface layer of Massonnat’s decomposition).
As per Claim 9, Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat fails to teach explicitly wherein determining the direction and velocity of a wind-induced current occurring in the plume layer comprises determining the direction and velocity of an ocean surface current caused by an Ekman vortex.
Mitchell teaches wherein determining the direction and velocity of a wind-induced current occurring in the plume layer comprises determining the direction and velocity of an ocean surface current caused by an Ekman vortex (Mitchell, §3, p.2 “
PNG
media_image17.png
172
493
media_image17.png
Greyscale
“; Figs. 3-4: the wind-forced surface Ekman current with its Ekman veering (i.e., the “Ekman vortex” as claimed) is the ocean surface current whose direction and velocity are determined).
As per Claim 10, Herrera-Diaz as modified by Massonnat teaches wherein determining the direction and velocity of a wind-induced current occurring in the plume layer comprises determining a direction and velocity of a wave-induced current (Massonnat: p.23, line 15-30 “
PNG
media_image18.png
268
704
media_image18.png
Greyscale
“; p.24, lines 6-7 “
PNG
media_image19.png
56
662
media_image19.png
Greyscale
” : the plume current is determined from a wind-generated wave-induced current).
9. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera-Diaz (“Light Particle Tracking Model for Simulating Bed Sediment Transport Load in River Areas” listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023) in view of Winterwerp (“A simple model for turbulence induced flocculation of cohesive sediment”).
Herrera-Diaz teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 17, and 18 above.
As per Claim 11, Herrera-Diaz fails to teach explicitly wherein determining the transport of a particle further comprises a preliminary modelling of aggregation of particles by flocculation, and the determining a transport of the particle is implemented on the aggregated particles.
Winterwerp teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the transport of a particle further comprises a preliminary modelling of aggregation of particles by flocculation (Winterwerp, §3, “A flocculation model accounting for the effect of turbulent shear”, p.314; §1, p.309 “Turbulent motions will cause particles, carried by the eddies, to collide and form flocs”: the flocculation model aggregates the cohesive sediment particles into flocs before their transport is determined), and the determining a transport of the particle is implemented on the aggregated particles (Winterwerp, §1, p.309 “The transport and fate of fine grained sediment in estuarine and coastal waters is a function of the effective settling velocity of the sediment, which in turn is affected largely by flocculation effects”: the transport, governed by the effective settling velocity, is implemented on the flocculated aggregates). In particular, Winterwerp teaches a model of the turbulence-induced flocculation of fine grained cohesive sediment in which the particles aggregate into flocs, the settling velocity, and hence the transport, of the sediment being governed by the resulting flocculation.
Herrera-Diaz and Winterwerp are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, computer simulation of the transport of sediment particles in water.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Winterwerp into Herrera-Diaz’s invention for the purpose of simulating sediment transport within an immersed area to provide a simple flocculation model that can be solved analytically for uniform conditions, in which the settling velocity of the fine grained cohesive sediment, and hence its transport and fate, is governed by turbulence-induced flocculation (Winterwerp: p.309).
As per Claim 12, Herrera-Diaz fails to teach explicitly wherein modelling of aggregation of particles by flocculation comprises computing a proportion of aggregated particles based on a set of parameters including the determined shear stress and the particles size.
Winterwerp teaches The method according to claim 11, wherein modelling of aggregation of particles by flocculation comprises computing a proportion of aggregated particles based on a set of parameters including the determined shear stress and the particles size (Winterwerp, p.311 “describing the variation of the number of particles in a turbulent environment as a function of G and their residence time”; p.314 “It follows that G is a measure of the turbulent shear in the flow”; p.315 “
PNG
media_image20.png
466
948
media_image20.png
Greyscale
p.316 “
PNG
media_image21.png
131
938
media_image21.png
Greyscale
” : the number, and thus the proportion, of aggregated particles is computed from the turbulent shear G, which measures the shear stress acting on the flocs, and from the primary particle size Dp).
10. Claims 13 -15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera-Diaz (“Light Particle Tracking Model for Simulating Bed Sediment Transport Load in River Areas”) in view of Massonnat (WO 2020/229863 A1 listed on IDS filed 07/26/2023).
As per Claim 13 and 19, Herrera-Diaz teaches a computer-implemented method/ teaches a computer (Herrera-Diaz: p.1 “The model is supported in the Particle-In-Cell method and was implemented in MATLAB”: the computer running the model is configured to implement the method of claim 13 as modified) of modelling sedimentary deposition within an immersed area (p.1 “Erosion is the flux of particles from a sediment bed into the overlying water, and deposition is the flux of particles back to the sediment bed”: the modelled deposition and erosion of particles in the river-port area is the modelling of sedimentary deposition within an immersed area), comprising:
a setup step, comprising:
defining a geological gridded model of the immersed area (p.6 “
PNG
media_image1.png
101
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” ; Fig. 6 “Bathymetry of the study area”: the discretized bathymetric mesh of the study area is the geological gridded model of the immersed area),
setting: …
at least one supply or production process of particles to be introduced within the model (p.1 “the number of particles and their size contained in every cell”; p.12 “In Table 3 the total particle count for each cell”: the size-classified particles populating the cells are the supply of particles introduced within the model), …
a step of simulating an evolution of the geological gridded model over a predetermined period of time T (p.4 “The particles tracking is governed by the motion equation”; p.4 “In each differential time, the velocity field acts over every particle”: the time-stepped tracking of particles over the simulated period is the claimed simulating step), comprising:
- assigning a water depth to a plurality of cells (p.6 “
PNG
media_image1.png
101
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” ; Fig. 6 “Bathymetry of the study area”: the regular mesh provides the plurality of cells and the bathymetry assigns a respective water depth to the cells);
- determining a direction and velocity of at least one water current occurring within the immersed area (p.7 “a well proven numerical hydrodynamic model was used … to generate the velocities field … The results of the simulations show different behaviors and current patterns…”; Figs. 7-8: the hydrodynamic solver yields the direction and velocity of the water current over the area);
-determining, from the water current, a direction and intensity of a shear stress induced by the water current on a particle (p.4 “
PNG
media_image2.png
198
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“, Equation (5): the shear stress on the particle is computed from the current velocity field);
- introducing at least one particle in at least one cell of the geological gridded model (p.1 “the number of particles and their size contained in every cell”; p.12 “In Table 3 the total particle count for each cell”: the tracked particles are introduced into the cells of the gridded model);
- determining a transport of the particle, from the determined direction and intensity of the shear stress induced on the particle, the granulometry and sediment type of the particle (p.4 “
PNG
media_image3.png
408
513
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
171
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“; p.12 Table 3: particle transport, deposition and resuspension are decided by comparing the induced shear stress to a critical shear stress that itself depends on particle diameter, i.e., the “granulometry and sediment type”); and
- updating the geological gridded model of the area according to the transport of the particles (p.2 “estimate sediment transport and some temporal changes in the morphology of the bottom”; p.13 Figs. 13-14: the estimated siltation profile of the river bottom, plotted against the original profile, is the gridded model updated according to the simulated transport and deposition of the particles).
However, Herrera-Diaz fails to teach explicitly a reference water level; and wind parameters.
However, Herrera-Diaz fails to teach explicitly a reference water level; and wind parameters.
Massonnat teaches a reference water level (Massonnat, p.8 lines 20-21 “the setup step 90 comprises setting an initial reference water level”: the initial reference water level is set during the setup step); and
wind parameters (Massonnat, p.23 line 23 “A first step 321 comprises the user setting a wind strength or a kind of wind”: the wind strength or kind of wind set by the user are the wind parameters set during setup).
Herrera-Diaz and Massonnat are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, computer simulation of sediment transport within an immersed area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Massonnat into Herrera-Diaz’s invention for the purpose of simulating sediment transport within an immersed area to provide a decomposition of each water current into a plume current, a bottom current, and a subsurface current located at a determined depth between the water surface and the water bottom in order to increase the precision and accuracy of the model (Massonnat: p. 10 & p.12).
As per Claim 14, Herrera-Diaz fails to teach explicitly wherein the step of determining the transport of the particle is repeated until all introduced particles are deposited or have exited the geological gridded model.
Massonnat teaches wherein the step of determining the transport of the particle is repeated until all introduced particles are deposited or have exited the geological gridded model (Massonnat, p.16 lines 22-23 “step 500 is iterated until all particles are either deposited or have exited the gridded model”: the particle-transport step is repeated until every introduced particle has been deposited or has left the gridded model).
As per Claim 15, Herrera-Diaz fails to teach explicitly wherein each supply or production process is chosen among one of the following groups: clastic supply processes, comprising at least river mouth supply and mineral spring causing travertine deposition; carbonates production process; and each supply or production process is associated with a depth at which a particle is introduced.
Massonnat teaches wherein each supply or production process is chosen among one of the following groups: clastic supply processes, comprising at least river mouth supply and mineral spring causing travertine deposition (Massonnat, p.13 lines 20-23 “Clastic supply processes comprise river mouth supply, volcanoes, mineral sources causing travertine deposition and remobilization of travertine deposition”: river mouth supply and mineral sources (i.e., the “mineral spring” as claimed) causing travertine deposition are recited as clastic supply processes);
carbonates production process (Massonnat, p.13 lines 20-23 “carbonate supply processes comprise in situ production of carbonates”: the in-situ carbonate production process is recited); and
each supply or production process is associated with a depth at which a particle is introduced (Massonnat, p.13 lines 26-28 “Each particle is introduced at a determined depth, which determines the sub-current (plume, subsurface or bottom) applied to the particle, according to the supply process from which it originates”: each particle is introduced at a determined depth associated with its supply process).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Granjeon (US 2014/0163883 A1) teaches a stratigraphic basin simulation coupling sediment transport through a gridded model with clastic and carbonate/organic supply and production processes dependent on water depth and hydrodynamism.
Massonnat et al. (US 12436313 B2)
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights