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 . Claim 13 is cancelled. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the features disclosed in the description and claims should be illustrated in the drawings in a form of graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation.
Element numbers within boxes does not provide adequate labeling for Figure(s) 2.
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). Examiner requests Applicant to provide a drawing that explicitly shows a flowchart or a diagram of the claimed method and system. Examiner notes that the drawings presented do not represent the mode of operation of the invention. They are merely plots of results obtained by operating of the invention.
Claim Objections
Claims refer to the terms “the remobilized fraction of particles” and “the fraction of the deposited particles”, it would be better to uniquify to avoid any possible antecedent issues.
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 1-12, 14, and 15 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 recites the limitation "the model" in line(s) 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are two different models anteceding this limitation: modelling the sedimentary deposition and a geological gridded model. The recitation of “the model” is unclear because it is uncertain which of the two was intended.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transport of a particle" in line(s) 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There may be a plurality of "particles" anteceding this limitation. Antecedent calls for “transport of at least one introduced particle”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transport of the particles" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There may be only one "particle" anteceding this limitation. Antecedent calls for “transport of at least one introduced particle”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said shear stress value" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While there is “a shear stress" anteceding this limitation in the claim, there is no "shear stress value" 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 1-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
assigning a water depth to a plurality of cells…
determining a transport of at least one introduced particle induced by the water current in fair weather conditions, wherein the transport of a particle comprises displacing the particle or depositing the particle on water bottom…
modelling remobilization of a fraction of the deposited particles following occurrence of stormy conditions…
determining a transport of the remobilized fraction of particles induced by the water current in stormy conditions, wherein the transport of a particle comprises displacing the particle or depositing the particle on the water bottom
Independent claim 1 is substantially drawn to mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1: “Information… is an intangible”.
Determinations are mental in nature. These limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing deciding/determining (judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
As to the determining limitations, the claimed invention further reads “3… wherein determining the transport of at least one introduced particle or of a remobilized particle comprises: determining a direction and velocity of the at least one water current within the immersed area; determining, from the direction and velocity of the water current, a direction and intensity of a shear stress induced by the water current, ; and determining that the at least one introduced particle or the remobilized particle is transported or deposited based on the determined direction and intensity of the shear stress, a granulometry and sediment type of the at least one introduced particle or the remobilized particle”.
As to the limitations “modelling remobilization of a fraction of the deposited particles following occurrence of stormy conditions”, the claimed invention further reads “4… wherein modelling remobilization of a fraction of the deposited particles comprises determining the fraction of the deposited particles which is remobilized during a stormy event”.
As to the limitations “assigning a water depth to a plurality of cells", under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “assigning” is a mental concept. These activities can be characterized as entailing a user deciding on information that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental concepts, 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 computer implemented, they are interpreted at best as drawn to a generic computer for performing mathematical computations.
As to the limitations "of modelling the sedimentary deposition within an immersed area subject to stormy meteorological events, comprising: a setup, comprising defining; a geological gridded model of the immersed area, a period of time during which sedimentary deposition is modelled, a reference water level, at least one supply process of particles to be introduced within the model, at least one water current occurring within the immersed area, and a duration of stormy conditions within the period of times; and simulating an evolution of the geological gridded model over the period of time, comprising… introducing at least one particle in at least one cell of the geological gridded model… and updating the geological gridded model of the immersed area according to the transport of the particles"; these limitations represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (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 limitations computer implemented are recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, which is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
“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… The circuit 14 may be for instance: a processor or a processing unit adapted to interpret instructions in a computer language” (see page 18, lines 12-19).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
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).
Independent claims 14 and 15, Step 2A Prong One: These claims recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong One above).
Independent claims 14 and 15, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional elements computer readable storage medium and apparatus comprising a memory and a processor, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong Two: As to the limitations "2… wherein the steps of determining a transport of the at least one introduced particle and determining a transport of the remobilized fraction of the particles are repeated until all introduced particles are deposited or have exited the geological gridded model"; these limitations represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (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, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations – simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] (d)(II): 'Performing repetitive calculations, Flook2… (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values)'.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, pages, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xiao et al., (Xiao hereinafter), "Numerical modelling of suspended-sediment transport in a geographically complex microtidal estuary: Sydney Harbour Estuary, NSW" (see IDS dated 07/27/2023), taken in view of Xiao et al., (Xiao(1) hereinafter), Numerical modelling of the Sydney Harbour estuary, New South Wales: lateral circulation and asymmetric vertical mixing.
As to claim 1, Xiao discloses a computer implemented method of modelling (see “finite-volume community ocean model (FVCOM)… to simulate the hydrodynamics in the SHE. FVCOM simulates water surface elevation, velocity, temperature and salinity by solving the equations of momentum, continuity, temperature, salinity and density in an integrated form to conserve mass. The UNSW-Sed module… was two-way coupled to the SHE hydrodynamic model using the same grid in FVCOM to simulate sediment dynamics” in page 3, 2nd paragraph) the sedimentary deposition within an immersed area subject to stormy meteorological events, comprising: a setup, comprising defining; a geological gridded model of the immersed area, a period of time during which sedimentary deposition is modelled (see “2.2.2 Model setup… model grid consisted of 79,278 elements (triangles) and 43,584 nodes (of the triangles), forming a mesh of triangles with variable cell width… model simulation commenced on the 15 Oct 2013, running until the 31 Dec 2013 with a focus on the sediment transport during the dry period… simulation included two storm events on 10-13 Nov and the 16-19 Nov 2013” in page 3, col. 2, 2nd paragraph), a reference water level (see “mooring station recorded surface water level” in page 4, col. 2, 3rd paragraph), at least one supply process of particles to be introduced within the model (see “net vertical sediment flux at the bottom due to erosion and deposition Eb (kg/m2/s) can be expressed… (5) where… ws (m/s) the particle settling velocity, positive upward and negative downward” in page 3, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, 1st paragraph; “Estuaries are efficient sediment traps between land and ocean, filtering cohesive and fine particles, richly organic and prone to flocculate” in page 1, col. 1, 1st paragraph)… and a duration of stormy conditions within the period of times; and simulating an evolution of the geological gridded model over the period of time (see “model simulation commenced on the 15 Oct 2013, running until the 31 Dec 2013 with a focus on the sediment transport during the dry period” in page 3, col. 2, 2nd paragraph), comprising: assigning a water depth to a plurality of cells (see “along-estuary sediment flux was decomposed into two components… depth-weighted velocity and SSC at six cross-sections… were firstly separated… D the total water depth” in page 4, 2nd paragraph); introducing at least one particle in at least one cell of the geological gridded model (see “Estuaries are efficient sediment traps between land and ocean, filtering cohesive and fine particles, richly organic and prone to flocculate” in page 1, col. 1, 1st paragraph); determining a transport of at least one introduced particle induced by the water current in fair weather conditions (see “fair weather“ as “dry weather“, “ABSTRACT… A numerical study was conducted to investigate the sediment dynamics in a geographically complex estuary, the Sydney Harbour Estuary (SHE)… Horizontal sediment transport showed a local estuarine turbidity maximum (ETM) as a result of complex topography, independent of salinity fields and river flows during dry weather” in page 1), wherein the transport of a particle comprises (see “net vertical sediment flux at the bottom due to 2/s) can be expressed… (5)” in page 3, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, 1st paragraph); modelling remobilization of a fraction of the deposited particles following occurrence of stormy conditions (see “fraction“ as “flocculation… suspended sediment… residual sediment“, “model here was forced by wind fields on a 0.125◦x0.125◦ grid… For cohesive sediment, the flocculation process can determine the settling velocity of suspended sediment and influence the residual sediment transport” in page 6, col. 1, last paragraph); determining a transport of the remobilized fraction of particles induced by the water current in stormy conditions (see “model simulation commenced on the 15 Oct 2013, running until the 31 Dec 2013 with a focus on the sediment transport during the dry period… simulation included two storm events on 10-13 Nov and the 16-19 Nov 2013” in page 3, col. 2, 2nd paragraph), wherein the transport of a particle comprises (see “net vertical sediment flux at the bottom due to 2/s) can be expressed… (5)” in page 3, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, 1st paragraph); and updating the geological gridded model of the immersed area according to the transport of the particles (see “Based on the numerical modelling of SSC dynamics from 15 November to 15 December, we investigated the SSC variations in SHE. The predicted temporal and spatial variations in the depth-averaged SSC along the estuary channel are shown in Fig. 5” in page 6, next to last paragraph).
While Xiao discloses current (see “bottom drag coefficient Cd… Cd and bottom stress τb are given by… τb=ρCd|ub|ub (4) where … ub the bottom current velocity” in page 3, col. 1, next to last paragraph), Xiao fails to disclose
However in a NPL cited by Xiao, Xiao(1) discloses … at least one water current occurring within the immersed area (see “2.2. Field observation Surface water elevations were obtained from the FD tidal gauge and the mooring station near Goat Island (GI)… Current speed and direction data were extracted for the model simulation period at 5-min time intervals” in page 134, col. 1, last paragraph).
Xiao and Xiao(1) are analogous art because they are related to modelling transport and/or deposition of sediments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Xiao(1) with Xiao, because Xiao(1) points out that "[a] fully calibrated three-dimensional hydrodynamic model of the Sydney Harbour Estuary… to determine the dominant forcing of regulating estuarine circulation in a sinuous channel under conditions of low river discharge during dry weather" (see page 132, ABSTRACT), and as a result, Xiao(1) reports that "[p]redicted current velocities showed close agreement with observed data (RMSE depth averaged velocity < = 0.05 m/s, mean error µ = −0.03 m/s, mean error ν = +0.01 m/s, Fig. 4c–f, 5c-f; Table 2)" (see page 137, 2nd paragraph).
As to claim 2, Xiao discloses wherein the steps of determining a transport of the at least one introduced particle and determining a transport of the remobilized fraction of the particles are repeated until all introduced particles are deposited (see “net vertical sediment flux at the bottom due to… deposition Eb (kg/m2/s) can be expressed… Eb =… (5)” in page 3, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 3, Xiao discloses wherein determining the transport of at least one introduced particle or of a remobilized particle comprises: determining a direction and velocity of the at least one water current within the immersed area (see “Fig. 8. Simulated time series at station A in the ETM… (b) bottom along-estuary current speed Ub (m/s; blue) and cross-estuary current speed Vb (m/s; red)” in page 8); determining, from the direction and velocity of the water current, a direction and intensity of a shear stress induced by the water current (see “bottom stress τb are given by… τb=ρCd|ub|ub (4) where … ub the bottom current velocity” in page 3, col. 1, next to last paragraph; “Fig. 8. Simulated time series at station A in the ETM… (c) bottom shear stress τau (kg/ms2; blue deposition; red erosion)” in page 8); and determining that the at least one introduced particle or the remobilized particle is transported or deposited based on the determined direction and intensity of the shear stress (see “net vertical sediment flux at the bottom due to 2/s) can be expressed… (5) where… τb (kg/m/s2) the bottom shear stress, τce and τcd (kg/m/s2) the critical shear stress for
As to claim 4, Xiao discloses wherein modelling remobilization of a fraction of the deposited particles comprises determining the fraction of the deposited particles which is remobilized during a stormy event (see “fraction“ as “flocculation… suspended sediment… residual sediment“, “model here was forced by wind fields on a 0.125◦x0.125◦ grid… For cohesive sediment, the flocculation process can determine the settling velocity of suspended sediment and influence the residual sediment transport” in page 6, col. 1, last paragraph).
As to claim 5, Xiao discloses wherein the setup further comprises defining a wind speed associated to with stormy conditions, and determining the fraction of the deposited particles which is remobilized during a stormy event comprises: determining a velocity of at least one water current induced by the wind within the immersed area during a stormy event (see “Fig. 8. Simulated time series at station A in the ETM… (b) bottom along-estuary current speed Ub (m/s; blue) and cross-estuary current speed Vb (m/s; red)” in page 8), determining, from the velocity of the wind induced water current, a value of a shear stress induced on the deposited particles by the wind induced water current (see “bottom stress τb are given by… τb=ρCd|ub|ub (4) where … ub the bottom current velocity” in page 3, col. 1, next to last paragraph; “Fig. 8. Simulated time series at station A in the ETM… (c) bottom shear stress τau (kg/ms2; blue deposition; red erosion)” in page 8); and, determining the fraction of the deposited particles which is remobilized during the stormy event based on said shear stress value (see “Different values for the sediment model parameters ws, τce, τcd and E0 in the SHE were tested to evaluate the sediment model performance. The suspended sediment is treated to be a single group of fine cohesive sediment uniformly across the model domain” in page 3, last paragraph; “net vertical sediment flux at the bottom due to 2/s) can be expressed… (5) where… τb (kg/m/s2) the bottom shear stress, τce and τcd (kg/m/s2) the critical shear stress for s (m/s) the particle settling velocity, positive upward and negative downward” in page 3, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 6, Xiao discloses a preliminary step of defining water layers corresponding to respective water depth ranges extending between the a water surface and the 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 water bottom and the plume layer (see “2.2.2 Model setup… model grid consisted of 79,278 elements (triangles) and 43,584 nodes (of the triangles), forming a mesh of triangles with variable cell width, ranging from 2,000 m at the open-ocean boundary down to 15 m inside the estuary… total of 15 sigma layers were applied in the vertical direction, with a uniform thickness in the middle (11% of the total depth), and higher resolution near the surface and bottom (1% of the total depth)” in page 3, col. 2, 2nd paragraph), wherein modelling remobilization of a fraction of the deposited particles comprises determining a fraction of particles remobilized in each respective water layer (see “fraction“ as “flocculation… suspended sediment… residual sediment“, “For cohesive sediment, the flocculation process can determine the settling velocity of suspended sediment and influence the residual sediment transport” in page 6, col. 1, last paragraph).
As to claim 7, Xiao discloses wherein determining a velocity of at least one water current induced by the wind within the immersed area under stormy conditions comprises: determining a velocity of a wind induced current occurring in the plume layer (see “Fig. 8. Simulated time series at station A in the ETM… (b) bottom along-estuary current speed Ub (m/s; blue) and cross-estuary current speed Vb (m/s; red)” in page 8).
Xiao(1) discloses based on parameters inferred from the wind speed (see “Hourly wind fields were extracted from Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) station at FD and converted into along- and cross- estuary wind velocity components… Current speed and direction data were extracted for the model simulation period at 5-min time intervals” in page 134, col. 1, last paragraph); and determining a velocity of a return current occurring in the subsurface layer and resulting from the wind induced current occurring in the plume layer (see “A three-layer flow structure during neap ebb was observed as an anti-clockwise lateral circulation cell underneath a thin layer of southward flow at the surface” in page 139, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Xiao(1) with Xiao, (see supra).
As to claim 8, Xiao(1) discloses wherein determining a velocity of a wind induced current occurring in the plume layer comprises determining a velocity of an ocean surface current (see “Current speed and direction data were extracted for the model simulation period at 5-min time intervals” in page 134, col. 1, last paragraph) caused by an Ekman vortex or a wave induced current (see “Wind forcing can also generate Ekman transport driving a counter-clockwise/clockwise lateral circulation under down-/up-estuary winds (looking into estuary)… lateral circulation at GI station between Case 1 and Case 3 was examined” in page 139, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Xiao(1) with Xiao, (see supra).
As to claim 9, Xiao discloses wherein determining a fraction of particles remobilized in each respective water layer is based on the shear stress value induced on the particles in the bottom layer, a shear stress value induced on the particles in the considered respective water layer, and at least one shear stress threshold value (see “net vertical sediment flux at the bottom due to 2/s) can be expressed… (5) where… τb (kg/m/s2) the bottom shear stress, τce and τcd (kg/m/s2) the critical shear stress for
As to claim 10, Xiao discloses wherein all of the remobilized particles are remobilized in the bottom layer when: the shear stress value in the bottom layer is higher than a motion shear stress threshold value of the particles, and the shear stress value in the subsurface layer is lower than a critical suspension shear stress value of the particles (see “bottom current speed at station A showed flood-ebb asymmetries, inducing variations in the bottom shear stress (Fig. 8b and c). During spring flood, the bottom shear stress was strengthened (>0.2 kg/m/s2), triggering bottom sediment erosion (Fig. 8c). Bottom SSC values were increased when the near-bed tidal currents were at their maximum (Fig. 8e). Suspended sediment was mostly contained below the stratified water column in the BBL (Fig. 7e). During spring ebb, the intensified surface ebb currents and vertical mixing maximized the resuspended sediment concentration in the water column (Fig. 7b)” in page 7, last paragraph to page 8, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 11, Xiao discloses wherein a fraction of remobilized particles is suspended in the subsurface layer when: the shear stress value in the bottom layer is higher than a motion shear stress threshold value of the particles, and the shear stress value in the subsurface layer is greater than a critical suspension shear stress value of the particles (see “bottom current speed at station A showed flood-ebb asymmetries, inducing variations in the bottom shear stress (Fig. 8b and c). During spring flood, the bottom shear stress was strengthened (>0.2 kg/m/s2), triggering bottom sediment erosion (Fig. 8c). Bottom SSC values were increased when the near-bed tidal currents were at their maximum (Fig. 8e). Suspended sediment was mostly contained below the stratified water column in the BBL (Fig. 7e). During spring ebb, the intensified surface ebb currents and vertical mixing maximized the resuspended sediment concentration in the water column (Fig. 7b). The bottom shear stress was below the critical shear stress (0.2 kg/m/s2) due to weakened bottom currents during ebb, and thus bottom sediment deposition occurred (Fig. 8c)” in page 7, last paragraph to page 8, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 12, Xiao discloses wherein a fraction of the remobilized particles is suspended in the plume layer and subsurface layer when: the shear stress value in the bottom layer is higher than a motion shear stress threshold value of the particles, a shear stress value in the subsurface layer is higher than a suspension shear stress threshold value of the particles, and a shear stress value in the plume layer is higher than the suspension shear stress threshold value of the particles (see “bottom current speed at station A showed flood-ebb asymmetries, inducing variations in the bottom shear stress (Fig. 8b and c). During spring flood, the bottom shear stress was strengthened (>0.2 kg/m/s2), triggering bottom sediment erosion (Fig. 8c). Bottom SSC values were increased when the near-bed tidal currents were at their maximum (Fig. 8e). Suspended sediment was mostly contained below the stratified water column in the BBL (Fig. 7e). During spring ebb, the intensified surface ebb currents and vertical mixing maximized the resuspended sediment concentration in the water column (Fig. 7b). The bottom shear stress was below the critical shear stress (0.2 kg/m/s2) due to weakened bottom currents during ebb, and thus bottom sediment deposition occurred (Fig. 8c)” in page 7, last paragraph to page 8, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 14, Xiao discloses a 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, the method according to claim 1 (see “FVCOM)… to simulate the hydrodynamics in the SHE” in page 3, 2nd paragraph).
As to claim 15, Xiao discloses a computer, configured for implementing the method according to claim 1 (see “FVCOM)… to simulate the hydrodynamics in the SHE” in page 3, 2nd paragraph).
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
2 Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199
Prosecution Insights