Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/271,300

CABLE FORCE IDENTIFICATION ALGORITHM CONSIDERING SEMI-RIGID CONSTRAINTS ON BOTH ENDS

Non-Final OA §101§103§112
Filed
Jul 07, 2023
Examiner
EVANS, GEOFFREY T
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy Of Science
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
674 granted / 793 resolved
+17.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
812
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§103
43.6%
+3.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 793 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the modal identification algorithm" in step 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the acceleration data" in the indented clause, “a collection module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the semi-rigid constrained cable" in the indented clause, “a collection module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the acceleration response data" in indented clause, “reading the stored...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the same sampling frequency" in indented clause, “reading the stored...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the same time" in indented clause, “reading the stored...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first natural frequency" in indented clause, “reading the stored...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas as indicated by in-line comments below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below. 1. A cable force identification algorithm considering semi-rigid constraints on both ends (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), comprising the following steps: step 1: arranging an acceleration sensor vertically at the mid-span and both ends of a semi-rigid constrained cable respectively (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity), and collecting vibration signals of the cable under environmental excitation or artificial excitation (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity); step 2: processing the vibration signals collected in step 1 by the modal identification algorithm (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions), and identifying the first natural frequency f1 and mode shapes at the mid-span and two endpoints of the semi-rigid constrained cable (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations); step 3: establishing a semi-rigid constrained cable model which is mainly composed of a cable, and a transverse support spring and an axial support spring on the left and right ends, simplifying the semi-rigid constrained cable model to an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom model, and calculating the generalized mass M* and the overall stiffness K* of the semi-rigid constrained cable (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations); (a) calculating the generalized mass M* of the semi-rigid constrained cable the first-order mode shape of hinged cables on both ends is ϕ 0 s i n π   x l , the mode shapes of transverse support springs on both ends are respectively ϕ 1 and ϕ 2 , and the first-order mode shape of the semi-rigid constrained cable is the superposition of the first-order mode shape of the hinged cable and the mode shape of the transverse support spring (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) and can be calculated by the following formula: PNG media_image1.png 239 708 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein x represents the horizontal coordinate along the length of the semi-rigid constrained cable; ϕ 0 represents the maximum mode shape value of the hinged cable; l represents the length of the semi-rigid constrained cable; ϕ ( l 2 ) represents the mode shape value at the midpoint of the semi-rigid constrained cable; and ϕ 0 , ϕ 1 , and ϕ 2 are normalized (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical relationships); the generalized mass M* of the semi-rigid constrained cable is: PNG media_image2.png 70 567 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein m - represents the mass per unit length of the semi-rigid constrained cable (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical relationships); (b) calculating the overall stiffness K* of the equivalent single-degree-of-freedom model for the semi-rigid constrained cable (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) the equivalent single-degree-of-freedom model of the semi-rigid constrained cable is mainly composed of a spring with the equivalent lumped mass point of m0* and the stiffness coefficient of k0* and transverse support springs on the left and right ends; and the overall stiffness K* of the equivalent single-degree-of-freedom model for the semi-rigid constrained cable is calculated by the following formula: PNG media_image3.png 165 841 media_image3.png Greyscale wherein k0* represents the generalized stiffness of the single-degree-of-freedom system of the hinged cable; and k1 and k2 represent the stiffness of the transverse support springs on the left and right ends of the semi-rigid constrained cable respectively (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical relationships); for the semi-rigid constrained cable on both ends, the first natural frequency is f1, the first-order natural circular frequency is col, and according to the fundamental vibration characteristics of the single-degree-of-freedom system, the relationship among K*, M*, f1 and ω1 is expressed by the following formula (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical relationships): PNG media_image4.png 79 848 media_image4.png Greyscale step 4: establishing the equivalent single-degree-of-freedom model of the hinged cables on both ends, which is composed of a spring with the equivalent lumped mass point of m0* and the stiffness coefficient of k0*, then calculating the generalized stiffness k0* of the hinged cables on both ends, and modifying the first natural frequency of the semi-rigid constrained cable (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations); the generalized stiffness k0* of the equivalent single-degree-of-freedom model of the hinged cables on both ends is: PNG media_image5.png 78 847 media_image5.png Greyscale wherein f represents the mid-span sag of the hinged cable, which is the maximum displacement of the hinged cables on both ends; T represents the measured cable force of the semi-rigid constrained cable; and y1 represents the equivalent displacement of the transverse support spring of the semi-rigid constrained cable (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical relationships); it can be known from the fundamental vibration characteristics of the single-degree-of-freedom system that the relationship among k0*, m0*, f0 and ω0 is as follows: PNG media_image6.png 99 812 media_image6.png Greyscale the first generalized mass m0* of the hinged cables on both ends is PNG media_image7.png 38 40 media_image7.png Greyscale and the first-order natural circular frequency ω0 and the first natural frequency f0 of the hinged cables on both ends are obtained respectively as follows through formula (9) (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical relationships): PNG media_image8.png 67 341 media_image8.png Greyscale (35) PNG media_image9.png 67 352 media_image9.png Greyscale (36) step 5: substituting the modified first natural frequency into the cable force-frequency relation equation to solve the cable force; PNG media_image10.png 72 490 media_image10.png Greyscale (37) wherein PNG media_image11.png 59 69 media_image11.png Greyscale (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations). 2. A cable force identification program considering semi-rigid constraints on both ends, comprising: a collection module, used for acquiring the acceleration data of the semi-rigid constrained cable (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity); a memory, used for storing the acquired acceleration data and computer programs (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity); a processor, used for executing the computer programs stored in the memory, and when the computer programs are executed (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions), the processor is used for: reading the stored acceleration data which is the acceleration response data collected and stored at the same sampling frequency within the same time and collected at the mid-span and two endpoints of the semi-rigid constrained cable (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity); according to the acceleration response data, the modal identification program extracts the first natural frequency and mode shapes at the mid-span and two endpoints of the semi-rigid constrained cable (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations); and finally, the cable force identification program outputs cable force identification results based on the length, the mass per unit length, the first natural frequency and the mode shape of the semi-rigid constrained cable (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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. Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 109060219A)(The following remarks are made with respect to the English translation, mailed herewith). Regarding claim 2, Xu et al. disclose a cable force identification program considering semi-rigid constraints (see page 2 of the translation, paragraph "the use purpose...") on both ends, comprising: a collection module (vibration sensors; see page 2 of the translation, step s2), used for acquiring the acceleration data of the semi-rigid constrained cable; a memory, used for storing the acquired acceleration data and computer programs (implicit in FEM software; steps s4 and s6; see page 3); a processor, used for executing the computer programs stored in the memory, and when the computer programs are executed (implicit in FEM software; steps s4 and s6; see page 3), the processor is used for: reading the stored acceleration data which is the acceleration response data collected and stored at the same sampling frequency within the same time and collected at points along the semi-rigid constrained cable (steps s3-s5; see pages 2-4); according to the acceleration response data, the modal identification program extracts the first natural frequency and mode shapes at points along the semi-rigid constrained cable (steps s3-s5; see pages 2-4); and finally, the cable force identification program outputs cable force identification results based on the length, the mass per unit length, the first natural frequency and the mode shape of the semi-rigid constrained cable (steps s3-s5; see pages 2-4). Xu et al. does not disclose the highlighted limitations: reading the stored acceleration data which is the acceleration response data collected and stored at the same sampling frequency within the same time and collected at the mid-span and two endpoints of the semi-rigid constrained cable; according to the acceleration response data, the modal identification program extracts the first natural frequency and mode shapes at the mid-span and two endpoints of the semi-rigid constrained cable. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Xu et al. such that the sensors were located at the midpoint and two endpoints of the cable, because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It follows from the modification that the natural frequency and two endpoints are the location the extracted natural frequency and mode shapes correspond to. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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. /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 07, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590934
Method and System for Differentiation of Tea Type
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571772
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ANALYZING MODE CHANGE OF UNIDIRECTIONAL COMPOSITE MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562363
COORDINATE CORRECTION SYSTEM AND CORRECTION METHOD OF ROLL MAP IN ELECTRODE BREAKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554032
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SEISMIC DATA COMPRESSION AND NOISE REDUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548640
PORTABLE ANALYSIS SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+4.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 793 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month