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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show fail to show text labels for the numerals in figures 1-15 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-11 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.
The term “ideal star-shaped” in claims 1, 5, and 7-9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ideal star-shaped” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since ideal can mean different things to different people.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 10-11 inherit this issue and do not correct it.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, and mathematical relationships, that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following is an analysis of independent claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claim 1 is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the following claim limitations constitute mental processes or generic computer functions, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind or a generic computer processor, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A tracing method (2000) for constructing a liquefied gas storage facility (1), the tracing method (2000) comprising:
measuring (2001) three-dimensional positions of N vertical edges in a load-bearing structure (10) including an internal space delimited by a bottom load-bearing wall (11) and a vertical load-bearing wall (12), a contour of said bottom load-bearing wall (11) being the shape of a regular polygon with N sides having dimensional tolerances, N being an integer greater than or equal to 3, said vertical load-bearing wall (12) being made up of N vertical load-bearing panels (14) separated by said N vertical edges and forming a polygonal cylindrical surface having said polygon as directrix, in which each of the N sides of the polygon corresponds to an intersection of the bottom load-bearing wall (11) with one of said vertical load-bearing panels (14);
defining (2002) an ideal star-shaped structure (3000) consisting of a vertical axis (3001) and N vertical half-planes (3002) delimited by said vertical axis (3001) and oriented around said vertical axis in azimuth directions spaced from one another by 3600/N;
as a function of the measured three-dimensional positions of the N vertical edges, determining (2003) by numerical simulation the three-dimensional positions of N lines of intersection between the N vertical half-planes (3002) of the ideal star-shaped structure (3000) and the N vertical load-bearing panels (14) of the vertical load-bearing wall (12) when said vertical axis (3001) is placed in the internal space of the load-bearing structure (10);
seeking (2004) by numerical simulation a target position of the ideal star-shaped structure (3000), the target position being defined by the position of an intersection of the vertical axis (3001) with the bottom load-bearing wall (10) and by an azimuth orientation of the ideal star-shaped structure (3000) in the internal space of the load-bearing structure (10), wherein the target position ensures that each vertical half-plane (3002) of the ideal star- shaped structure intersects a single respective vertical load-bearing panel (14) of the vertical load-bearing wall (12) at the level of a line of intersection (3010) and that distances between each line of intersection (3010) and the two vertical edges (13) delimiting said respective single vertical load-bearing panel (14) satisfy predetermined dimensional criteria;
tracing (2005) the lines of intersection corresponding to the target position of the ideal star-shaped structure (3000) on the N vertical load-bearing panels (14), preferably with an accuracy better than 5 mm in an ortho-radial direction.
The limitations measuring (2001) three-dimensional positions of N vertical edges in a load-bearing structure (10) including an internal space delimited by a bottom load-bearing wall (11) and a vertical load-bearing wall (12), a contour of said bottom load-bearing wall (11) being the shape of a regular polygon with N sides having dimensional tolerances, N being an integer greater than or equal to 3, said vertical load-bearing wall (12) being made up of N vertical load-bearing panels (14) separated by said N vertical edges and forming a polygonal cylindrical surface having said polygon as directrix, in which each of the N sides of the polygon corresponds to an intersection of the bottom load-bearing wall (11) with one of said vertical load-bearing panels (14) (the data that’s being gathered is abstract data representing numerical geometry that can be evaluated mentally or that falls within the scope of mathematical relationships), defining (2002) an ideal star-shaped structure (3000) consisting of a vertical axis (3001) and N vertical half-planes (3002) delimited by said vertical axis (3001) and oriented around said vertical axis in azimuth directions spaced from one another by 3600/N; ) (can be done using evaluation and observation), as a function of the measured three-dimensional positions of the N vertical edges, determining (2003) by numerical simulation the three-dimensional positions of N lines of intersection between the N vertical half-planes (3002) of the ideal star-shaped structure (3000) and the N vertical load-bearing panels (14) of the vertical load-bearing wall (12) when said vertical axis (3001) is placed in the internal space of the load-bearing structure (10); (can be done using evaluation, critical thinking, and a pen and paper, or alternatively falls within the scope of mathematical relationships), seeking (2004) by numerical simulation a target position of the ideal star-shaped structure (3000), the target position being defined by the position of an intersection of the vertical axis (3001) with the bottom load-bearing wall (10) and by an azimuth orientation of the ideal star-shaped structure (3000) in the internal space of the load-bearing structure (10), wherein the target position ensures that each vertical half-plane (3002) of the ideal star- shaped structure intersects a single respective vertical load-bearing panel (14) of the vertical load-bearing wall (12) at the level of a line of intersection (3010) and that distances between each line of intersection (3010) and the two vertical edges (13) delimiting said respective single vertical load-bearing panel (14) satisfy predetermined dimensional criteria; (can be done using evaluation, critical thinking, and a pen and paper, or alternatively falls within the scope of mathematical relationships), tracing (2005) the lines of intersection corresponding to the target position of the ideal star-shaped structure (3000) on the N vertical load-bearing panels (14), preferably with an accuracy better than 5 mm in an ortho-radial direction. (can be done using evaluation, critical thinking, and a pen and paper, or alternatively falls within the scope of mathematical relationships) are abstract ideas because they are directed towards a mental process, or alternatively falls within the scope of mathematical relationships.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites additional limitations of a load-bearing structure that would fall under general field of use, specifically generally linking (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, the following claim limitation measuring (2001) three-dimensional positions of N vertical edges in a load-bearing structure (10) including an internal space delimited by a bottom load-bearing wall (11) and a vertical load-bearing wall (12), a contour of said bottom load-bearing wall (11) being the shape of a regular polygon with N sides having dimensional tolerances, N being an integer greater than or equal to 3, said vertical load-bearing wall (12) being made up of N vertical load-bearing panels (14) separated by said N vertical edges and forming a polygonal cylindrical surface having said polygon as directrix, in which each of the N sides of the polygon corresponds to an intersection of the bottom load-bearing wall (11) with one of said vertical load-bearing panels (14) falls under insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The data that is being gathered is abstract data representing numerical geometry that can be evaluated mentally or that falls within the scope of mathematical relationships.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 2 recites obtaining data which is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, Claim 2 remains ineligible for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 1.
Claim 3 depends on Claims 1 and 2 and only recite limitations that fall under the judicial exception of “mental processes/mathematical relationship” and then “generally linking” to a technical field, as per MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, Claim 3 remains ineligible for the same reasons as set forth for Claims 1 and 2 above.
Claim 4 depends on Claims 1, 2 and 3 and only recite limitations that specify mathematical relationships/equations for use in Claims 1, 2 and 3. Therefore Claim 4 remains ineligible for the same reasons as set forth for Claims 1, 2 and 3 above.
Claims 5, 6, 9 and 10 are dependent on Claim 1 and only recite limitations directed towards an abstract idea that do not cure the issues of Claim 1. Therefore, they remain ineligible for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 1.
Claim 7 is dependent on Claims 1 and 3. Claim 7 only recites limitations directed towards an abstract idea that do not cure the issues of Claims 1 and 3. Therefore, Claim 7 remains ineligible for the same reasons as set forth for Claims 1 and 3 above.
Claim 8 is dependent on Claims 1 and 7. Claim 8 only recites limitations directed towards an abstract idea that do not cure the issues of Claims 1 and 7. Therefore, Claim 8 remains ineligible for the same reasons as set forth for Claims 1 and 7 above.
Claim 11 is dependent on Claims 1 and 10 only recites limitations directed towards an abstract idea that do not cure the issues of Claims 1 and 10. Therefore, Claim 11 remains ineligible for the same reasons as set forth for Claims 1 and 10 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims require the use of numerical simulation and an interpolation plane in the tracing method, further relying on three dimensional positions of an star-shaped structure. While numerous references disclose
using numerical simulation for structural modeling and tracing lines in a cylindrical structure, none use an interpolating plane and numerical simulation in a star shaped structure. The closest prior art is:
CN110118722A discloses numerical simulation modeling to calculate the potential distribution of a tank floor. It does not disclose the use of an interpolation plane in combination with numerical simulation modeling for a tracing method of a star-shaped structure.
CN101611256B discloses a similar structure to the load-bearing structure in the claims.
CN101637240B discloses segment markers and positions similar to that taught in the claims.
None of the prior arts of record, either alone or in combination, teach the specific limitations of the independent claims as stated above. Dependent claims are indicated as allowable due to their dependencies on independent claims with allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAYDEN JAMES DANSEREAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30am-5:00pm) 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)272-3676. 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.
/HAYDEN JAMES DANSEREAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
