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 .
In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 18-20 for further examination. As a result, claims 2, 6-7, 10, 14-15, and 17 are withdrawn from further prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Step 1: The claims, after reviewing the entire application disclosure, considered as a whole, are determined to be directed to one of the statutory category (processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter): A method/apparatus/system.
Step 2A:
Prong One: The claims recite the sequence of determining whether the vacuum vessel meets a precondition and then experiences structural damage due to the progressive deformation. This step sequence as analyzed can “practically be performed in the Human Mind” with/without sketching on paper. As stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. Mental Processes, “A claim that encompasses a Human Performing the step(s) mentally with or without a physical aid recites a mental process”; as a result, the claim recites a mental process that falls within at least one of the abstract idea groupings (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong Two: The additional step/action/element recited in the claims:
- obtaining secondary stress of the vacuum vessel – obtaining information (MPEP 2106.05(g));
When viewed in combination of as a whole, the recited additional step/action/element does no more than add insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception. As a result, this additional step/action/element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The additional step/action/element recited in the claims, obtaining secondary stress of the vacuum vessel, does not add significant more to bring an inventive concept to the claims because it does is no more than adding insignificant pre-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding to claim 1:
Regarding to the limitation of obtaining secondary stress of a vacuum vessel for further obtaining structural damage parameters, the Specification (in the detailed description section) simply defines “The secondary stress ΔQ is normal stress or shear stress required to meet an external constraint of a continuous condition for structural deformation” (paragraph [0087], US 2024/0112823), without further discloses how to obtain a value of the secondary stress for further calculation. It is unclear whether such secondary stress value is obtained from a measurement or other means.
Similarly, the Specification, in regarding obtaining the evaluation parameters for the primary-stress failure evaluation of the vacuum vessel to compute the structural damage parameters, defines “detecting general primary membrane stress, local primary membrane stress, and primary bending stress on the vacuum vessel as the evaluation parameters” (paragraph [0071], US 2024/0112823). The Specification however is silent on how to detect such stresses. The Specification, in fact, must clearly teach means/tools for detecting such stresses (such as local primary membrane stress Pl, primary bending stress Pb, the secondary stress ΔQ) for further calculating to determine whether the vacuum vessel meets a precondition for a progressive deformation.
In addition, regarding to the step of obtain structural damage parameters of the vacuum vessel, the Specification defines “the structural damage parameters include: an obtained material working temperature, calculated local plastic strain, a true strain value of an entire operating cycle of a Tokamak device, and a preset safety factor in elastic-plastic analysis” (paragraph [0091], US 2024/0112823). The Specification however does not teach how these parameters are obtained, how the material working temperature is obtained, how the local plastic strain is calculated, where the true strain value comes from, and how the safety factor in elastic-plastic analysis is preset.
With all such issues addressed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to use/make the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 18-20 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The pertinent prior art is cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853