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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 5/18/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 14 pending claims.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 10 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claims 1, 8-9, and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 9 have been amended and incorporated aspects of allowable claims 2 and 10, respectively, and thus, overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 claims rejections in claims 1, 8-9, and 16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/18/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the remark filed on 5/18/2026 that “…
The claimed invention performs an inversion to generate an S wave velocity according to a depth and uses the generated S wave velocity power to provide geological information for determining and responding to a geological disaster factor including at least one of a sinkhole or soft ground. This is a practical application of the claimed server. Specifically, to address the technical problem that it is difficult to increase the accuracy of a solution in underground structure exploration used to determine an underground structure and geological characteristics of a specific area (see specification at pages 1-3), the claimed invention performs an inversion to generate an S wave velocity according to a depth to more accurately derive the S wave velocity, i.e., an underground physical property value. As such, the additional elements of claim 1 can allow the server to generate the accurate geological data for determining and responding to the geological disaster factor such as the sinkhole or the soft ground, resulting in a significant improvement to the technical field of underground exploration.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites the additional elements which could integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, rendering it patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two. …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element “acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area“ is considered necessary data gathering and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., acquiring the signal data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional elements “a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise”; and “wherein the S wave velocity is used to provide geological information for determining and responding to a geological disaster factor including at least one of a sinkhole or soft ground” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged improvement to the technical field of underground exploration relates to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claim does not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues on page 7 of the remark filed that “Thus, even assuming arguendo that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites the additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, and therefore, is patent-eligible under Step 2B.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not recite them. The additional elements “a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise”; “acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area“, and “wherein the S wave velocity is used to provide geological information for determining and responding to a geological disaster factor including at least one of a sinkhole or soft ground“ are routine in underground structure exploration which is used to determine an underground structure and geological characteristics of a specific area; and are well-understood and conventional. Therefore, the claim 1 does not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites subject matter that are similar to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, and 10-16 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-8, and 10-16 are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-16 are proper.
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.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claims limitations are: a signal measurement unit in claims 1 and 9; artificial synthetic model generation unit in claims 1 and 9; dispersion curve generation unit in claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 13; inversion performing unit in claims 1 and 9; and verification unit in claims 1, 6, 9, and 14.
Because these claims limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, pages 1 and 2 disclose “a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise, and acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area; and a server performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique to a frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve according to the passive elastic wave signal or the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave. Further, in the system for evaluating an urban ground stability using traffic noise according to the present invention, the server includes an artificial synthetic model generation unit generating a horizontal 2- layer S-wave velocity model which is an artificial synthesis model from the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave by using a refraction method, a dispersion curve generation unit generating the frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve from the passive elastic wave signal or the S- wave velocity model, an inversion performing unit performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique to the generated frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve, and a verification unit verifying the accuracy of the surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique.”
In order to exam the merit, Examiner interprets the above mentioned limitations performed by a generic computer.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the
claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A system for evaluating an urban ground stability using traffic noise, the system comprising:
a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise, and acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area; and
a server performing an inversion to generate an S wave velocity according to a depth, the inversion being performed by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique to a frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve according to the passive elastic wave signal or the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave, wherein the S wave velocity is used to provide geological information for determining and responding to a geological disaster factor including at least one of a sinkhole or soft ground,
wherein the server includes
an artificial synthetic model generation unit generating a horizontal 2-layer S-wave velocity model which is an artificial synthesis model from the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave by using a refraction method,
a dispersion curve generation unit generating the frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve from the passive elastic wave signal or the S-wave velocity model,
an inversion performing unit performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique to the generated frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve, and
a verification unit verifying the accuracy of the surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique “.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 9, and apparatus for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the step identified in bold type is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise, and acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area; wherein the S wave velocity is used to provide geological information for determining and responding to a geological disaster factor including at least one of a sinkhole or soft ground; an artificial synthetic model generation unit; a dispersion curve generation unit; an inversion performing unit; and a verification unit.
The additional elements “a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise”; “wherein the S wave velocity is used to provide geological information for determining and responding to a geological disaster factor including at least one of a sinkhole or soft ground”; and “an artificial synthetic model generation unit” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional element “acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area“ represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
The additional elements “a signal measurement unit”; “a server”; “a dispersion curve generation unit“; “an inversion performing unit”; and “a verification unit” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., acquiring signal) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise is disclosed by “Fuji JP2016099183A”, Abstract, [0003], [0009], and [0025]; and “Zhou CN 106443765A”, [0020], [0040], [0041].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8 and 10-16 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16, the most pertinent prior arts are “Fuji JP 2016099183A”, “Shin KR 101820850 B1”, “Wang CN 111596346A”, and “Zhang CN 110568495A”, “Mok US 20110007605”, and “Zhou CN 106443765A.
As to claims 1 and 9, Fuji teaches a signal measurement unit measuring a passive elastic wave signal generated by the traffic noise (Fuji, [0003], [0009], and [0025]), and
acquiring an elastic wave signal containing refracted waves using an artificial transmission source in an exploration area (Fuji, [0009]);
performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique according to the passive elastic wave signal or the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave (Fuji, [0002] and [0010]);
a dispersion curve generation unit generating the frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve from the passive elastic wave signal or the S-wave velocity model (Fuji, [0007], [0010], [0012]),
an inversion performing unit performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique to the generated frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve (Fuji, [0010], [0018]), and
a verification unit verifying the accuracy of the surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique (Fuji, [0008], [0010], [0018]).
Shin teaches performing an inversion by applying a surface wave dispersion curve inversion technique to a frequency-phase velocity dispersion curve according to the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave (Shin, [0004] and [0009]) or the passive elastic wave signal.
Wang teaches a server performing an inversion (Wang, [0005], [0132], Figure 1A.”).
Mok teaches wherein the S wave velocity is used to provide geological information for determining and responding to a geological disaster factor including at least one of a sinkhole or soft ground (Mok, [0060], [0063]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “an artificial synthetic model generation unit generating a horizontal 2-layer S-wave velocity model which is an artificial synthesis model from the elastic wave signal containing the refracted wave by using a refraction method” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 3-8 and 11-16 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1 and 9.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights