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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 1, a method) or a machine (claim 13, a system) or a manufacture (claim 9, an article of manufacture), which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is
directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship/mental process. The limitations include:
processing the seismic data with the seismic data processor to obtain an instantaneous frequency component from each of the geophones; comparing each of the instantaneous frequency components with a fundamental horizontal frequency of a substructure of the nuclear reactor to determine a matching instantaneous frequency component; and determining the safe distance between the seismic source and the installation location of the nuclear reactor based on the matching instantaneous frequency component.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “obtaining seismic data from a seismic sensor network located proximate a seismic source” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data that is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application. The sensor merely collects and communicate the data to a processor/controller, without adding anything novel or transformative to the system itself. The act of data gathering by the sensors is considered insufficient to elevate the claim to a practical application.
The recited step of “the seismic sensor network comprising a plurality of geophones each having a seismic data receiver and configured to record a plurality of seismic signals received from a geological formation under the installation location of the nuclear reactor, wherein the plurality of geophones is communicatively coupled with a seismic data processor; processing the seismic data with the seismic data processor” is an insignificant extra-solution activity that merely supports collection of data. The step does not improve the sensor network or processor, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, does not effect a transformation of an article to a different state or thing and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements “geophones”, seismic processor”, and “nuclear reactor substructure frequency” are treated as generic sensors + generic computing that limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (nuclear site design).
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in
claim 1.
The additional elements of “computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions”, “memory”, and “processor” are recited at a high level of generality and are recited 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 (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
Dependent claims 10-12 and 14-20, either depending on claim 9 or 13, do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 9-12 present "a computer readable storage medium". The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent See MPEP 2111.01.
As currently claimed, the language a computer readable medium does not specify if the computer readable medium is "transitory" or "non-transitory" and therefore claims 9-12 are considered to be non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2).
In order to overcome this rejection, the following language is suggested:
“9. (Currently amended) An article of manufacture comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions…”
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 1-20 distinguish over the prior art of record.
Claim 1 distinguish over the prior art of record because the closest prior art Yeom
et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0050217) disclose a system for determining the location of a radiation source that can recognize information on where radiation in a nuclear, power plant (for example, the core of a nuclear reactor) leaks out in a high-temperature environment to detect core meltdown and/or damage to the nuclear reactor in real time. The system can accurately determine a location where radiation in an inspection object (e.g., a nuclear reactor) leaks out as a result of damage to the inspection object. However, Yeom et al. fails to teach a method for determining a safe distance between a seismic source and an installation location of a nuclear reactor, the method including the steps of: comparing each of the instantaneous frequency components with a fundamental horizontal frequency of a substructure of the nuclear reactor to determine a matching instantaneous frequency component; and determining the safe distance between the seismic source and the installation location of the nuclear reactor based on the matching instantaneous frequency component, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations.
Claim 9 distinguish over the prior art of record because the closest prior art Yeom
et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0050217) disclose a system for determining the location of a radiation source that can recognize information on where radiation in a nuclear, power plant (for example, the core of a nuclear reactor) leaks out in a high-temperature environment to detect core meltdown and/or damage to the nuclear reactor in real time. The system can accurately determine a location where radiation in an inspection object (e.g., a nuclear reactor) leaks out as a result of damage to the inspection object. However, Yeom et al. fails to teach an article of manufacture comprising: a computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions for determining a safe distance between a seismic source and an installation location of a nuclear reactor, the instructions comprising: instructions for comparing each of the instantaneous frequency components with a fundamental horizontal frequency of a substructure of the nuclear reactor to determine a matching instantaneous frequency component; and instructions for determining the safe distance between the seismic source and the installation location of the nuclear reactor based on the matching instantaneous frequency component, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations.
Claim 13 distinguish over the prior art of record because the closest prior art Yeom
et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0050217) disclose a system for determining the location of a radiation source that can recognize information on where radiation in a nuclear, power plant (for example, the core of a nuclear reactor) leaks out in a high-temperature environment to detect core meltdown and/or damage to the nuclear reactor in real time. The system can accurately determine a location where radiation in an inspection object (e.g., a nuclear reactor) leaks out as a result of damage to the inspection object. However, Yeom et al. fails to teach system comprising: a memory storing set of instructions; and a processor configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the system to perform a method of: comparing each of the instantaneous frequency components with a fundamental horizontal frequency of a substructure of the nuclear reactor to determine a matching instantaneous frequency component; and determining a safe distance between the seismic source and the installation location of the nuclear reactor based on the matching instantaneous frequency component in combination with the rest of the claim limitations.
Prior art
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Trojer et al. [‘143] discloses an installation that includes seabed-secured pilings supporting a base structure onto which a module is floated and secured. A nuclear energy congestion zone may be defined to limit a number of vessels and/or nuclear reactors permitted to operate concurrently within a designated geographic region outside exclusion zones. Operation within the congestion zone may be manually or automatically controlled based on detected vessel and reactor presence. In some embodiments, a nuclear reactor determines its location relative to the congestion zone and based on an indicated count of vessels within the zone and nuclear power plant congestion limit associated with the zone, controls its operation to prevent the congestion limit from being exceeded.
Zhang et al. [‘178] teaches that passive seismic emission tomography include, for example, determining the point of origin of microearthquakes caused by movement along geologic faults (breaks in rock layers or formations), fracture propagation in nuclear storage sites, movement of fluid in subsurface reservoirs, wellbore mechanical processes (e.g., casing failures), and monitoring of movement of proppant-filled fluid injected into subsurface reservoirs to increase the effective wellbore radius of wellbores drilled through hydrocarbon-producing subsurface Earth formations ("fracturing"). The latter application, known as "frac monitoring" is intended to enable the wellbore operator to determine, with respect to time, the direction and velocity at which the proppant filled fluid moves through particular subsurface Earth formations.
Roesset [NPL] “Seismic design of nuclear power plants—where are we now?” discloses research about areas where there were major uncertainties in the seismic design of nuclear power plants (selection of the design earthquake and its characteristics,
evaluation of soil effects and soil structure interactions, dynamic analysis and design of the structures).
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857