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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the joint surface of the steel plate-reinforced joint" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because line 10 recites only “the joint surface” instead of "the joint surface of the steel plate-reinforced joint", which creates confusion to what the claim is referring to. If the “joint surface” limitation is the same as/or referring to the "the joint surface of the steel plate-reinforced joint" the it is recommended to amend to read "the joint surface of the steel plate-reinforced joint". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for calculating flexural capacity of a steel plate-reinforced joint in shield tunnel, comprising: (S1) obtaining a construction parameter, a material parameter, and a mechanical parameter of a joint surface; and calculating a virtual strain εsp,0 at an inner edge of the joint surface when a steel plate is reinforced, a height
x
c
b
1
of a critical compression zone for bolt yielding in case of section failure, and a height
x
c
b
2
of a critical compression zone for steel plate yielding in case of section failure; (S2) based on step (S1), assuming that the joint surface is in a certain failure state, and based on an axial force equilibrium equation in the certain failure state, calculating a height
x
c
of a compression zone of the joint surface of the steel plate-reinforced joint; (S3) determining whether the height
x
c
satisfies a range requirement for the height
x
c
in the certain failure state: if so, executing step (S4); and if no, replacing a new failure state; and skipping to step (S2) until traversing all failure states; and (S4) substituting the height
x
c
into a bending moment equilibrium equation for a current failure state; and calculating an ultimate bending moment.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of calculating a virtual strain εsp,0 at an inner edge of the joint surface when a steel plate is reinforced, a height
x
c
b
1
of a critical compression zone for bolt yielding in case of section failure, and a height
x
c
b
2
of a critical compression zone for steel plate yielding in case of section failure; This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a virtual strain at different heights can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of assuming that the joint surface is in a certain failure state. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, assuming that the joint surface is in a certain failure state can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of based on an axial force equilibrium equation in the certain failure state, calculating a height xc of a compression zone of the joint surface of the steel plate-reinforced joint. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a height xc of a compression zone based on an axial force equilibrium equation can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of determining whether the height
x
c
satisfies a range requirement for the height
x
c
in the certain failure state: if so, executing step (S4); and if no, replacing a new failure state; and skipping to step (S2) until traversing all failure states; This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining whether the height
x
c
satisfies a range requirement can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of substituting the height xc into a bending moment equilibrium equation for a current failure state; and calculating an ultimate bending moment; This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, substituting the height xc into a bending moment equilibrium equation can be done by a human or pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: obtaining a construction parameter, a material parameter, and a mechanical parameter of a joint surface;
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a utility meter management system are performed: a steel plate;
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of calculating flexural capacity of a steel plate-reinforced joint without significantly more. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the construction parameter comprises a distance from a bolt to an outer edge of the joint surface, a height of the joint surface, a width of the joint surface, a height of the outer edge of the joint surface, a height of an outer edge compression zone, a height of a waterproof zone, a height of a core compression zone, a height of an inner edge of the joint surface, a bolt cross-sectional area, and a steel plate cross-sectional area; the material parameter comprises a design value of a concrete axial compressive strength, a concrete yield strain, a concrete ultimate compressive strain, a bolt yield strain, a steel plate yield strain, a bolt yield stress, a steel plate yield stress, a bolt elasticity modulus, and a steel plate elasticity modulus; and the mechanical parameter comprises an axial force and a bending moment of the joint surface when the steel plate is reinforced.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein a formula for calculating the virtual strain εsp,0 at the inner edge of the joint surface when the steel plate is reinforced is expressed as:
PNG
media_image3.png
48
114
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein εc,0 is a concrete compressive strain at an outer edge of the joint surface when the steel plate is reinforced; x0 is a height of a compression zone of the joint surface when the steel plate is reinforced; and h is a height of the joint surface; formulas for calculating εc,0 and x0 are expressed as:
PNG
media_image4.png
54
175
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;
PNG
media_image5.png
49
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
;
PNG
media_image6.png
48
150
media_image6.png
Greyscale
; and
PNG
media_image7.png
86
510
media_image7.png
Greyscale
; where σc is a concrete stress; εc is a concrete strain; fc is a design value of a concrete axial compressive strength; εc0 is a concrete yield strain; b is a width of the joint surface; d1 is an outer edge of the joint surface; d2 is a height of an outer edge compression zone; d3 is a height of a waterproof zone; d4 is a height of a core compression zone; d5 is a height of an inner edge of the joint surface; p is an integral variable; N0 is an axial force of the joint surface when the steel plate is reinforced; M0 is a bending moment of the joint surface when the steel plate is reinforced; σm,0 is a bolt stress when the steel plate is reinforced; Am is a bolt cross-sectional area; and Em is a bolt elasticity modulus. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the height xcb1 of the critical compression zone of the bolt yielding and the height xcb2 of the critical compression zones of the steel plate yielding are obtained according to the following formulas:
PNG
media_image8.png
66
177
media_image8.png
Greyscale
; and
PNG
media_image9.png
57
219
media_image9.png
Greyscale
; wherein εcu is a concrete ultimate compressive strain; fmy is a bolt yield stress; Em is a bolt elasticity modulus; d is a distance from a bolt to an outer edge of the joint surface; fspy is a steel plate yield stress; Esp is a steel plate elasticity modulus; and h is a height of the joint surface.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the failure state comprises a failure state S-a, a failure state S-b, a failure state S-c, and a failure state S-d; the failure state S-a refers to a state of bolt yielding and steel plate not-yielding; the failure state S-b refers to a state of both bolt and steel plate yielding; the failure state S-c refers to a state of bolt not yielding and steel plate yielding; and the failure state S-d refers to a state of both bolt and steel plate not yielding; axial force equilibrium equations in the failure state are expressed as: the failure state S-a:
PNG
media_image10.png
63
366
media_image10.png
Greyscale
; the failure state S-b:
PNG
media_image11.png
60
361
media_image11.png
Greyscale
; the failure state S-c:
PNG
media_image12.png
58
348
media_image12.png
Greyscale
; and the failure state S-d:
PNG
media_image13.png
62
354
media_image13.png
Greyscale
; where σsp is a steel plate stress at section failure; εsp is a steel plate strain at section failure; σm is a bolt stress at section failure; b is a width of the joint surface; p is an integral variable; σc is a concrete stress; εcu is a concrete ultimate compressive strain; Am is a bolt cross-sectional area; Asp is a steel plate cross-section area; fmy is a bolt yield stress; fspy is a steel plate yield stress; Ni is a section axial force corresponding to each failure state; xci is a height of a compression zone of the joint surface corresponding to each failure state, i = 1 ,2 ,3 ,4; d1 is a height of an outer edge of the joint surface; d2 is a height of an outer edge compression zone; d3 is a height of a waterproof zone; d4 is a height of a core compression zone; d5 is a height of an inner edge of the joint surface; and n is a value of the number of a sub-region in a joint surface region- 1; bending moment equilibrium equations in the failure state are expressed as: the failure state S-a:
PNG
media_image14.png
53
454
media_image14.png
Greyscale
; the failure state S-b:
PNG
media_image15.png
51
454
media_image15.png
Greyscale
; the failure state S-c:
PNG
media_image16.png
52
459
media_image16.png
Greyscale
; and the failure state S-d:
PNG
media_image17.png
48
460
media_image17.png
Greyscale
; where Mi is an ultimate bending moment corresponding to each failure state; h is a height of the joint surface; and d is a distance from a bolt to an outer edge of the joint surface.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein in the step (S3), if in the failure state S-c or the failure state S-d, the height xc of the compression zone of the joint surface is greater than the distance d from the bolt to the outer edge of the joint surface, cancel a σmAm term in the axial force equilibrium equation, and return to step (S2) with the failure state S-c or the failure state S-d again; and in step (S4), if in the failure state S-c or in the failure state S-d, the height xc of the compression zone of the joint surface is greater than the distance d from the bolt to the outer edge of the joint surface, cancel the σmAm(h-d) term in the bending moment equilibrium equation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein in step (S2), an integral calculation term in the axial force equilibrium equation is replaced with an integral approximation formula for approximate solution, and the integral approximation formula is expressed as:
PNG
media_image18.png
156
391
media_image18.png
Greyscale
; wherein α, β are equivalence coefficients expressed as:
PNG
media_image19.png
48
182
media_image19.png
Greyscale
; and
PNG
media_image20.png
43
291
media_image20.png
Greyscale
; wherein fc is a design value of a concrete axial compressive strength.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein in step (S4), an integral approximation formula is used to replace the integral calculation term in the bending moment equilibrium equation for approximate solution, and the integral approximation formula is expressed as:
PNG
media_image21.png
231
355
media_image21.png
Greyscale
; wherein fc is a design value of a concrete axial compressive strength.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the range requirement of xc for each failure state is expressed as: the failure state S-a: xcb2<xc1≤xcb1; the failure state S-b: xc2≤xcb1 and xc2≤xcb2; the failure state S-c: xcb1<xc3≤xcb2; and the failure state S-d: xc4>xcb1 and xc4>xcb2.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “a computer-readable storage medium, comprising: one or more instructions; the one or more instructions are stored on the computer-readable storage medium; the one or more instructions is configured to be loaded by a processor to implement the method of claim 1.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20170109465 A1; WANG; Bin et al. is a method and device for modeling of deformation motion of elastic object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858