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 .
Examiner Note
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Non-patent literature reference Guoliang et al. (“Estimation of Seismic Landslide Hazard in the Eastern Himalayan Syntaxis Region of Tibetan Plateau”, 2017) provided in the information disclosure statement contained partially obscured and unreadable equations, thus an original copy was obtained from the Acta Geologica Sinica journal, which is the source being referenced in this action.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 claim limitation(s) is/are: “the acquisition unit is configured for…”, “the determination unit is configured for…”, “the adjustment unit is configured for…”, “the optimization unit is configured for…”, “the calculation unit is configured for…” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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.
Claim 4 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.
It is indefinite as to how the density classification table relates to Δx and Δy in the claimed equation. Correction is required. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the classification number will be interpreted as the subscript n in the claimed equation.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1-7 are directed to a process. Claims 8-9 are directed to machines.
(See additional rejection regarding non-statutory subject matter of Claim 10)
Step 2A Prong I: Judicial Exception
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations which are directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts are bolded:
An assessment method for seismic landslide hazard based on a LS-D-Newmark model, comprising:
acquiring historical landslide data;
determining a historical landslide density based on the historical landslide data;
inputting the historical landslide data into the LS-D-Newmark model; and adjusting parameters of the LS-D-Newmark model according to geotechnical mechanics parameters and slope geometry parameters, such that a static safety factor Fs of a slope is greater than 1 in the absence of an external force;
introducing the historical landslide density to the LS-D-Newmark model to incorporate a historical landslide factor; and optimizing assignment of the static safety factor Fs to obtain an optimized static safety factor Fs-L;
calculating a slope critical acceleration ac-L based on the optimized static safety factor Fs-L;
calculating an earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L based on the slope critical acceleration ac-L and a peak ground acceleration (PGA); and
based on the earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L, calculating a landslide occurrence probability P of a target landslide region to complete a seismic landslide hazard assessment of the target landslide region.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), mental processes constitute that which “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, and furthermore, examples include “observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions.” A person can perform the mental process of tracking and simulating an “LS-D-Newmark” model given a pen and paper, which additionally includes mathematical concepts performed by the mental process. A person can perform the mental process of performing an “assessment” of said model, which amounts to observation, evaluation, and judgement. A person can perform the mental process of “determining a historical landslide density based on the historical landslide data” which amounts to observations, evaluations, and judgements. A person can, given a pen and paper, perform the mental process of “adjusting parameters of the LS-D-Newmark model”, which given broadest reasonable interpretation contains mathematical concepts performed by a mental process (see Specification pg. 11 ln. 7).
According to MPEP 2106(a)(2)(I), mathematical concepts are defined as “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”. The following limitations amount to mathematical calculations. The limitation “optimizing assignment of the static safety factor Fs to obtain an optimized static safety factor Fs-L” is an abstract mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106(a)(2)(I)(C)(v) “using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps”). Furthermore, given broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim includes an equation used to determine a specific variable (see Specification pg. 12 ln. 7). The limitations “calculating a slope critical acceleration ac-L”, “calculating an earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L”, and “calculating a landslide occurrence probability P of a target landslide region”, all amount to abstract mathematical calculations.
Step 2A Prong II: Integration Into Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the following additional limitations not directed to a judicial exception merely recite insignificant extra-solution activity or generally link a judicial exception to a particular field of use:
“acquiring historical landslide data” (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
“inputting the historical landslide data into the LS-D-Newmark model” (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
“according to geotechnical mechanics parameters and slope geometry parameters, such that a static safety factor Fs of a slope is greater than 1 in the absence of an external force” (generally linking to a field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) This limitation merely links the mental process of “adjusting…” to the field of geological simulation. This limitation does not change the analysis of the judicial exception being linked to, which remains a mental process.
“introducing the historical landslide density to the LS-D-Newmark model to incorporate a historical landslide factor” (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
“based on the optimized static safety factor Fs-L” (generally linking to a field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) This limitation merely links the mathematical calculation of “calculating a slope…” to the field of geological simulation.
“based on the slope critical acceleration ac-L and a peak ground acceleration (PGA)” (generally linking to a field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) This limitation merely links the mathematical calculation of “calculating an earthquake-induced slope” to the field of geological simulation.
“based on the earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L” (generally linking to a field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) This limitation merely links the mathematical calculation of “calculating a landslide occurrence probability…” to the field of geological simulation.
“to complete a seismic landslide hazard assessment of the target landslide region” (generally linking to a field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) This generally links the final judicial exception to the field of landslide hazard assessment without limiting the claim in a meaningful way.
Step 2B: Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons above as to why the additional elements do not integrate into a practical application.
The insignificant extra-solution activity directed towards “historical landslide data” is well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art (Specification pg. 1, “…methods in the prior art are listed as follows. 1. Comprehensive assessment method based on statistical analysis In this method, the correlation between seismic landslide and seismological background is statistically analyzed to reveal the controlling effect of seismological background on the occurrence of landslide and explore the main controlling factors of seismic landslides. The multi-factor-based seismic landslide hazard assessment is completed through support vector machine, information value and logistic regression.”). A “statistical analysis” method where “the correlation between seismic landslide and seismological background is statistically analyzed” implies the use of historical data for performing “logistic regression”.
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2, in addition to the abstract ideas of claim 1, the claim recites additional abstract mental processes and mathematical concepts which are bolded.
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein the step of "determining a historical landslide density based on the historical landslide data" comprises:
according to the historical landslide data, calculating the historical landslide density by using a kernel density estimation algorithm with a search radius of 5 km.
The limitation "determining a historical landslide density based on the historical landslide data" is given the same analysis as was given above, and is considered mental process. A person can perform the mental process of “calculating the historical landslide density by using a kernel density estimation algorithm” using a pen and paper. The limitation additionally recites “a kernel density estimation algorithm” which is a mathematical calculation performed by a mental process.
Claim 2 recites additional limitations not directed to a judicial exception, which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking to a field of use:
according to the historical landslide data (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) Additionally, this limitation can be interpreted as merely linking the mental process of “calculating” to the field of geological simulation.
with a search radius of 5 km (generally linking to a field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) This limitation links the mental process/mathematical concept of “calculating the historical landslide density by using a kernel density estimation algorithm” to the particular field of use of geological simulations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes and mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 3, in addition to the abstract ideas of claim 1, the claim recites mathematical concepts which are bolded.
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein in a process of adjusting the parameters of the LS-D-Newmark model, the static safety factor is expressed as:
F
s
=
c
'
y
t
s
i
n
a
+
t
a
n
φ
'
t
a
n
a
-
m
y
w
t
a
n
φ
'
y
t
a
n
a
=
c
'
y
t
s
i
n
a
+
1
-
m
y
w
y
×
t
a
n
φ
'
t
a
n
a
wherein c' is a cohesive force; γ is a unit weight of a rock mass; t is a thickness of a potential landslide mass; α is an inclination angle of a potential sliding surface; φ' is an effective internal friction angle; m is a proportion of a thickness of a saturated portion of the potential landslide mass in the thickness of the potential landslide mass; and γw is a unit weight of groundwater
The limitation “a process of adjusting the parameters of the LS-D-Newmark model” is given the same analysis as for claim 1, and is considered mental process for the same reasons.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) states “A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.” Thus, “the static safety factor is expressed as:
F
s
=
c
'
y
t
s
i
n
a
+
t
a
n
φ
'
t
a
n
a
-
m
y
w
t
a
n
φ
'
y
t
a
n
a
=
c
'
y
t
s
i
n
a
+
1
-
m
y
w
y
×
t
a
n
φ
'
t
a
n
a
” is considered an abstract mathematical concept.
Claim 3 recites additional limitations not directed to a judicial exception, which amount to generally linking to a field of use. The limitations “wherein c' is a cohesive force”, “γ is a unit weight of a rock mass”, “t is a thickness of a potential landslide mass”, “α is an inclination angle of a potential sliding surface”, “φ' is an effective internal friction angle”, “m is a proportion of a thickness of a saturated portion of the potential landslide mass in the thickness of the potential landslide mass”, and “γw is a unit weight of groundwater” merely link the mathematical equation to the field of use of geological simulations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 4, in addition to the abstract ideas of claim 1, the claim recites mathematical concepts which are bolded.
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein an optimization formula adopted in a process of optimizing assignment of the static safety factor Fs is expressed as:
F
S
-
L
=
∆
x
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
c
'
y
t
s
i
n
a
+
(
1
-
m
y
w
y
)
×
tan
∆
y
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
φ
'
t
a
n
a
wherein n is a historical landslide density classification;
∆
x
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
is a cohesion reduction coefficient; and
∆
y
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
is an internal friction angle reduction coefficient; and the
∆
x
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
and
∆
y
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
angle satisfy the following table:
Density classification
1
2
3
4
∆
x
1
0.85
0.6
0.5
∆
y
1
0.85
0.7
0.65
The claim “an optimization formula adopted in a process of optimizing assignment of the static safety factor Fs is expressed as:
F
S
-
L
=
∆
x
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
c
'
y
t
s
i
n
a
+
(
1
-
m
y
w
y
)
×
tan
∆
y
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
φ
'
t
a
n
a
” amounts to a mathematical equation, which constitutes an abstract mathematical concept. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv) defines one example of mathematical relationships as “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” The limitation “and the
∆
x
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
and
∆
y
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
angle satisfy the following table: …” constitutes mathematical correlations, because it effectively defines two non-continuous step functions correlated to the variables
∆
x
and
∆
y
.
Claim 4 recites additional limitations not directed to a judicial exception, which amount to generally linking to a field of use. The limitations “wherein n is a historical landslide density classification;
∆
x
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
is a cohesion reduction coefficient” and “
∆
y
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
n
is an internal friction angle reduction coefficient” generally link the “optimization formula” abstract equation to the field of use of geological simulations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 4 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 5, in addition to the abstract ideas of claim 1, the claim recites mathematical concepts which are bolded.
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein a formula for calculating the slope critical acceleration ac-L is expressed as:
a
c
-
L
=
F
s
-
1
g
s
i
n
a
wherein g is a gravitational acceleration; and α is an inclination angle of a potential sliding surface.
The limitation “a formula for calculating the slope critical acceleration ac-L is expressed as:
a
c
-
L
=
F
s
-
1
g
s
i
n
” constitutes an abstract mathematical equation.
The additional limitation “wherein g is a gravitational acceleration; and α is an inclination angle of a potential sliding surface.” generally links the “formula for calculating the slope critical acceleration” abstract equation to the field of use of geological simulations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 6, in addition to the abstract ideas of claim 1, the claim recites a mathematical concept which is bolded.
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein a formula for calculating the earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L is expressed as:
l
g
D
n
-
L
=
0.215
+
lg
1
-
a
c
-
L
P
G
A
2.341
a
c
-
L
P
G
A
-
1.438
The additional limitation amounts to an abstract mathematical equation.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 7, in addition to the abstract ideas of claim 1, the claim recites a mathematical concept which is bolded.
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein a formula for calculating the landslide occurrence probability P is expressed as:
P
=
0.335
[
1
-
e
x
p
(
-
0.048
D
n
-
L
1.565
)
]
The additional limitation amounts to an abstract mathematical equation.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 8, in addition to the abstract ideas of claim 1, the claim recites additional mental processes and mathematical concepts which are bolded.
An assessment device for seismic landslide hazard based on a LS-D-Newmark model, comprising:
an acquisition unit;
a determination unit;
an adjustment unit;
an optimization unit; and
a calculation unit;
wherein the acquisition unit is configured for acquiring historical landslide data;
the determination unit is configured for determining a historical landslide density based on the historical landslide data;
the adjustment unit is configured for inputting the historical landslide data into the LS-D-Newmark model, and adjusting parameters of the LS-D-Newmark model according to geotechnical mechanics parameters and slope geometry parameters, such that a static safety factor Fs of a slope is greater than 1 in the absence of an external force;
the optimization unit is configured for introducing the historical landslide density to the LS-D-Newmark model to incorporate a historical landslide factor, and optimizing assignment of the static safety factor Fs to obtain an optimized static safety factor Fs-L; and
the calculation unit is configured for calculating a slope critical acceleration ac-L based on the optimized static safety factor Fs-L; calculating an earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L based on the slope critical acceleration ac-L and a peak ground acceleration (PGA); and calculating a landslide occurrence probability P of a target landslide region based on the earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L to complete a seismic landslide hazard assessment of the target landslide region.
The limitation “determining a historical landslide density based on the historical landslide data” which invokes 112(f) and fails to provide corresponding structure, is being interpreted as using a “kernel density estimation algorithm” to calculate landslide density. This constitutes a mathematical concept performed by a mental process, as a person can, with a pen and paper, perform the mental process of executing a kernel density algorithm. The limitation “adjusting parameters of the LS-D-Newmark model” which invokes 112(f) and fails to provide corresponding structure, is being interpreted as using the equation specified in claim 3 for determining the static safety factor, which constitutes an abstract mathematical equation. The limitation “optimizing assignment of the static safety factor Fs to obtain an optimized static safety factor Fs-L” which invokes 112(f) and fails to provide corresponding structure, is being interpreted as utilizing the optimization formula specified in claim 4, which constitutes an abstract mathematical equation. The limitation “calculating a slope critical acceleration ac-L” which invokes 112(f) and fails to provide corresponding structure, is being interpreted as utilizing the equation specified in claim 5, which constitutes an abstract mathematical equation. The limitation “calculating an earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L” which invokes 112(f) and fails to provide corresponding structure, is being interpreted as utilizing the equation specified in claim 6, which constitutes an abstract mathematical equation. The limitation “calculating a landslide occurrence probability P of a target landslide region” which invokes 112(f) and fails to provide corresponding structure, is being interpreted as utilizing the equation specified in claim 7, which constitutes an abstract mathematical equation.
Claim 8 recites additional limitations not directed to a judicial exception, which amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking to a field of use.
An assessment device for seismic landslide hazard (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
based on a LS-D-Newmark model (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
comprising: an acquisition unit; (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
a determination unit; (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
an adjustment unit; (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
an optimization unit; (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
a calculation unit; (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the acquisition unit is configured for (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
acquiring historical landslide data; (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
the determination unit is configured for (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
the adjustment unit is configured for (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
inputting the historical landslide data into the LS-D-Newmark model (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
according to geotechnical mechanics parameters and slope geometry parameters, such that a static safety factor Fs of a slope is greater than 1 in the absence of an external force; (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
the optimization unit is configured for (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
introducing the historical landslide density to the LS-D-Newmark model to incorporate a historical landslide factor, (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
the calculation unit is configured for (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
based on the optimized static safety factor Fs-L; (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
based on the slope critical acceleration ac-L and a peak ground acceleration (PGA); (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
based on the earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
to complete a seismic landslide hazard assessment of the target landslide region. (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes and mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the abstract limitations of claim 1, claim 9 contains additional limitations which are not directed to a judicial exception, but which amount to instructions to apply an exception.
A processing device, (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
comprising: a processor; (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
and a memory; (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein a computer program is stored in the memory; and the processor is configured to execute the computer program (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
to implement the assessment method of claim 1. (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) See the above analysis of the abstract limitations of claim 1.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the “computer-readable storage medium” includes signals per se. Amending the limitation to use the language “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” will overcome this rejection.
For compact prosecution, the following 101 analysis is provided, given that the claim is amended to include the limitation “non-transitory”. Regarding claim 10, in addition to the abstract limitations of claim 1, claim 10 contains additional limitations which are not directed to a judicial exception, but which amount to instructions to apply an exception.
A (non-transitory) computer-readable storage medium, wherein a plurality of instructions are stored on the (non-transitory) computer-readable storage medium; (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
and the plurality of instructions are configured to be loaded by a processor to implement the assessment method of claim 1. (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gouliang et al. (“Estimation of Seismic Landslide Hazard in the Eastern Himalayan Syntaxis Region of Tibetan Plateau”, Apr. 2017) in view of (Guo, “Study on the Creep-Sliding Mechanism of the Giant Xiongba Ancient Landslide”, Aug. 25, 2021) and (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” article Feb. 4, 2022).
The applied reference has a common --joint inventor-- with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
The following limitations of Claim 1 are taught by Gouliang:
An assessment method for seismic landslide hazard based on a LS-D-Newmark model, (Gouliang, Section 5, “Based on critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated using Eq. 4 which can be used to produce the seismic landslide hazard map (Fig. 9).”)
inputting the historical landslide data into the LS-D-Newmark model; (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “In this study, we adopt the regression model proposed by Jibson (2007) which is obtained through regression analysis of the data derive from a collection of 2270 strong-motion records from 30 worldwide earthquakes… where amax is the peak ground acceleration (PGA).”) (Gouliang, Section 5, “Based on critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated”) Note that “historical landslide data” is taught by Guo, however the inputting of historical data into the Newmark model is taught by Gouliang, and the references are being combined such that the historical landslide data of Guo replaces the historical earthquake data of Gouliang.
and adjusting parameters of the LS-D-Newmark model according to geotechnical mechanics parameters and slope geometry parameters, (Gouliang, Section 3.2, “Fs is the static safety factor which can be expressed as follows (Jibson et al. 2000):
F
s
=
c
'
y
t
s
i
n
a
+
t
a
n
φ
'
t
a
n
a
-
m
y
w
t
a
n
φ
'
y
t
a
n
a
where c′ is the effective cohesion, φ′ is the effective friction angle, γ is the material unit weight, γw is the unit weight of water, t is the normal thickness of the sliding plane, and m is the degree of saturation of the failure surface.”)
introducing the historical landslide density to the LS-D-Newmark model to incorporate a historical landslide factor, and optimizing assignment of the static safety factor Fs to obtain an optimized static safety factor Fs-L (Gouliang, Section 5, “Based on critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated”) Note that “historical landslide density” is taught by Guo, however the inputting of historical landslide density into the Newmark model is taught by Gouliang, and the references are being combined such that the historical landslide density of Guo replaces the PGA of Gouliang.
calculating a slope critical acceleration ac-L based on the optimized static safety factor Fs-L; (Gouliang, Section 3.2, “The critical acceleration can be calculated using the following formulas (Newmark, 1965; Jibson, 1993):
a
c
=
F
s
-
1
g
×
s
i
n
a
where a is the slope angle, g is gravity acceleration and
F
s
is the static safety factor…”)
calculating an earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L based on the slope critical acceleration ac-L and a peak ground acceleration (PGA); (Gouliang, Section 3.2, “…Dn is the cumulative displacement.”) (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “
lg
D
n
=
0.215
+
log
1
-
a
a
m
a
x
2.341
(
a
a
m
a
x
)
-
1.438
” where amax is the peak ground acceleration (PGA))
based on the earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L, calculating a landslide occurrence probability P of a target landslide region to complete a seismic landslide hazard assessment of the target landslide region. (Gouliang, Section 5, “Based on the critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated using Eq. 4 which can be used to produce the seismic landslide hazard map (Fig. 9)”) (Gouliang, Fig 9 Label, “Probabilistic hazard map of seismic landslides of study area,”)
Limitations of Claim 1 not taught by Gouliang are taught by Guo:
comprising: acquiring historical landslide data; (Guo, pg. 8, “According to the ascending orbit data, the landslide is suitable for analyzing the slope deformation in the east, southeast, and northeast directions… Therefore, the Sentinel-1A ascending image data are used in this study (Figure 5). The image acquisition data time period ranges from 8 October 2017, to 6 June 2020, and a total of 79 scenes were used in this study.”)
determining a historical landslide density based on the historical landslide data; (Guo, Fig. 7)
Limitations of Claim 1 not taught by Gouliang or Guo are taught by Wikipedia:
such that a static safety factor Fs of a slope is greater than 1 in the absence of an external force; (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” entry Feb. 4, 2022, “According to Kramer,[3] the Newmark method is an improvement over the traditional pseudo-static method which considered the seismic slope failure only at limiting conditions (i.e. when the Factor of Safety, FOS, became equal to 1) and providing information about the collapse state but no information about the induced deformations. The new method points out that when the FOS becomes less than 1 "failure" does not necessarily occur as the time for which this happens is very short. However, each time the FOS falls below unity, some permanent deformations occur which accumulate whenever FOS < 1.”) Thus, the limitation “static safety factor Fs of a slope is greater than 1 in the absence of an external force” is inherent to a stable model.
Gouliang et al., Guo et al., and the Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” version from Feb. 4, 2022 are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: landslide hazard assessment and slope stability analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Newmark landslide hazard assessment techniques of Gouliang with the historical landslide data of Guo and the Newmark method teachings of Wikipedia. The motivation is that while Gouliang uses peak ground acceleration to predict a cumulative displacement value (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “In practice, the lack of seismic stations and strong motion recordings limit the availability of Newmark method in regional seismic landslide risk assessment. For this reason, many researchers study the relationship between the ground motion parameters (including peak ground acceleration, Arias intensity, and seismic intensity) and the cumulative displacement, and establish various empirical regression models.”), Guo measures cumulative displacement directly (Fig. 12). The Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” teaches that the Newmark method is used for earthquake and slope stability analysis (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” entry Feb. 4, 2022, “The method is still widely used nowadays in engineering practice to assess the consequences of earthquakes on slopes.”).
Regarding Claim 3, in addition to the limitations of Claim 1 taught by Gouliang in view of Guo and further in view of Wikipedia, Gouliang teaches the following limitations:
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein in a process of adjusting the parameters of the LS-D-Newmark model, the static safety factor is expressed as:
F
s
=
c
'
y
t
s
i
n
a
+
t
a
n
φ
'
t
a
n
a
-
m
y
w
t
a
n
φ
'
y
t
a
n
a
=
c
'
y
t
s
i
n
a
+
1
-
m
y
w
y
×
t
a
n
φ
'
t
a
n
a
(Gouliang, Section 3.2, “Fs is the static safety factor which can be expressed as follows (Jibson et al. 2000):
F
s
=
c
'
y
t
s
i
n
a
+
t
a
n
φ
'
t
a
n
a
-
m
y
w
t
a
n
φ
'
y
t
a
n
a
”) The second (last) equivalent statement of the claimed equation results from simple factoring arithmetic and is taught by the equation of Goulaing.
wherein c' is a cohesive force; γ is a unit weight of a rock mass; t is a thickness of a potential landslide mass; α is an inclination angle of a potential sliding surface; φ' is an effective internal friction angle; m is a proportion of a thickness of a saturated portion of the potential landslide mass in the thickness of the potential landslide mass; and γw is a unit weight of groundwater (Gouliang, Section 3.2, “where c′ is the effective cohesion, φ′ is the effective friction angle, γ is the material unit weight, γw is the unit weight of water, t is the normal thickness of the sliding plane, and m is the degree of saturation of the failure surface.”)
Gouliang et al., Guo et al., and the Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” version from Feb. 4, 2022 are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: landslide hazard assessment and slope stability analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Newmark landslide hazard assessment techniques of Gouliang with the historical landslide data of Guo and the Newmark method teachings of Wikipedia. The motivation is that while Gouliang uses peak ground acceleration to predict a cumulative displacement value (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “In practice, the lack of seismic stations and strong motion recordings limit the availability of Newmark method in regional seismic landslide risk assessment. For this reason, many researchers study the relationship between the ground motion parameters (including peak ground acceleration, Arias intensity, and seismic intensity) and the cumulative displacement, and establish various empirical regression models.”), Guo measures cumulative displacement directly (Fig. 12). The Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” teaches that the Newmark method is used for earthquake and slope stability analysis (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” entry Feb. 4, 2022, “The method is still widely used nowadays in engineering practice to assess the consequences of earthquakes on slopes.”).
Regarding Claim 5, in addition to the limitations of Claim 1 taught by Gouliang in view of Guo and further in view of Wikipedia, Gouliang teaches the following limitations:
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein a formula for calculating the slope critical acceleration ac-L is expressed as:
a
c
-
L
=
F
s
-
1
g
s
i
n
a
(Gouliang, Section 3.2, “The critical acceleration can be calculated using the following formulas (Newmark, 1965; Jibson, 1993):
a
c
=
F
s
-
1
g
s
i
n
a
”)
wherein g is a gravitational acceleration; and α is an inclination angle of a potential sliding surface. (Gouliang, Section 3.2, “where α is the slope angle, g is gravity acceleration and Fs is the static safety factor”)
Gouliang et al., Guo et al., and the Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” version from Feb. 4, 2022 are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: landslide hazard assessment and slope stability analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Newmark landslide hazard assessment techniques of Gouliang with the historical landslide data of Guo and the Newmark method teachings of Wikipedia. The motivation is that while Gouliang uses peak ground acceleration to predict a cumulative displacement value (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “In practice, the lack of seismic stations and strong motion recordings limit the availability of Newmark method in regional seismic landslide risk assessment. For this reason, many researchers study the relationship between the ground motion parameters (including peak ground acceleration, Arias intensity, and seismic intensity) and the cumulative displacement, and establish various empirical regression models.”), Guo measures cumulative displacement directly (Fig. 12). The Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” teaches that the Newmark method is used for earthquake and slope stability analysis (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” entry Feb. 4, 2022, “The method is still widely used nowadays in engineering practice to assess the consequences of earthquakes on slopes.”).
Regarding Claim 6, in addition to the limitations of Claim 1 taught by Gouliang in view of Guo and further in view of Wikipedia, Gouliang teaches the following limitations:
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein a formula for calculating the earthquake-induced slope displacement Dn-L is expressed as:
l
g
D
n
-
L
=
0.215
+
lg
1
-
a
c
-
L
P
G
A
2.341
a
c
-
L
P
G
A
-
1.438
(Gouliang, Section 3.2, “Dn is the cumulative displacement.”) (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “The regression model can be expressed as follows:
l
g
D
n
=
0.215
+
log
1
-
a
c
a
m
a
x
2.341
a
c
a
m
a
x
-
1.438
where amax is the peak ground acceleration (PGA)”)
Gouliang et al., Guo et al., and the Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” version from Feb. 4, 2022 are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: landslide hazard assessment and slope stability analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Newmark landslide hazard assessment techniques of Gouliang with the historical landslide data of Guo and the Newmark method teachings of Wikipedia. The motivation is that while Gouliang uses peak ground acceleration to predict a cumulative displacement value (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “In practice, the lack of seismic stations and strong motion recordings limit the availability of Newmark method in regional seismic landslide risk assessment. For this reason, many researchers study the relationship between the ground motion parameters (including peak ground acceleration, Arias intensity, and seismic intensity) and the cumulative displacement, and establish various empirical regression models.”), Guo measures cumulative displacement directly (Fig. 12). The Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” teaches that the Newmark method is used for earthquake and slope stability analysis (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” entry Feb. 4, 2022, “The method is still widely used nowadays in engineering practice to assess the consequences of earthquakes on slopes.”).
Regarding Claim 7, in addition to the limitations of Claim 1 taught by Gouliang in view of Guo and further in view of Wikipedia, Gouliang teaches the following limitations:
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein a formula for calculating the landslide occurrence probability P is expressed as:
P
=
0.335
[
1
-
e
x
p
(
-
0.048
D
n
-
L
1.565
)
]
(Gouliang, Section 3.4, “Jibson et al. (2000) obtained a function of predicted landslide probability… The function can be expressed as follows:
P
f
=
m
[
1
-
e
x
p
(
-
a
D
n
b
)
]
=
0.335
[
1
-
e
x
p
(
-
0.048
D
n
-
L
1.565
)
]
”)
Gouliang et al., Guo et al., and the Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” version from Feb. 4, 2022 are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: landslide hazard assessment and slope stability analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Newmark landslide hazard assessment techniques of Gouliang with the historical landslide data of Guo and the Newmark method teachings of Wikipedia. The motivation is that while Gouliang uses peak ground acceleration to predict a cumulative displacement value (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “In practice, the lack of seismic stations and strong motion recordings limit the availability of Newmark method in regional seismic landslide risk assessment. For this reason, many researchers study the relationship between the ground motion parameters (including peak ground acceleration, Arias intensity, and seismic intensity) and the cumulative displacement, and establish various empirical regression models.”), Guo measures cumulative displacement directly (Fig. 12). The Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” teaches that the Newmark method is used for earthquake and slope stability analysis (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” entry Feb. 4, 2022, “The method is still widely used nowadays in engineering practice to assess the consequences of earthquakes on slopes.”).
Regarding Claim 9, in addition to the limitations of Claim 1 taught by Gouliang in view of Guo and further in view of Wikipedia, the following limitations are taught by Gouliang:
A processing device, comprising: (Gouliang, Fig. 9, Section 5, “Based on the critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated using Eq. 4 which can be used to produce the seismic landslide hazard map (Fig. 9)”) Hardware (a processor and memory) is inherently taught in Gouliang, as use of a computer is required in order to complete the step of generating that is taught.
a processor; and (Gouliang, Fig. 9, Section 5, “Based on the critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated using Eq. 4 which can be used to produce the seismic landslide hazard map (Fig. 9)”)
a memory; (Gouliang, Fig. 9, Section 5, “Based on the critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated using Eq. 4 which can be used to produce the seismic landslide hazard map (Fig. 9)”)
wherein a computer program is stored in the memory; (Gouliang, Fig. 9, Section 5, “Based on the critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated using Eq. 4 which can be used to produce the seismic landslide hazard map (Fig. 9)”)
and the processor is configured to execute the computer program to implement the assessment method of claim 1. (Gouliang, Fig. 9, Section 5, “Based on the critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated using Eq. 4 which can be used to produce the seismic landslide hazard map (Fig. 9)”)
Gouliang et al., Guo et al., and the Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” version from Feb. 4, 2022 are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: landslide hazard assessment and slope stability analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Newmark landslide hazard assessment techniques of Gouliang with the historical landslide data of Guo and the Newmark method teachings of Wikipedia. The motivation is that while Gouliang uses peak ground acceleration to predict a cumulative displacement value (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “In practice, the lack of seismic stations and strong motion recordings limit the availability of Newmark method in regional seismic landslide risk assessment. For this reason, many researchers study the relationship between the ground motion parameters (including peak ground acceleration, Arias intensity, and seismic intensity) and the cumulative displacement, and establish various empirical regression models.”), Guo measures cumulative displacement directly (Fig. 12). The Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” teaches that the Newmark method is used for earthquake and slope stability analysis (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” entry Feb. 4, 2022, “The method is still widely used nowadays in engineering practice to assess the consequences of earthquakes on slopes.”).
Regarding Claim 10, in addition to the limitations of Claim 1 taught by Gouliang in view of Guo and further in view of Wikipedia, the following limitations are taught by Gouliang:
A computer-readable storage medium, wherein a plurality of instructions are stored on the computer-readable storage medium; (Gouliang, Fig. 9, Section 5, “Based on the critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated using Eq. 4 which can be used to produce the seismic landslide hazard map (Fig. 9)”) Hardware is inherently taught in Gouliang, as use of a computer is required in order to complete the step of generating that is taught.
and the plurality of instructions are configured to be loaded by a processor to implement the assessment method of claim 1. (Gouliang, Fig. 9, Section 5, “Based on the critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated using Eq. 4 which can be used to produce the seismic landslide hazard map (Fig. 9)”)
Gouliang et al., Guo et al., and the Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” version from Feb. 4, 2022 are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: landslide hazard assessment and slope stability analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Newmark landslide hazard assessment techniques of Gouliang with the historical landslide data of Guo and the Newmark method teachings of Wikipedia. The motivation is that while Gouliang uses peak ground acceleration to predict a cumulative displacement value (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “In practice, the lack of seismic stations and strong motion recordings limit the availability of Newmark method in regional seismic landslide risk assessment. For this reason, many researchers study the relationship between the ground motion parameters (including peak ground acceleration, Arias intensity, and seismic intensity) and the cumulative displacement, and establish various empirical regression models.”), Guo measures cumulative displacement directly (Fig. 12). The Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” teaches that the Newmark method is used for earthquake and slope stability analysis (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” entry Feb. 4, 2022, “The method is still widely used nowadays in engineering practice to assess the consequences of earthquakes on slopes.”).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gouliang et al. (“Estimation of Seismic Landslide Hazard in the Eastern Himalayan Syntaxis Region of Tibetan Plateau”, Apr. 2017) in view of Guo et al. (“Study on the Creep-Sliding Mechanism of the Giant Xiongba Ancient Landslide”, Aug. 25, 2021) and Wikipedia (“Newmark’s sliding block” article Feb. 4, 2022) and further in view of Xu et al. (“Spatial prediction Models For Seismic Landsides Based on Support Vector Machine and Varied Kernel Functions”, June 12, 2013).
The applied reference has a common --joint inventor-- with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding Claim 2, in addition to the limitations of Claim 1 taught by Gouliang in view of Guo and further in view of Wikipedia, Xu teaches the following limitations:
The assessment method of claim 1, wherein the step of "determining a historical landslide density based on the historical landslide data" comprises: according to the historical landslide data, calculating the historical landslide density by using a kernel density estimation algorithm with a search radius of 5 km. (Xu, Section 5, “The distribution points of landsides triggered by the 2010 Yushu earthquake are treated as landslide/positive samples, and 2036 landslide samples are obtained… Spatial prediction models for seismic landslides are constructed based on the aforementioned 12 impact factors, SVM model, and four kernel functions, including linear function, polynomial function, radial basis function (RBF), and sigmoid function, are used respectively. Then the Yushu earthquake hazard index maps are drawn (Fig.5). The results from linear function, polynomial function, and radial basis function (RBF) are similar, which are different from the result based on the sigmoid function. The output range of the SVM model is from 0 to 1. 0 means 0% of landslide probability, here 1 represents 100% of landslide probability, and 0.5 means a 50% landslide occurrences probability, which is boundary between landslide occurrence and not occurrence.”) (Xu, Section 4, “In a sense, landslide number density shown in Fig.4 implies that landslide hazard index of the class related to the prediction factor. It shows remarkable regularity for landslide number density with some factors, including elevation, slope gradient, distance from drainages, distance from roads, distance from co-seismic surface rupture etc.”) Given broadest reasonable interpretation, the estimated “historical landslide density” is taught by the algorithm of Xu.
Gouliang et al., Guo et al., the Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” version from Feb. 4, 2022, and Xu et al. are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: landslide hazard assessment and slope stability analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Newmark landslide hazard assessment techniques of Gouliang with the historical landslide data of Guo, the Newmark method teachings of Wikipedia, and the kernel density estimation algorithm of Xu. The motivation is that while Gouliang uses peak ground acceleration to predict a cumulative displacement value (Gouliang, Section 3.3, “In practice, the lack of seismic stations and strong motion recordings limit the availability of Newmark method in regional seismic landslide risk assessment. For this reason, many researchers study the relationship between the ground motion parameters (including peak ground acceleration, Arias intensity, and seismic intensity) and the cumulative displacement, and establish various empirical regression models.”), Guo measures cumulative displacement directly (Fig. 12). The Wikipedia article “Newmark’s sliding block” teaches that the Newmark method is used for earthquake and slope stability analysis (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” entry Feb. 4, 2022, “The method is still widely used nowadays in engineering practice to assess the consequences of earthquakes on slopes.”). Xu teaches that SVM models (using kernels to estimate landside density) are preferred in the art (Xu, Section 1, “The support vector machine (SVM) is a recently developed, superior nonlinear statistical analysis model base on advanced statistical learning theory. Previous research results show that the SVM model is very suitable for landslide spatial distribution.”).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and amended to overcome the above 101 and 112 rejections.
The limitations directed to a density classification table, and the specific values claimed, are not found in the prior art of record.
Gouliang et al. teaches a Newmark model method of performing a landslide hazard assessment. (Gouliang, Section 5, “Based on critical acceleration map and PGA map, Newmark displacement map can be generated using Eq. 4 which can be used to produce the seismic landslide hazard map (Fig. 9).”) Gouliang teaches classification of lithological groups (Gouliang, Table 1) as well as dividing the predicted displacement scale into classes (Gouliang, Section 5, “In this paper, we obtained the seismic landslide hazards maps of the eastern Himalayan syntaxis region of Tibetan Plateau by dividing the predicted Newmark displacements into 0-1 cm (low), 1–5 cm (moderate), 5–10 cm (high) and >10 cm (very high).”). Gouliang does not teach the specific classification limitations of claim 4.
Guo et al. teaches a landslide displacement data gathering and processing method (Guo, pg. 8, “According to the ascending orbit data, the landslide is suitable for analyzing the slope deformation in the east, southeast, and northeast directions… Therefore, the Sentinel-1A ascending image data are used in this study (Figure 5). The image acquisition data time period ranges from 8 October 2017, to 6 June 2020, and a total of 79 scenes were used in this study.”). Guo et al. does not teach the specific classification limitations of claim 4.
Wikipedia teaches properties of the Newmark sliding block model (Wikipedia “Newmark’s sliding block” entry Feb. 4, 2022, “According to Kramer,[3] the Newmark method is an improvement over the traditional pseudo-static method which considered the seismic slope failure only at limiting conditions (i.e. when the Factor of Safety, FOS, became equal to 1) and providing information about the collapse state but no information about the induced deformations. The new method points out that when the FOS becomes less than 1 "failure" does not necessarily occur as the time for which this happens is very short. However, each time the FOS falls below unity, some permanent deformations occur which accumulate whenever FOS < 1.”). Wikipedia does not teach the specific classification limitations of claim 4.
Xu et al. teaches an SVM model with kernel functions (Xu, Section 1, “The support vector machine (SVM) is a recently developed, superior nonlinear statistical analysis model base on advanced statistical learning theory. Previous research results show that the SVM model is very suitable for landslide spatial distribution.”). Xu et al. does not teach a Newmark model, or the specific classification limitations of claim 4.
Jin et al., which is not used in the above prior art rejections but is considered relevant art, teaches some specific values used in the density classification as terms in the claimed equation (Jin, Equation 5). Jin does not teach the entirety of the density classification limitations of claim 4.
Thus, the subject matter of claim 4 is indicated as allowable over the prior art of record.
Claim 8 would be allowable over the prior art of record if amended to overcome the above 101 rejection. The limitations directed to the “optimization unit” are interpreted under 112(f), and the corresponding structure found in the specification is the language of claim 4. Thus, the prior art of record fails to teach the structure of the “optimization unit”, as specified by the above allowability section. Thus, the subject matter of claim 8 is indicated as allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin et al., supplied in the information disclosure statement, teaches a Newmark method and utilizes some values of the classification limitations of claim 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY GOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-7171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00 am - 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.
/HENRY JOYNER GOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
