DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: a) In claim 1 lines 1-3, please change:
"A calculation method for dike breach development process, wherein the discharge per unit width of the breach is taken as the main parameter, and the parameter formula of the breach development process is established" to --A calculation method for a dike breach development process, wherein the discharge per unit width of the breach is taken as a main parameter, and a parameter formula of the breach development process is established--.
b) In claims 2-5, please change the preamble from "The calculation method for dike breach development process" to --The calculation method for the dike breach development process--.
c) In claim 1 line 5-6, please change:
"the dike breach flow is calculated according to the broad crested weir flow formula (1): to
--a dike breach flow is calculated according to a broad crested weir flow as calculated by Formula (1):--.
d) In claim 1 line 8, please change "µ--breach flow coefficient, dimensionless number;" to
--wherein:
µ--breach flow coefficient, as a dimensionless number;--.
e) In claim 1 line 10, please change: "B--the width of the water surface at the breach, in m;" to
--B--a width of the water surface at the breach--.
f) In claim 1 lines 11-16, please change: "h is the water depth of the breach, in m, when the water level outside the dike is lower than the elevation of the bottom of the breach, the water depth of the breach is the difference between the river water level and the elevation of the bottom of the breach; on the contrary, the water depth of the breach is the difference between the river water level and the water depth outside the dike; " to -- h is a water depth of the breach, in m, when a water level outside the dike is lower than an elevation of a bottom of the breach, the water depth of the breach is a difference between a river water level and the elevation of the bottom of the breach; on the contrary, the water depth of the breach is the difference between the river water level and a water depth outside the dike;--.
g) In claim 1 line 20, please change: "qunit --discharge per unit width of breach, m2/s;" to --wherein:
qunit --discharge per unit width of breach, in m2/s;--.
h) In claim 1 lines 22-24, please change:
"the calculation formulas of the discharge per unit width of the breach, the lateral widening rate and the vertical downcutting rate of the breach are established" to
--calculation formulas of the discharge per unit width of the breach, a lateral widening rate and a vertical downcutting rate of the breach are established--.
i) In claim 1 line 26-28, please change: "the lateral widening development process and vertical downcutting development process of the breach are calculated respectively." to
--a lateral widening development process and a vertical downcutting development process of the breach are calculated respectively.--.
j) In claim 2 line 8-9, please change: "γB--lateral widening rate of breach, physical meaning is lateral widening width of breach per unit time, in m/s" to
--wherein: γB--lateral widening rate of breach, where its physical meaning is lateral widening width of breach per unit time, in m/s--.
k) In claim 2 line 11, please change:
"--aB, bB, aH, bH--erosion coefficient, dimensionless parameter;" to
----aB, bB, aH, bH--erosion coefficients, as dimensionless parameters;--.
l) In claim 2 line 12-13, please change: "which is related to the critical shear stress of soil and its own properties, in m2/s" to
--which is related to a critical shear stress of soil and its own properties, in m2/s--.
m) In claim 3 line 3, please change: "the lateral widening development process of breach is calculated" to
--the lateral widening development process of the breach is calculated--.
n) In claim 3 line 9, please change: "Bt+Δt -- lateral width of breach at t+Δt moment, in m;" to --wherein:
Bt+Δt -- lateral width of breach at t+Δt moment, in m;--.
o) In claim 5, please correct Formula 6c from:
H
t
+
∆
t
=
Z
b
0
-
Z
b
t
+
∆
t
=
Z
0
-
Z
b
t
+
a
H
e
b
H
μ
2
g
(
Z
-
Z
b
t
-
q
u
n
i
t
c
∙
∆
t
to:
--
H
t
+
∆
t
=
Z
b
0
-
Z
b
t
+
∆
t
=
Z
b
0
-
Z
b
t
+
a
H
e
b
H
μ
2
g
(
Z
-
Z
b
t
-
q
u
n
i
t
c
∙
∆
t
--. (correcting from Z0 to Zb0).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-5 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.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-5 are to a process. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claim contains at least the following bolded limitations that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts:
1. A calculation method for dike breach development process, wherein, the discharge per unit width of the breach is taken as the main parameter, and the parameter formula of the breach development process is established, which includes the following steps:
step 1: the dike breach flow is calculated according to the broad crested weir flow formula (1):
Q
=
μ
B
2
g
h
1.5
(1)
μ—breach flow coefficient, dimensionless number;
Q—dike breach flow, in m3/s;
B—the width of the water surface at the breach, in m;
h is the water depth of the breach, in m, when the water level outside the dike is lower than the elevation of the bottom of the breach, the water depth of the breach is the difference between the river water level and the elevation of the bottom of the breach; on the contrary, the water depth of the breach is the difference between the river water level and the water depth outside the dike;
step 2: based on the dike breach flow calculated in step 1, the discharge per unit width of the breach is calculated by Formula (2):
q
u
n
i
t
=
Q
B
(2)
qunit—discharge per unit width of breach, m2/s;
step 3: based on the discharge per unit width of the breach calculated in step 2, the calculation formulas of the discharge per unit width of the breach, the lateral widening rate and the vertical downcutting rate of the breach are established; step 4: based on the lateral widening rate and vertical downcutting rate of the breach calculated in step 3, the lateral widening development process and vertical downcutting development process of the breach are calculated respectively.
The bolded limitations above amount to a recitation of mathematical concepts to carry out a series of mathematical calculations. While some of the calculations are explicitly defined by mathematical equations and variables such as the calculations in step 1 and step 2 (as defined by Formula (1) and Formula (2) respectively), the other calculations in steps 3 and 4 are described in words. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). Therefore the additional limitations of "based on the discharge per unit width of the breach calculated in step 2, the calculation formulas of the discharge per unit width of the breach, the lateral widening rate and the vertical downcutting rate of the breach are established" and "based on the lateral widening rate and vertical downcutting rate of the breach calculated in step 3, the lateral widening development process and vertical downcutting development process of the breach are calculated" are considered as words serving the same purpose as a formula. Taken as a whole, the independent claim appears to be limited to performing mathematical calculations using various formulas to calculate multiple parameters of interest, and remains squarely within the abstract informational data-based realm.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claim is analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No further limitations have been identified beyond the abstract idea mathematical calculations that amounts to an integration into a practical application, as no further applied application beyond the calculations themselves are described to improve a physical technology or physical technical process.
Next in step 2B, the independent claim is analyzed to determine if it recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. No further limitations have been identified beyond the abstract idea mathematical calculations, that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims 2-5 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as they explicitly recite further mathematical equations and variables used to carry out the calculations.
4. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements for actively obtaining any measured sensor data, or further physical applications using the calculated parameters to drive a physical transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
a) Claim 1 lines 1-2 recites "A calculation method for dike breach development process, wherein, the discharge per unit width of the breach is taken as the main parameter". It is not clear by what is meant by the discharge per unit width of the breach being taken as the "main parameter." In other words, it is not clear what is the significance of the term "main" parameter (main parameter for what?), or whether there is some extra importance regarding the discharge per unit width being designated as a main parameter. The claim appears to be missing context to describe what object or thing is taking the discharge per unit width of the breach as the main parameter, or what separates the discharge per unit width from other parameters which are not designated as a main parameter. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
b) Claim 1 lines 2-3 recites "and the parameter formula of the breach development process is established". It is not the clear from the remainder of the claim which of the many formulas is meant to be "the parameter formula of the breach development process" that is "established." The claim describes a dike breach flow formula, a discharge per unit width formula, a lateral widening rate formula, a vertical downcutting rate formula, a lateral widening development process calculation, and a vertical downcutting development process calculation. It is not clear which of these (or all of these) formulas constitute the establishing of "the parameter formula of the breach development process." Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
c) Claim 1 lines 14-16 recites "on the contrary, the water depth of the breach is the difference between the river water level and the water depth outside the dike". The claim presents a conflicting definition for the water depth of the breach, without providing it as an "or" alternative. Therefore, it is not clear if the water depth of the breach is meant to be "the difference between the river water level and the elevation of the bottom of the breach" or "the difference between the river water level and the water depth outside the dike." Appropriate correction/clarification is requested. d) Claim 1 lines 1-4 recites "step 3: based on the discharge per unit width of the breach calculated in step 2, the calculation formulas of the discharge per unit width of the breach, the lateral widening rate and the vertical downcutting rate of the breach are established". The claim appears to contain a typo, as the discharge per unit width is already calculated in step 2, and it seems unusual for "the discharge per unit width of the breach" formula to be established based on "the discharge per unit width of the breach in step 2" (i.e., based on itself). Perhaps the claim means to say that only "the calculation formulas of the lateral widening rate and the vertical downcutting rate of the breach are established"? Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
6. Dependent claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art, Wang (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0061970) at least teachesa calculation method for dike breach development process (Wang abstract teaches calculating a dam (dike) breach model for a breach development process), wherein, the discharge per unit width of the breach is taken as the main parameter (Wang paragraph [0010 teaches performing a 3D slope stability analysis of the discharge along the main flow direction of the breach channel, and performing 3D slope stability analysis during the lateral widening stage (discharge per width of the breach) after a dam has been breached through to its bottom), and the parameter formula of the breach development process is established (Wang abstract and paragraph [0010] teach developing different erosion parameter formulas to calculate erosion rates of the breach development process).
However, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Wang (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0061970) fails to anticipate or render obvious a calculation method for dike breach development process, which includes the following steps: step 1: the dike breach flow is calculated according to the broad crested weir flow formula (1):
Q
=
μ
B
2
g
h
1.5
(1)
μ—breach flow coefficient, dimensionless number;
Q—dike breach flow, in m3/s;
B—the width of the water surface at the breach, in m;
h is the water depth of the breach, in m, when the water level outside the dike is lower than the elevation of the bottom of the breach, the water depth of the breach is the difference between the river water level and the elevation of the bottom of the breach; on the contrary, the water depth of the breach is the difference between the river water level and the water depth outside the dike; in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
9. Dependent claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1.
Pertinent Art
10. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action 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. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Yamaguchi et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2007/0225955) discloses Inundation Simulator and Program. C. Sprague et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0122794) discloses System, Method and Computer Program Product for Aquatic Environment Assessment.
D. McHenry et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2012/0053917) discloses Systems and Methods for Modeling Floods.
E. Gumarov et al. (US Pat. No. 10,240,444) discloses Modeling and Analysis of Hydraulic Fracture Propagation to Surface From a Casing Shoe.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 2/18/2026