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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed amendment filed on June 18, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons noted below. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite has been withdrawn in view of the amendment and argument presented by the Applicant(s). The amendment to the drawing is accepted by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Explanation of Rejection
Claim rejection - 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-20: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. § 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method for quantitative description of a geographical fissure structure, the method comprising:
collecting spatial coordinate data of the geographical fissure structure using at least one coordinate collecting component deployed around the geographic fissure structure;
according to the spatial coordinate data, constructing a fundamental elliptic equation that covers a spatial distribution scope of the geographical fissure structure; and
characterizing the geographical fissure structure according to spatial geometric parameters of a three-dimensional the fissure ellipsoid which is formed through fitting by using the fundamental elliptic equation, wherein the spatial geometric parameters are associated with physical characteristics of the geographical fissure structure.
Step 2A
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of " collecting spatial coordinate data of the geographical fissure structure using at least one coordinate collecting component deployed around the geographic fissure structure; according to the spatial coordinate data, constructing a fundamental elliptic equation that covers a spatial distribution scope of the geographical fissure structure; and characterizing the geographical fissure structure according to spatial geometric parameters of a three-dimensional the fissure ellipsoid which is formed through fitting by using the fundamental elliptic equation, wherein the spatial geometric parameters are associated with physical characteristics of the geographical fissure structure.” These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations, taking sample points to form fit into a known equation) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, forming fundamental elliptic equation(s)). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites no additional elements that is significantly more than the abstract idea noted in prong I. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that these abstract ideas, or steps noted in the instant claim provides more than a data analysis or forming a mathematical abstract model for data representation.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694
(Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: characterizing the geographic fissure structure according to spatial geometric parameters of the fissure ellipsoid which is formed through fitting by using the fundamental elliptic equation. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 9 and 17 are analogous to claim 1, except that claims 9 and 17 additionally recite a data “processor”; and the “processor” is additional element separate from the abstract idea that needs to be considered at Prong II of 35 USC §101. However, this additional element is merely generic computer processing element that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 9 and 17 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well.
Dependent claims 2-4: the instant claim is directed to constructing a fundamental elliptic equation, and merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity being recited, which is actually a mental process and/or mathematical abstract.
Dependent claims 5 and 6: the instant claim is directed to describing spatial characteristic of the fissure and is considered an interpretation of a mathematical abstract.
Dependent claims 7 and 8: the instant claim is directed to fitting of coefficients of the fundamental elliptic equation in order to calculate the average ratio of the fissure vectors, and would be considered a mathematical abstract of forming or fitting values on an ellipsoid form which would be considered a human thought process and/or mathematical abstract or model.
Dependent claims 10 and 11: the instant claim is directed to the addition of a third axis to better describe in a three-dimensional abstract for the purposes of describing the spatial characteristic of solid structural defect and would be considered an abstract idea of human thought process and/or mathematical abstract of a third degree.
Dependent claims 12-16: the instant claim is directed to determining the center of gravity of polyhedron based on the fundamental elliptic equation and forming the three-dimensional fissure ellipsoid which would be a human thought process and/or mathematical model/equation.
Dependent claims 18-20: instant claims are directed to determining stress tensor (objects used to describe physical properties) by forming three-dimensional fundamental elliptic equation and finding the average coverage ratio of the fissure ellipsoid with respect to the hypocenter vectors, assessing ellipsoid fitting quality which would be considered an abstract idea of a human thought process and/or mathematical abstract or analysis.
Art of Interest
In reference to claims 1-20: Hirano et al. (U.S. PAP 20180306689, hereon Hirano) discloses a method for predicting crack (fault) generation in a structure by ductile fracture in a short time. The method includes a model acquisition unit and a crack prediction unit. The model acquisition unit acquires a structure model corresponding to a predetermined structure. The crack prediction unit predicts crack generation in the structure by calculating a differential equation including a term set at each position of the structure model and in proportion to a time differential of a crack variable that expresses presence or absence of a crack and a term set at each position of the structure model and in proportion to plastic dissipation energy that expresses energy dissipated at the time of plastic deformation by utilizing the crack variable. With this configuration, by calculating a differential equation using a crack variable that expresses presence or absence of a crack and plastic dissipation energy that expresses energy dissipated at the time of plastic deformation by utilizing the crack variable, crack generation by ductile fracture is predictable (see Hirano, Abstract and Fig. 10).
The instant application differs in that it “[construct] a fundamental elliptic equation that covers a spatial distribution scope of the fault and fissure, and characterizing the fault and fissure according to spatial geometric parameters of the fissure ellipsoid which is formed through fitting by using the fundamental elliptic equation.”
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed amendment filed on June 18, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons explained above and further discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Applicant(s) argued that “claim 1is directed to a method for quantitative description of a geographical fissure structure, which is a real-world physical structure [that requires] collecting spatial coordinate data of the geophysical fissure structure using at least one coordinate collecting component deployed around the geophysical fissure structure” see argument, page 11, second paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees about the premises. First collecting data from a physical world is very much how data is collected in real life. For instance, a measurement of dimension(s) for the purposes of computing area, volume or any other parametric observation, in other words collecting data values is considered a data gathering at a high level of generality. Second, the computational analysis conducted using those “geographical fissure structure” are used in constructing “a three-dimensional fissure ellipsoid”, in other words, it is simply used to interpret the analyzed data into a graphical representation which is an abstract concept. Fundamentally, the claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: characterizing the geographic fissure structure according to spatial geometric parameters of the fissure ellipsoid which is formed through fitting by using the fundamental elliptic equation. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
In step 2A, prong II: Applicant(s) argued that “[the claimed invention as amended] reflects an improvement in the technical field of geographical fissure detection and characterization by enabling accurate quantitative description using data collected, e.g., from existing CT based detecting apparatuses” (see argument, page 12, third paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason. The computation carried out in claim 1 for instance probably best, characterizes the modeling of a computational analysis into a three-dimensional characterization of those collected data points. Using Applicant(s) example of CT based detecting apparatuses, there is no an improvement to the performance of a CT based detecting apparatuses (i.e., an improvement to the hardware or software of the CT based detecting apparatuses) or real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
In step 2B. the claim as amended does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Finally, Applicant also argued that “collecting, using elastic-wave collecting components over the geographical fissure structure waveform parameters of elastic waves generated during rupture process” (see argument, page 14, second paragraph). However, this step, as in claim 17 simply adds to the fact that it would be considered one way to collect data points at a high level of generality and does not change or add a significantly more than abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights