DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 10 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 10 are rejected.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 14 in FIG. 4 is not disclosed in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 1 recites “SPH-DEM”, but it is recommended the acronym is replaced to recite “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics - Discreet Element Method (SPH-DEM)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 4 recites “DEM theory”, but it is recommended the phrase is amended to recite “Discrete Element Method (DEM) theory”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 17 recites “μdenotes”, but it is recommended the phrase recites “μ denotes”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 - 10 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.
Claim 1, line 9, recites “HBP”, but it is unclear what “HBP” means. The acronym is not defined in the claims, and there is no recitation of a definition for HBP that can be recommended to amend in the claim. The definition of “HBP” is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims 2 - 10 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1, line 14 recites “a DP yield”, but it is unclear what “DP” is in reference to. The acronym is not defined in the claims, and there is no recitation of a definition of DP that can be recommended to amend in the claim. The definition of “DP” is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims 2 - 10 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the Newton’s second law” (Claim 1, line 32).
Dependent claims 2 - 10 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “Newton’s second law”.
Claim 1, lines 32 - 33 recite “solving the rigid particle control equation by combining the Newton’s second law and considering the particle fluid-solid coupling force”, but it is unclear if the particle fluid-solid coupling force is actually used in solving the rigid particle control equation, as “considering” does not disclose language that the particle fluid-solid coupling force is used. The phrase is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims 2 - 10 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “solving the rigid particle control equation by combining the Newton’s second law and
Claim 1, lines 45 - 46 recite “calculate corrected sediment incipient motion critical stress Tcr considering an external load and a side slope effect”, but it is unclear if the external load and side slope effect are actually used in correcting the sediment incipient motion critical stress, as “considering” does not disclose language that the external load and side slope effect used. The phrase is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims 2 - 10 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “calculate corrected sediment incipient motion critical stress Tcr based on an external load and a side slope effect”.
Claim 3 lacks antecedent basis for “the material assigned” (Claim 3, line 12).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “material assigned”.
Claim 3 lacks antecedent basis for “denote the Poisson’s ratio” (Claim 3, line 14).
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “denote Poisson’s ratio”.
Claim 3 lacks antecedent basis for “denote the radius” (Claim 3, line 16).
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “denote radius”.
Claims 4 and 6 recite “the rest of the symbols are the same above”, but it is unclear if this is in reference to symbols in claim 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 for claim 6 and 3, 2, or 1 for claim 1, or in reference to each of the preceding claims. The phrase is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to provide clarification for this phrase, or amend the actual variables into the claim.
Claim 5 lacks antecedent basis for “the rest of the variables”, line 16.
Suggested language: See below regarding claim 5.
Claim 5 recites “the rest of variables are the same as above”, but it is unclear if this is in reference to variables in claim 4, 3, 2, or 1, or each of the claims. The phrase is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to provide clarification for this phrase, or amend the actual variables into the claim.
Claim 10 lacks antecedent basis for “the suspended load” (Claim 10, line 3).
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “suspended load”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of Dakssa et al (“Simulating Runoff Along Soil Slope Using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Method and Comparison with Standard Empirical Formula”) discloses a smoothed Particle hydrodynamics (SPH) for free surface flows and particle motion for compressible fluids, Komoroczi et al. (“Meshless Numerical Modeling of Brittle-Viscous Deformation: First Results on Boundinage and Hydrofracturing using a Coupling of Discrete Element Method (DEM) and Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH)”) discloses particle interactions using DEM, formalizing weakly compressible fluid using SPH, using DEM particles as SPH particles for interaction and particle interaction based on DEM force calculation and SPH discretization of the Navier-Stokes equation, with hydrofracturing simulations performed using SPH and DEM coupling, Wang et al (CN 114781136 A) discloses using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), discrete element method (DEM), and smoothed particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) for a simulation, including particle discrete element DEM landslide motion evolution model, SPH landside surge and swell calculation models, and consider water resistance in the landslide motion evolution using CFD calculations, and Uchibori et al. (“Solder Crack Simulation using SPH Particle Method with Sub-Modeling Technique”) discloses elastic plastic analysis using SPH algorithm, and integrated circuit, including packaging substrate and Silicon Chip in the form of a 2D heat conduction model.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Dakssa, Komoroczi, Wang, and Uchibori, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses a foundation scour fluid-solid-soil coupling simulation method based on SPH-DEM coupling, including the steps of correcting a fluid control equations to perform a fluid particle solving step, starting from a discrete form of fluid momentum conservation equation using an SPH algorithm influenced kernel function theory, obtain a formula related to Einstein logarithmic flow velocity distribution, correcting sediment incipient motion critical stress using a previously obtained sediment incipient motion critical stress and influenced by external load and side slope effect, and computing a critical flow velocity using a Mastbergen formula, converting fluid particles into suspended load particles if a condition is satisfied, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 2 - 10 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 1, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights