DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-11 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a 371 of PCT/CN2023/074540 filed 02/06/2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to CHINA 202211587924.7 filed 12/05/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/1/23 and 9/4/23 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS’ as to the merits.
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.
5. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a process, which represents a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-11 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of determining the reliability of a building based on earthquake data which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 1, the limitation of “the model building module is electrically connected to the evaluation calculation module, and is used to build a reliability model of the building structures according to the processed data” would be analogous to a person determining the reliability of a building based on earthquake data
and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 2-10 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation in claim 1 of “wherein the data acquisition module is electrically connected to the evaluation calculation module, and is used to acquire data information of actual earthquake motion time history, and to send the data information of actual earthquake motion time history to the evaluation calculation module;” and “the data processing module is electrically connected to the model building module, and is used to process data of building structures and send the processed data to the model building module;” and “the evaluation calculation module is used to input the data information of actual earthquake motion time history into the reliability model of the building structures to obtain and display evaluation results for intelligent resilience urban and rural areas” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “wherein the data acquisition module is electrically connected to the evaluation calculation module, and is used to acquire data information of actual earthquake motion time history, and to send the data information of actual earthquake motion time history to the evaluation calculation module;” and “the data processing module is electrically connected to the model building module, and is used to process data of building structures and send the processed data to the model building module;” and “the evaluation calculation module is used to input the data information of actual earthquake motion time history into the reliability model of the building structures to obtain and display evaluation results for intelligent resilience urban and rural areas” in claim 1, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-10 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation in claim 1, “wherein the data acquisition module is electrically connected to the evaluation calculation module, and is used to acquire data information of actual earthquake motion time history, and to send the data information of actual earthquake motion time history to the evaluation calculation module;” and “the data processing module is electrically connected to the model building module, and is used to process data of building structures and send the processed data to the model building module;” and “the evaluation calculation module is used to input the data information of actual earthquake motion time history into the reliability model of the building structures to obtain and display evaluation results for intelligent resilience urban and rural areas” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “wherein the data acquisition module is electrically connected to the evaluation calculation module, and is used to acquire data information of actual earthquake motion time history, and to send the data information of actual earthquake motion time history to the evaluation calculation module;” and “the data processing module is electrically connected to the model building module, and is used to process data of building structures and send the processed data to the model building module;” and “the evaluation calculation module is used to input the data information of actual earthquake motion time history into the reliability model of the building structures to obtain and display evaluation results for intelligent resilience urban and rural areas” in claim 1, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 further defines the type of data used in the calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 3 further defines the calculations of data which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 4 further defines the drawing/design of a building which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 5 further defines the type of data used in the calculation and the subsequent calculation and the subsequent drawing/design of a building which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 6 further defines the type of data used in the calculation and the subsequent calculation and the subsequent drawing/design of a building which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 7 further defines the type of data used in the calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 8 further defines the type of data used in the calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 9 further defines the calculations of data which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 10 further defines the drawing/design of a building which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 11 further defines the type of data used in the calculation and the subsequent calculation and the subsequent drawing/design of a building which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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.
6. Claims 1-11 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.
i) Claim 1 recites “intelligent resilience urban and rural areas.” The term “intelligent resilience”, “urban”, and “rural” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite.
ii) Claim 3 recites “key characteristics” and “key performance indicators.” The terms with respect to “key” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. This further applies to the same recitation in claim 9.
iii) Claim 4 recites “high-rise.” The term “high-rise” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. This further applies to the same recitation in claim 10.
iv) Claim 5 recites “weak layers.” The term “weak” is relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. This further applies to the same recitation in claim 6.
v) Claim 11 recites “national regulations” and “emergency evaluation standards.” The terms “national regulations” and “emergency evaluation standards” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
7. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Gazetas, George. "Rocking isolation of low-rise frame structures founded on isolated footings." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics (2011), hereafter G.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses An intelligent resilience urban-rural evaluation system, characterized in that: the system comprises a data acquisition module, a data processing module, a model building module and an evaluation calculation module;
wherein the data acquisition module is electrically connected to the evaluation calculation module, and is used to acquire data information of actual earthquake motion time history, and to send the data information of actual earthquake motion time history to the evaluation calculation module; (Page 1189, Section 5, 1st paragraph “The seismic performance of the two design alternatives (conventional, B=1.7m; rocking-isolated, B=1.4m) is further elucidated through a series of nonlinear dynamic time history analyses in which the FE model is subjected to a wide range of seismic motions: 24 earthquake records of worldwide historic events.”)
the data processing module is electrically connected to the model building module, and is used to process data of building structures and send the processed data to the model building module; (Page 1186, Figure 7, shows 2 distinct building designs, Conventional and Rocking Isolation)
the model building module is electrically connected to the evaluation calculation module, and is used to build a reliability model of the building structures according to the processed data; and (Page 1189, Section 5, 1st paragraph “The seismic performance of the two design alternatives (conventional, B=1.7m; rocking-isolated, B=1.4m) is further elucidated through a series of nonlinear dynamic time history analyses in which the FE model is subjected to a wide range of seismic motions: 24 earthquake records of worldwide historic events.”)
the evaluation calculation module is used to input the data information of actual earthquake motion time history into the reliability model of the building structures to obtain and display evaluation results for intelligent resilience urban and rural areas. (Page 1189, Section 5, 1st paragraph “The seismic performance of the two design alternatives (conventional, B=1.7m; rocking-isolated, B=1.4m) is further elucidated through a series of nonlinear dynamic time history analyses in which the FE model is subjected to a wide range of seismic motions: 24 earthquake records of worldwide historic events.”)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The intelligent resilient urban-rural evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that the data processing module decomposes functions and performances of the building structures based on a function-performance analysis method, and determines key characteristics and key performance indicators. (Figure 14 and its explanation in the 1st paragraph of Section 6 on page 1193, “The performance of the two design alternatives is summarized in Figure 14 for all investigated earthquake scenarios (24 seismic excitations). Key performance indicators are plotted against the peak spectral pseudo-velocity, maximum PSV, of the seismic excitation (undoubtedly far more representative than PGA or PSA for inelastic systems). Following [28], three limit states may be defined regarding the performance of the frame, related to the flexural drift ratio (dc/h)”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
8. Claim(s) 2, 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gazetas, George. "Rocking isolation of low-rise frame structures founded on isolated footings." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics (2011), hereafter G in view of Erdik, Mustafa, et al. "Rapid earthquake loss assessment after damaging earthquakes." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31.2 (2011): 247-266, hereafter E.
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The intelligent resilient urban-rural evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that the data information of actual earthquake motion time history comprises information of earthquake motion acceleration and duration, and the data information of actual earthquake motion time history is determined by an earthquake wave selection method, and is outputted …according to occurrence of actual earthquakes. (G. Figure 11, showing earthquake acceleration/velocity/time)
G does not explicitly recite in real time.
However E recites earthquake data in real time. (E. Page 247, Section 1, 1st paragraph, “Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) systems are involved in the co-seismic phase. These involve the generation of real time ground motion estimation maps as products of real-time seismology and/or generation of alarm signals directly from on line instrumental data.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the real time aspect of E with the monitoring data of G since the “potential impact of large earthquakes on urban societies can be reduced by timely and correct action after a disastrous earth quake.” (E. Page 247, Section 1, 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The intelligent resilient urban-rural evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that the model building module is used to build a three-dimensional physical twin model of the building structures which comprises a frame structure, (Figure 7) a frame shear structure, a shear wall structure, (Table 3) a steel structure, (Page 1184, middle, “The design with modern seismic code simplies sufficient hoop reinforcement to prevent cyclic strength degradation[40]. Therefore, such effect has been neglected in RC modeling. For similar reasons it has been considered adequate to neglect the possibility of reinforcement slippage which may not be captured by the simplified model utilized herein) and assume perfect bond between concrete and steel bars.”) a high-rise structure, a multi-storey structure, (Page 1195, middle, “In conclusion, the concept of rocking isolation has been proposed as an effective means of reducing the earthquake demand on low rise frames. Further investigation is required to extend its applicability to high-rise frame structures.”)
G does not explicitly recite and a masonry structure.
However E recites a masonry structure. (E. Page 255, Section 3.4.3, “The casualty rates corresponding to reinforced concrete and masonry structures given in[11] are adopted in ELER.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the building aspect of E with the building types of G since the “potential impact of large earthquakes on urban societies can be reduced by timely and correct action after a disastrous earth quake.” (E. Page 247, Section 1, 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The intelligent resilience urban-rural evaluation system according to claim 4, characterized in that the evaluation calculation module is used to receive …the data information of actual earthquake motion time history that is occurring, convert it into a finite element model of YJK calculation for cloud computing, (G. Figure 3) and output data of safety displacement angles and weak layers of the structures, (G. Figure 5b and 5c) map it to the urban-rural physical twin model through visual information, and then automatically generate the evaluation results according to national regulations and emergency evaluation standards. (G. Page 1177, “Performance-based design (i.e.,design based on acceptable deformations, in general) has gained ground among structural engineers in contrast to the holistic applicability of the prevailing capacity design [e.g., 2–4], and has led to substantial improvements in modern seismic codes and regulations.”)
G does not explicitly recite in real time.
However E recites earthquake data in real time. (E. Page 247, Section 1, 1st paragraph, “Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) systems are involved in the co-seismic phase. These involve the generation of real time ground motion estimation maps as products of real-time seismology and/or generation of alarm signals directly from on line instrumental data.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the real time aspect of E with the monitoring data of G since the “potential impact of large earthquakes on urban societies can be reduced by timely and correct action after a disastrous earth quake.” (E. Page 247, Section 1, 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses An intelligent resilience urban-rural evaluation method as used in the intelligent resilient urban-rural evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that: it comprises the following steps: Sl.building a three-dimensional physical twin model of the building structures which comprises a frame structure, a frame-shear structure, a shear wall structure, a steel structure, a high- rise structure, a multi-storey structure and a masonry structure; (See rejection for claim 4) S2.inputting the data information of actual earthquake motion time history, calculating and outputting the displacement angles between layers of the building structures and the weak layers of the building structure in YJK resilience dynamic motion time history, and obtain evaluation indicators of the urban-rural resilience; and (See rejection for claim 5) S3. superimposing the evaluation indicators of the urban-rural resilience with data from a urban-rural physical model, and transmitting them to a visualization system and an evaluation system, and finally generating three results that it can be used, discontinued, and suspended. (G. Figure 11)
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses The intelligent resilience urban-rural evaluation method according to claim 6, characterized in that the urban-rural physical model comprises a urban-rural built model and data for updating urban and rural areas. (G. Figure 11)
Regarding Claim 8: The reference discloses The intelligent resilience urban-rural evaluation method according to claim 6, characterized in that the data information of actual earthquake motion time history comprises Page 4 of 6 information of earthquake motion acceleration and duration, and the data information of actual earthquake motion time history is determined by an earthquake wave selection method, and is outputted in real time according to occurrence of actual earthquakes. (See rejection for claim 2)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses The intelligent resilience urban-rural evaluation method according to claim 6, characterized in that the data processing module decomposes functions and performances of the building structures based on a function-performance analysis method, and determines key characteristics and key performance indicators. (See rejection for claim 3)
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses The intelligent resilience urban-rural evaluation method according to claim 6, characterized in that the model building module is used to build a three-dimensional physical twin model of the building structures which comprises a frame structure, a frame shear structure, a shear wall structure, a steel structure, a high-rise structure, a multi-storey structure, and a masonry structure. (See rejection for claim 4)
Regarding Claim 11: The reference discloses The intelligent resilience urban-rural evaluation method according to claim 10, characterized in that the evaluation calculation module is used to receive in real time the data information of actual earthquake motion time history that is occurring, convert it into a finite element model of YJK calculation for cloud computing, and output data of safety displacement angles and weak layers of the structures, map it to the urban-rural physical twin model through visual information, and then automatically generate the evaluation results according to national regulations and emergency evaluation standards. (See rejection for claim 5)
Conclusion
9. All Claims are rejected.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) WO 2005073688 A1
ii) Lu, Xinzheng, et al. "Real-time city-scale time-history analysis and its application in resilience-oriented earthquake emergency responses." Applied Sciences 9.17 (2019): 3497.
iii) Zambrano, Ana María, et al. "Technologies of internet of things applied to an earthquake early warning system." Future Generation Computer Systems 75 (2017): 206-215.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights