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 .
Priority
Application 18/612,238, filed on 03/21/2024, claims benefit of CHINA 2024101905936 filed on 02/21/2024.
Current Status
This office action is a first office action, non-final rejection based on the merits wherein claims 1-10 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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: “data acquisition module . . . to obtain,” “feature extraction module, configured to extract,” “model establishment module, configured to respectively establish . . . models,” “database establishment module, configured to perform modal analysis” and “equivalent calculation module, configured to match . . . and obtain predicted values . . .via calculations” in claim 10.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitations corresponding to the claimed “data acquisition module . . . to obtain,” “feature extraction module, configured to extract,” “model establishment module, configured to respectively establish . . . models,” “database establishment module, configured to perform modal analysis” and “equivalent calculation module, configured to match . . . and obtain predicted values . . .via calculations” in claim 10 are not described or recited in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to the claimed parts, the examiner was unable to find adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function and therefor fails the description required in 35 USC 112, first paragraph (see MPEP 2181).
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 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above the claimed “data acquisition module . . . to obtain,” “feature extraction module, configured to extract,” “model establishment module, configured to respectively establish . . . models,” “database establishment module, configured to perform modal analysis” and “equivalent calculation module, configured to match . . . and obtain predicted values . . .via calculations” in claim 10 are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the claimed function and therefore the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant intends to use to accomplish the claimed functions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 1 and claim 10: Applicant claims “different wave measuring points” (claim 1 line 7and 8, claim 10 line 7 and 8). Examiner is uncertain if “different wave measuring points” is in reference to the claimed “different wave measuring points” (claim 1 line 5, claim 10 line 5) or different “different wave measuring points” therefore the claims are indefinite.
Claims 1 and 10 will be examined based on the merits as best understood.
Regarding claims 2-9: Claims 2-9 are rejected under 112(b) as they depend from independent claim 1.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
step S1, arranging a plurality of acceleration sensors at different positions above a water surface of the offshore engineering structure as wave measuring points to acquire vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points
step S2, extracting first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure and first-order displacement vectors thereof at different wave measuring points based on the vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points
step S3, respectively establishing equivalent constraint finite element models based on different fixed constraint positions below a mud surface of the offshore engineering structure, wherein the equivalent constraint finite element models are used for equivalently transforming pile-soil constraints of the offshore engineering structure into fixed constraints on the bottom of the foundation;
“step S4, performing modal analysis on the equivalent constraint finite element models to obtain first-order frequencies of the equivalent constraint finite element models and first-order shape vectors at all the wave measuring points, wherein a finite element model database is compiled from the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors of all the equivalent constraint finite element models”
“step S5, matching the first-order frequencies and the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database respectively, and obtaining predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on a matching result”
Claim 10 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A system for predicting equivalent scour depths of an offshore engineering structure, comprising:
a measured data acquisition module, configured to arrange a plurality of acceleration sensors at different positions above a water surface of the offshore engineering structure as wave measuring points to obtain vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points;
a measured feature extraction module, configured to extract first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure and first-order displacement vectors thereof at different wave measuring points based on the vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points;
a model establishment module, configured to respectively establish equivalent constraint finite element models based on different fixed constraint positions below a mud surface of the offshore engineering structure, wherein the equivalent constraint finite element models are used for equivalently transforming pile-soil constraints of the offshore engineering structure into fixed constraints on the bottom of the foundation;
a database establishment module, configured to perform modal analysis on the equivalent constraint finite element models to obtain first-order frequencies of the equivalent constraint finite element models and first-order shape vectors at all the wave measuring points, wherein a finite element model database is compiled from the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors of all the equivalent constraint finite element models; and
an equivalent calculation module, configured to match the first-order frequencies and the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database respectively, and obtain predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on a matching result.
Regarding the underlined limitation “extracting/extract (claims 1 and 10) first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure and first-order displacement vectors thereof at different wave measuring points based on the vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points” it is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for extracting data. It is an algorithm or program which is a mathematical routine.
Regarding the underlined limitation “establishing/establish (claims 1 and 10) equivalent constraint finite element models based on different fixed constraint positions below a mud surface of the offshore engineering structure, wherein the equivalent constraint finite element models are used for equivalently transforming pile-soil constraints of the offshore engineering structure into fixed constraints on the bottom of the foundation” it is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for establishing models and transforming data. It is an algorithm or program which is a mathematical routine.
Regarding the underlined limitation “performing/perform (claims 1 and 10) modal analysis on the equivalent constraint finite element models to obtain first-order frequencies of the equivalent constraint finite element models and first-order shape vectors at all the wave measuring points, wherein a finite element model database is compiled from the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors of all the equivalent constraint finite element models” it is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for performing modal analysis for obtaining data and compiling a database. It is an algorithm or program which is a mathematical routine.
Regarding the underline limitation “matching/match (claims 1 and 10) the first-order frequencies and the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database respectively, and obtaining/obtain (claims 1 and 10) predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on a matching result.”
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claims above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claims 1 and 10 recite a database for storage. This elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of a storage medium to store data and therefore only amounts to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claims do not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claims do not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail or limit the abstract idea with limitations such as:
“respectively establishing equivalent constraint finite element models based on different fixed constraint positions below a mud surface of the offshore engineering structure in step S3, comprises:
setting a bottom fixed constraint of one equivalent constraint finite element model, adopting a bottom end of a pile foundation of the offshore engineering structure as an initial fixed constraint position, and establishing the equivalent constraint finite element model based on the initial fixed constraint position”
moving the bottom fixed constraint a preset constraint distance towards the mud surface along the pile foundation, and establishing the equivalent constraint finite element model based on a current fixed constraint position”
repeating the previous step till the current fixed constraint position reaches the mud surface of the offshore engineering structure, to obtain the equivalent constraint finite element models corresponding to all the fixed constraint positions” (claim 2),
“the matching the first-order frequencies and the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database respectively, and obtaining predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on a matching result in step S5, comprise:
matching the first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies in the finite element model database, and determining first equivalent constraint positions based on a matching result; matching the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database, and determining second equivalent constraint positions based on a matching result; and obtaining the predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on the first equivalent constraint positions and the second equivalent constraint positions” (claim 4),
“the matching the first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies in the finite element model database, and determining first equivalent constraint positions based on a matching result,
comprise: calculating relative errors between the first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure and the first-order frequencies in the finite element model database one by one, and determining indexes of the equivalent constraint finite element models corresponding to the current first-order frequencies in the finite element model database when the relative error is the minimum
obtaining fixed constraint positions of the equivalent constraint finite element models determined based on a first-order frequency matching result according to the indexes, and marking as the first equivalent constraint positions” (claim 5),
“the matching the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database, and determining second equivalent constraint positions based on a matching result,
comprise: normalizing the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database
calculating relative errors between normalized first-order displacements of the offshore engineering structure and normalized first-order shapes in the finite element model database one by one
determining indexes of the equivalent constraint finite element models corresponding to the current first-order shapes when the relative error is the minimum and obtaining fixed constraint positions of the equivalent constraint finite element models determined based on a first-order displacement matching result according to the indexes, and marking as the second equivalent constraint positions” (claim 6),
“the normalizing the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database,
comprises: normalizing the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure based on first-order displacements, extracted at the wave measuring point closest to the water surface, of the offshore engineering structure
normalizing the first-order shape vector of each equivalent constraint finite element model in the finite element model database based on the first-order shape, obtained at the wave measuring point closest to the water surface, of each equivalent constraint finite element model” (claim 7),
“wherein the obtaining the predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on the first equivalent constraint positions and the second equivalent constraint positions, comprises:
performing weighted summation on the first equivalent constraint positions and the second equivalent constraint positions, to obtain equivalent constraint positions that take the first-order frequencies and the first-order displacements into account at the same time, and marking as the predicted values of the equivalent scour depths” (claim 8) and,
wherein the method further comprises the following steps after step S5:
periodically acquiring a plurality of vibration accelerations at each wave measuring point within one day, and
performing step S1 to step S5, to obtain predicted values of a plurality of equivalent scour depths within one day;
the normal probability density function is used for fitting the predicted values of the plurality of equivalent scour depths within one day, to obtain a fitting curve for the equivalent scour depths on the same day;
adopting the equivalent scour depth corresponding to a maximum probability in the fitting curve as statistically predicted values of the equivalent scour depths on the same day; and determining a change relationship of the equivalent scour depths over time based on the periodically obtained statistically predicted values of the equivalent scour depths” (claim 9).
Claims 4, 5, 6, and 7 recite a database used when “matching,” “obtaining,” “calculating,” and “normalizing.” This element is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of a storage medium to store data and therefore only amounts to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Claim 3 recites an arithmetic progression which is a mathematical equation and therefore an abstract idea.
Considering all the limitations individually and in combination, the claimed additional elements do not show any inventive concept to applying algorithms such as improving the performance of a computer or any technology, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the application.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuguang, “Method for monitoring scour depth of pile foundations based on modal identification” downloaded from DOI 10.1088/1361-665X/ac00cc in view of Dorothy’s little world. downloaded from https://zxding.me/archives/d702tw.html.
Regarding claim 1 Xuguang teaches:
“A method for predicting equivalent scour depths of an offshore engineering structure (Xuguang, § Introduction), comprising the following steps:”
step S1, arranging a plurality of acceleration sensors at different positions above a water surface of the offshore engineering structure as wave measuring points to acquire vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points (Xuguang teaches “the sensors are placed on the pile foundation above the water surface and send signals”(§ Introduction, page 2) where “the three sensors were placed at intervals of 150 mm from the top of the pile” and where the sensors are acceleration sensors (§ Experiment preparation and process, page 7).)
step S2, extracting first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure and first-order displacement vectors thereof at different wave measuring points based on the vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points (Xuguang teaches “the three sensors were placed at intervals of 150 mm from the top of the pile” where the sensors are acceleration sensors (§ Experiment preparation and process, page 7) disclosing the sensor data is “vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points.” Moreover, Xuguang teaches using ABAQUS to construct a finite-element model and analyze (§ 3.1 page 5) where ABAQUS uses a frequency solver disclosing finite-element analysis used to solve for “first order frequencies.” Additionally, Xuguang teaches “Mode shapes were obtained from 70 longitudinal points of the pile foundation” (§ 3.1, fig. 9 and 10), however, Xuguang does not teach how the mode shapes were obtained from the data.
Dorothy’s Little World teaches “For the eigenvalues given by abaqus, you can go to the location where your abaqus job files are saved, then you search the jobname.dat file and you can find the eigen value output with eigenvalues and frequencies” (reply dated March 13, 2020) disclosing ABAQUS solves for eigenvalues and frequencies. Additionally, Dorothy’s Little World teaches “abaqus does not output the mode shape vectors automatically. But you can output filed variables (displacements) at each node, then you need to process the data to get it into the format you want” (reply dated June 11, 2021) disclosing mode shape vectors are derived from displacements (which are vectors). Therefore Xuguang as modified by Dorothy’s Little World teaches the limitation “extracting first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure and first-order displacement vectors thereof at different wave measuring points based on the vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points.”
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the scour depth of an offshore structure, a piling, by explaining how the ABAQUS software works in order to reduce confusion, enable coders to safely add new features to the system, and fix bugs faster.
Xuguang teaches:
step S3, respectively establishing equivalent constraint finite element models based on different fixed constraint positions below a mud surface of the offshore engineering structure, wherein the equivalent constraint finite element models are used for equivalently transforming pile-soil constraints of the offshore engineering structure into fixed constraints on the bottom of the foundation; (Xuguang teaches “a finite-element model of the pile foundation was partitioned into 70 elements from the bottom to the top” with 45 elements below the mud surface (§ 3.2) disclosing “establishing equivalent constraint finite element models based on different fixed constraint positions below a mud surface of the offshore engineering structure.” Moreover, where the correction coefficients of the elements are negative indicates the “soil constraints around these elements disappear” (§ 3.2, fig 11) disclosing the “pile-soil constraints” are transformed into “fixed constraints on the bottom of the foundation” as the soil constraints would “disappear” from the top to the bottom.
“step S4, performing modal analysis on the equivalent constraint finite element models to obtain first-order frequencies of the equivalent constraint finite element models and first-order shape vectors at all the wave measuring points, wherein a finite element model database is compiled from the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors of all the equivalent constraint finite element models” (Xuguang teaches using ABAQUS to construct a finite-element model and analyze (§ 3.1 page 5) where ABAQUS uses a frequency solver disclosing finite-element analysis used to solve for “first order frequencies.” Additionally, Xuguang teaches “Mode shapes were obtained from 70 longitudinal points of the pile foundation” (§ 3.1, fig. 9 and 10) and “Comparison between the calculated results and the pre-set scour depth . . .” indicates the “calculated results” are stored in a database, however, Xuguang does not teach how the mode shapes were obtained from the data. Dorothy’s Little World teaches “For the eigenvalues given by abaqus, you can go to the location where your abaqus job files are saved, then you search the jobname.dat file and you can find the eigen value output with eigenvalues and frequencies” (reply dated March 13, 2020) disclosing ABAQUS solves for eigenvalues and frequencies. Additionally, Dorothy’s Little World teaches “abaqus does not output the mode shape vectors automatically. But you can output filed variables (displacements) at each node, then you need to process the data to get it into the format you want” (reply dated June 11, 2021) disclosing mode shape vectors are derived from displacements (which are vectors). Therefore Xuguang as modified by Dorothy’s Little World teaches the limitation “performing modal analysis on the equivalent constraint finite element models to obtain first-order frequencies of the equivalent constraint finite element models and first-order shape vectors at all the wave measuring points, wherein a finite element model database is compiled from the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors of all the equivalent constraint finite element models.”
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the scour depth of an offshore structure, a piling, by explaining how the ABAQUS software works in order to reduce confusion, enable coders to safely add new features to the system, and fix bugs faster.
Xuguang teaches:
“step S5, matching the first-order frequencies and the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database respectively, and obtaining predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on a matching result” (Xuguang teaches “the frequency calculated by the ERA (Eigensystem realization algorithm) was compared with the frequency of finite-element model, and comparison results are listed in table 2” (§ 4.2). Additionally, “The expanded mode shape was compared with the mode of the finite-element model” (§ 4.2, and fig. 17). Calculation of scour depth “is based on the change state of the stiffness correction coefficient” (§ 4.3 page 11) where the “stiffness correction coefficient” is based on eigenvalues and eigenvectors (§ 3.2) which lead to the frequencies and shape vectors which are part of the finite element model (see above) thereby disclosing “obtaining predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on a matching result.”)
Regarding claim 2 Xuguang as modified teaches:
“respectively establishing equivalent constraint finite element models based on different fixed constraint positions below a mud surface of the offshore engineering structure in step S3” (see S3 above).
“setting a bottom fixed constraint of one equivalent constraint finite element model, adopting a bottom end of a pile foundation of the offshore engineering structure as an initial fixed constraint position, and establishing the equivalent constraint finite element model based on the initial fixed constraint position” (Xuguang teaches the “finite-element model of the pile foundation was partitioned into 70 elements from the bottom to the top” (§ 3.2, page 5) where the 70th element is at the bottom representing the “initial fixed constraint position.”)
“moving the bottom fixed constraint a preset constraint distance towards the mud surface along the pile foundation, and establishing the equivalent constraint finite element model based on a current fixed constraint position” (Xuguang teaches the “finite-element model of the pile foundation was partitioned into 70 elements from the bottom to the top” (§ 3.2, page 5) disclosing the finite element model is calculated for “preset constraint distance towards the mud surface along the pile foundation.”)
“repeating the previous step till the current fixed constraint position reaches the mud surface of the offshore engineering structure, to obtain the equivalent constraint finite element models corresponding to all the fixed constraint positions” (Xuguang teaches determining the “stiffness coefficient” for each element of the finite element model where when “the correction coefficients of some elements are negative, indicating that the stiffness of these elements is damaged. This means that the soil constraints around these elements disappear” (§ 3.2, page 5, see also fig. 4 and fig. 11). Fig. 11 depicts how the correction coefficient changes up to the mud line for three different finite element models.)
Regarding claim 3 Xuguang as modified teaches:
“an expression of the fixed constraint position of the equivalent constraint finite element model is:
L
j
=
L
o
+
j
-
1
∆
L
,
j
=
1
,
2
,
…
,
q
where,
L
(
j
)
represents the fixed constraint position of the equivalent constraint finite element model,
L
o
represents the initial fixed constraint position, j represents an index of the equivalent constraint finite element model,
∆
L
represents the preset constraint distance of movement, and q represents the total number of the equivalent constraint finite element models” (Xuguang teaches four finite element models with scour depths of 0, 50, 100, and 150 mm (§ 3.1 page 5, see also fig.6 and fig. 7) where the scour depths increase by 50 mm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the equation above is an arithmetic progression and represents the different finite element models as each model is obtained by investigating a different scour depth changed by equal increments, 50 mm. Additionally, Xuguang teaches the “finite-element model of the pile foundation was partitioned into 70 elements from the bottom to the top” (§ 3.2, page 5) disclosing the finite element model is calculated using an arithmetic progression to analyze each element as “partitioned into 70 elements” discloses an equal increment between each element.)
Regarding claim 4 Xuguang as modified teaches:
“the matching the first-order frequencies and the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database respectively, and obtaining predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on a matching result in step S5” (see S5 above).
“matching the first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies in the finite element model database, and determining first equivalent constraint positions based on a matching result; matching the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database, and determining second equivalent constraint positions based on a matching result; and obtaining the predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on the first equivalent constraint positions and the second equivalent constraint positions” (Xuguang teaches “the frequency calculated by the ERA (Eigensystem realization algorithm) was compared with the frequency of finite-element model, and comparison results are listed in table 2” (§ 4.2, page 7 and 8), and “The expanded mode shape was compared with the mode (shape) of the finite-element model” (§ 4.2, and fig. 17) where mode shape discloses first-order displacement vectors and first-order shape vectors
Additionally, “the model updating and signal identification methods can be used to process the modal information of the pile-soil system to calculate the change of soil constraint” (§ 2, page 2) where “modal information” includes frequencies and modal shapes (3.1, page 5) and the “calculate the change in soil constraint” discloses determining first and second “equivalent constraint positions” the equivalent constraint position as the constraint position changes due to scour. Additionally, “According to equation (11), the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the first two modes of the target model (experimental model) and the eigenvectors of the first 27 modes of the baseline model (finite element model) were used to construct the 54 cross-model cross-mode equations in MATLAB programming. The least squares method was used to calculate the approximate solution of correction coefficient” (§ 4.2, page 9-10). The results are shown in figure 18. Figure 18 depicts a histogram where “it can be determined that the soil constraint unloading of the four elements below the mud line, which means that there is scouring. According to the element length of 30mm, the computed depth is determined to be 120 mm” (§ 4.2 page 10) disclosing the “predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation.”)
Regarding claim 5 Xuguang teaches:
“the matching the first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies in the finite element model database, and determining first equivalent constraint positions based on a matching result” (See claim 4 above),
“comprise: calculating relative errors between the first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure and the first-order frequencies in the finite element model database one by one, and determining indexes of the equivalent constraint finite element models corresponding to the current first-order frequencies in the finite element model database when the relative error is the minimum” (Xuguang teaches Table 2 which lists the first modal frequency of the finite-element model and ERA at different scour depths and compares them. As depicted, the “relative error is the minimum.”)
“obtaining fixed constraint positions of the equivalent constraint finite element models determined based on a first-order frequency matching result according to the indexes, and marking as the first equivalent constraint positions” (Xuguang teaches “According to equation (11), the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the first two modes of the target model (experimental model) and the eigenvectors of the first 27 modes of the baseline model (finite element model) were used to construct the 54 cross-model cross-mode equations in MATLAB programming. The least squares method was used to calculate the approximate solution of correction coefficient” (§ 4.2, page 9-10). The results are shown in figure 18. Figure 18b depicts a histogram where “it can be determined that the soil constraint unloading of the four elements below the mud line, which means that there is scouring. According to the element length of 30mm, the computed depth is determined to be 120 mm” (§ 4.2 page 10)
Regarding claim 6 Xuguang as modified teaches:
“the matching the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database, and determining second equivalent constraint positions based on a matching result” (See claim 4 above)
“comprise: normalizing the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database” (Xuguang teaches “the normalized mode shapes represents the transient deformation of pile foundation in a certain mode”(§ 3.1, page 5) disclosing the “first order displacement vectors” and “first-order shape vectors” are normalized.)
“calculating relative errors between normalized first-order displacements of the offshore engineering structure and normalized first-order shapes in the finite element model database one by one” (Xuguang teaches a comparison between the “expanded mode shape” (experimental) and the mode (shape) of the finite element model where “it was found that the small gap was within the acceptable range” (§ 4.2 page 8-9) disclosing “calculating relative errors” between the experimental data (normalized first-order displacements of the offshore engineering structure) and the normalized first-order shapes in the finite element model database one by one as figure 17 depicts the “accuracy of mode shape after expansion at different scour depths” (fig. 17 title description).)
“determining indexes of the equivalent constraint finite element models corresponding to the current first-order shapes when the relative error is the minimum and obtaining fixed constraint positions of the equivalent constraint finite element models determined based on a first-order displacement matching result according to the indexes, and marking as the second equivalent constraint positions” (Xuguang teaches elements where the correction coefficient is negative indicate “the soil constraints around these elements disappear” (§ 3.2, page 5) where the correction coefficient is determined using eigenvalues (frequencies) and eigenvectors (shapes) of the target model (experimental) and the baseline model (finite element model (§ 4.2, page 9-10). Knowing the correction coefficient is negative and the element numbers (indexes) where the negative correction coefficient is negative, the element numbers (indexes) of the fixed constraint positions are determined.
Regarding Independent claim 10, Xuguang teaches:
“A system for predicting equivalent scour depths of an offshore engineering structure” (Xuguang, § Introduction. Additionally, Xuguang teaches using ABAQUS software which would not be possible unless the system consisted of at least a modern generic computer which includes a processor and memory therefore Xuguang teaches the different modules claimed in the following limitations.)
“comprising: a measured data acquisition module, configured to arrange a plurality of acceleration sensors at different positions above a water surface of the offshore engineering structure as wave measuring points to obtain vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points” (Xuguang teaches “the sensors are placed on the pile foundation above the water surface and send signals”(§ Introduction, page 2) where “the three sensors were placed at intervals of 150 mm from the top of the pile” and where the sensors are acceleration sensors (§ Experiment preparation and process, page 7).)
“a measured feature extraction module, configured to extract first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure and first-order displacement vectors thereof at different wave measuring points based on the vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points” (Xuguang teaches “the three sensors were placed at intervals of 150 mm from the top of the pile” where the sensors are acceleration sensors (§ Experiment preparation and process, page 7) disclosing the sensor data is “vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points.” Moreover, Xuguang teaches using ABAQUS to construct a finite-element model and analyze (§ 3.1 page 5) where ABAQUS uses a frequency solver disclosing finite-element analysis used to solve for “first order frequencies.” Additionally, Xuguang teaches “Mode shapes were obtained from 70 longitudinal points of the pile foundation” (§ 3.1, fig. 9 and 10), however, Xuguang does not teach how the mode shapes were obtained from the data.
Dorothy’s Little World teaches “For the eigenvalues given by abaqus, you can go to the location where your abaqus job files are saved, then you search the jobname.dat file and you can find the eigen value output with eigenvalues and frequencies” (reply dated March 13, 2020) disclosing ABAQUS solves for eigenvalues and frequencies. Additionally, Dorothy’s Little World teaches “abaqus does not output the mode shape vectors automatically. But you can output filed variables (displacements) at each node, then you need to process the data to get it into the format you want” (reply dated June 11, 2021) disclosing mode shape vectors are derived from displacements (which are vectors). Therefore Xuguang as modified by Dorothy’s Little World teaches the limitation “extract first-order frequencies of the offshore engineering structure and first-order displacement vectors thereof at different wave measuring points based on the vibration accelerations at different wave measuring points.”
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the scour depth of an offshore structure, a piling, by explaining how the ABAQUS software works in order to reduce confusion, enable coders to safely add new features to the system, and fix bugs faster.
Xuguang teaches:
“a model establishment module, configured to respectively establish equivalent constraint finite element models based on different fixed constraint positions below a mud surface of the offshore engineering structure, wherein the equivalent constraint finite element models are used for equivalently transforming pile-soil constraints of the offshore engineering structure into fixed constraints on the bottom of the foundation” (Xuguang teaches “a finite-element model of the pile foundation was partitioned into 70 elements from the bottom to the top” with 45 elements below the mud surface (§ 3.2) disclosing “establish equivalent constraint finite element models based on different fixed constraint positions below a mud surface of the offshore engineering structure.” Moreover, where the correction coefficients of the elements are negative indicates the “soil constraints around these elements disappear” (§ 3.2, fig 11) disclosing the “pile-soil constraints” are transformed into “fixed constraints on the bottom of the foundation” as the soil constraints would “disappear” from the top to the bottom.
“a database establishment module, configured to perform modal analysis on the equivalent constraint finite element models to obtain first-order frequencies of the equivalent constraint finite element models and first-order shape vectors at all the wave measuring points, wherein a finite element model database is compiled from the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors of all the equivalent constraint finite element models” (Xuguang teaches using ABAQUS to construct a finite-element model and analyze (§ 3.1 page 5) where ABAQUS uses a frequency solver disclosing finite-element analysis used to solve for “first order frequencies.” Additionally, Xuguang teaches “Mode shapes were obtained from 70 longitudinal points of the pile foundation” (§ 3.1, fig. 9 and 10) and “Comparison between the calculated results and the pre-set scour depth . . .” indicates the “calculated results” are stored in a database, however, Xuguang does not teach how the mode shapes were obtained from the data. Dorothy’s Little World teaches “For the eigenvalues given by abaqus, you can go to the location where your abaqus job files are saved, then you search the jobname.dat file and you can find the eigen value output with eigenvalues and frequencies” (reply dated March 13, 2020) disclosing ABAQUS solves for eigenvalues and frequencies. Additionally, Dorothy’s Little World teaches “abaqus does not output the mode shape vectors automatically. But you can output filed variables (displacements) at each node, then you need to process the data to get it into the format you want” (reply dated June 11, 2021) disclosing mode shape vectors are derived from displacements (which are vectors). Therefore Xuguang as modified by Dorothy’s Little World teaches the limitation “perform modal analysis on the equivalent constraint finite element models to obtain first-order frequencies of the equivalent constraint finite element models and first-order shape vectors at all the wave measuring points, wherein a finite element model database is compiled from the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors of all the equivalent constraint finite element models.”
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the scour depth of an offshore structure, a piling, by explaining how the ABAQUS software works in order to reduce confusion, enable coders to safely add new features to the system, and fix bugs faster.
Xuguang teaches:
“an equivalent calculation module, configured to match the first-order frequencies and the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure with the first-order frequencies and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database respectively, and obtain predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on a matching result” (Xuguang teaches “the frequency calculated by the ERA (Eigensystem realization algorithm) was compared with the frequency of finite-element model, and comparison results are listed in table 2” (§ 4.2). Additionally, “The expanded mode shape was compared with the mode of the finite-element model” (§ 4.2, and fig. 17). Calculation of scour depth “is based on the change state of the stiffness correction coefficient” (§ 4.3 page 11) where the “stiffness correction coefficient” is based on eigenvalues and eigenvectors (§ 3.2) which lead to the frequencies and shape vectors which are part of the finite element model (see above) thereby disclosing “obtain predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on a matching result.”)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuguang as modified by Dorothy’s little world as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Jack Hackerman, Reddit, “How to normalize and merge two different datasets with similar deltas for Keras/” https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/mtgk2s/d_how_to_normalize_and_merge_two_different/?rdt=47279.
Regarding claim 7 Xuguang as modified teaches:
“the normalizing the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure and the first-order shape vectors in the finite element model database” (see claim 6 above),
“comprises: normalizing the first-order displacement vectors of the offshore engineering structure based on first-order displacements, extracted at the wave measuring point closest to the water surface, of the offshore engineering structure; and normalizing the first-order shape vector of each equivalent constraint finite element model in the finite element model database based on the first-order shape, obtained at the wave measuring point closest to the water surface, of each equivalent constraint finite element model” (Xuguang teaches “The three sensors were placed at intervals of 150 mm from the top of the pile” (§ 4.1 (d) page 7) disclosing different sensors and different data sets and “the normalized mode shapes represents the transient deformation of pile foundation in a certain mode”(§ 3.1, page 5) where the “normalized mode shape” are derived from displacement vectors.
While Xuguang teaches normalizing mode shapes, Xuguang does not teach what the normalizing is based on including if the normalization is based on another data set. Jack Hackerman on Reddit teaches how to normalize data by calculating the mean and standard deviation of each set (see Jack Hackerman OP 5y ago).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the scour depth of an offshore structure, a piling, by normalizing data as disclosed by Jack Hackerman on Reddit because normalizing data removes any scale bias and stabilized mathematical models. in order to reduce confusion, enable coders to safely add new features to the system, and fix bugs faster.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuguang as modified by Dorothy’s little world as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Levenberg, “A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least squares” downloaded from DOI: https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/10666.
Regarding claim 8 Xuguang as modified teaches:
“wherein the obtaining the predicted values of the equivalent scour depths via calculation based on the first equivalent constraint positions and the second equivalent constraint positions” (see claim 4 above).
“performing weighted summation on the first equivalent constraint positions and the second equivalent constraint positions, to obtain equivalent constraint positions that take the first-order frequencies and the first-order displacements into account at the same time, and marking as the predicted values of the equivalent scour depths” (Xuguang teaches “According to equation (11), the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the first two modes of the target model (experimental model) and the eigenvectors of the first 27 modes of the baseline model (finite element model) were used to construct the 54 cross-model cross-mode equations in MATLAB programming. The least squares method was used to calculate the approximate solution of correction coefficient” (§ 4.2, page 9-10). The results are shown in figure 18. Figure 18 depicts a histogram where “it can be determined that the soil constraint unloading of the four elements below the mud line, which means that there is scouring. According to the element length of 30mm, the computed depth is determined to be 120 mm” (§ 4.2 page 10) disclosing the “predicted values of the equivalent scour depths.”)
Xuguang teaches using the least squares method for determining the correction coefficient and scour depths however, Xuguang does not teach the least squares method uses a weighted summation. Levenberg teaches equation“(9) shows that the increments given by the standard least squares solution will be improved in the sense that the weighted sum of the squared, Q, will be reduced”(page 166) therefore Xuguang as modified by Levenberg discloses the limitation “performing weighted summation on the first equivalent constraint positions and the second equivalent constraint positions, to obtain equivalent constraint positions that take the first-order frequencies and the first-order displacements into account at the same time, and marking as the predicted values of the equivalent scour depths.”
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the scour depth of an offshore structure, a piling, by using a weighted summation as disclosed by Levenberg because a weighted summation is straightforward, easy to compute and interpret, and reduces the impact of minor parameters while giving more influence to higher priority parameters in order to “show how the problem may be solved by an extension of the standard method (the least squares method) which insures improvement of the initial solution” (Levenberg, 1st paragraph, page 164).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuguang as modified by Dorothy’s little world as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Guo et al., CN109271662 in further view of Liu et al., CN 112730132.
Regarding claim 9 Xuguang as modified teaches:
“periodically acquiring a plurality of vibration accelerations at each wave measuring point within one day” (Xuguang teaches this method “can realize real-time monitoring of the scour depth” however, Xuguang does not teach collecting acceleration data of from each measuring point within one day. Guo teaches collecting data every hour for 24 hours (§ Invention conawning, 2), 2nd page) therefore Xuguang as modified by Guo teaches the limitation “periodically acquiring a plurality of vibration accelerations at each wave measuring point within one day.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the scour depth of an offshore structure, a piling, by including collecting data over a 24 hour period as disclosed by Guo in order to provide a system for effective evaluation of the health state of a bridge pile foundation (Guo, § Invention conawning, 1), 2nd page).
Xuguang teaches:
“performing step S1 to step S5, to obtain predicted values of a plurality of equivalent scour depths” (Xuguang, see claim 1 above). Xuguang does not teach the data is collected “within one day.” Guo teaches collecting data every hour for 24 hours (§ Invention conawning, 2), 2nd page) therefore Xuguang as modified by Guo teaches the limitation “performing step S1 to step S5, to obtain predicted values of a plurality of equivalent scour depths.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the scour depth of an offshore structure, a piling, by including collecting data over a 24 hour period as disclosed by Guo in order to provide a system for effective evaluation of the health state of a bridge pile foundation (Guo, § Invention conawning, 1), 2nd page).
Xuguang as modified does not teach:
“the normal probability density function is used for fitting the predicted values of the plurality of equivalent scour depths within one day, to obtain a fitting curve for the equivalent scour depths on the same day;
adopting the equivalent scour depth corresponding to a maximum probability in the fitting curve as statistically predicted values of the equivalent scour depths on the same day; and
determining a change relationship of the equivalent scour depths over time based on the periodically obtained statistically predicted values of the equivalent scour depths”
Liu teaches:
“the normal probability density function is used for fitting the predicted values of the plurality of equivalent scour depths within one day, to obtain a fitting curve for the equivalent scour depths on the same day; adopting the equivalent scour depth corresponding to a maximum probability in the fitting curve as statistically predicted values of the equivalent scour depths on the same day; and determining a change relationship of the equivalent scour depths over time based on the periodically obtained statistically predicted values of the equivalent scour depths” (Liu teaches acceleration sensors mounted on a structure above the water surface collecting vibration signals, where the “acceleration signal is decomposed into extremum and residue form based on the complex exponential decomposition technology, extracts the first-order acceleration component of the structure, and reconstructs the corresponding first-order displacement, and then fits the reconstructed first-order displacement array The equivalent scour position is obtained by extension, and the change of the equivalent scour position with time can be obtained by analyzing the acceleration signals at different times, so as to realize the real-time monitoring of the structure scour” (3rd and 4th page) where “complex exponential decomposition” discloses “probability density function” where the peak represents the highest density and the “maximum probability” of occurring therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would choose the peak to represent the “equivalent scour depth.” Additionally, Liu teaches “Figure 2 show the time series of acceleration signals in the x direction of one of the sensors, with each 200s time length as the signal length during the decomposition of the complex exponential, and Figure 3 shows the arbitrary intercepted 5-segment signals” (5th page, 4th paragraph, see also fig. 2 and 3) disclosing data is collected and analyzed for the same day. Moreover, “the change of the equivalent scour position with time can be obtained by analyzing the acceleration signals at different times” discloses “determining a change relationship of the equivalent scour depths over time based on the periodically obtained statistically predicted values of the equivalent scour depths.”)
Both Xuguang and Liu teach real-time analysis of scour depths therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the method of monitoring the scour depth of an offshore structure, a piling, by including how scour depth changes with respect to time as disclosed by Liu in order to provide a system that is able to forecast future behavior by being able to spot early warning signs of eminent failure reducing costs and saving lives.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lopreiato, 2008/0092656 A1, teaches a system for monitoring level variations of a soil subjected to erosive and sedimentary agents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise R Karavias whose telephone number is (469)295-9152. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 3:00 M-F.
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 M. 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 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.
/DENISE R KARAVIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights