DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the application filed 19 June 2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Drawings
The examiner accepts the drawings filed 19 June 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-8 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.
The term “early warning” in claims 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “early warning” 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. The examiner is unable to determine when a warning must be provided to be considered “early.” For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-8 fail to cure the deficiency of independent claim 1, and the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to claim 2, the term “reasonable boundary conditions” in lines 4-5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reasonable boundary conditions” 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.
Dependent claims 3-4 fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 2. Claims 3-4 are rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Specifically, the claim recites: “thereafter, collecting the real-time data of the TBM, such as a cutter head torque, a propulsion, a rotation speed, and a slag discharge and the geological parameters of the surrounding rock, such as lithology, a water content, and a compressive strength (lines 6-8).”
For the purpose of examination the examiner will treat the claim as though it recites: “thereafter, collecting the real-time data of the TBM and the geological parameters of the surrounding rock.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the geological structure " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the jamming weight" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the output data" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 7, the terms “the risk of jamming is very high,” “the risk of machine jamming is high,” “basically no jamming” in the equation/evaluation are relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the risk of jamming is very high,” “the risk of machine jamming is high,” “basically no jamming” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree required to be “very high,” “high,” and “basically”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cutter head" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “Vt+1” and “σt+1” in line 4.
Specifically, while the claim defines Vt and σt, the claim does not define the terms “Vt+1” and “σt+1”. Without these essential elements, the examiner cannot determine the scope of the equation, and thus, the claim.
Claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name Flac3D. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe simulation software and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-8 are directed toward a method (process). Claim 9 is directed toward a system (machine). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
constructing a jamming numerical sample library (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to generate, with the aid of pencil and paper, to generate a sample library)
implementing real-time monitoring and early warning of TBM jamming by using the jamming prediction model (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to monitor and evaluation of a jamming prediction model to perform a judgement to predict jamming of a tunnel boring machine)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
using a numerical simulation technology
establishing a jamming prediction model based on the jamming numerical sample library by using a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and a transformer
The training of the jamming prediction model using numerical simulation technology is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
using a numerical simulation technology
establishing a jamming prediction model based on the jamming numerical sample library by using a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and a transformer
The training of the jamming prediction model using numerical simulation technology is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to claim 2, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
setting reasonable boundary conditions and load conditions according to mechanical parameters of the tunnel boring machine and geological parameters of the surrounding rock, and simulating the tunnel process of the TBM under different geological conditions (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of parameters, based on boundary conditions and load conditions according to the tunnel boring machine and the surround rock, to simulate a tunnel process under different conditions)
setting the range of different jamming influencing factors, and generating different numerical simulation schemes according to a designed orthogonal test scheme (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of different numerical simulations schemes according to a designed orthogonal test scheme based on a range of jamming influencing factors)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
establishing a mechanical model of the TBM and a surrounding rock
The training of the jamming prediction model using numerical simulation technology is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
establishing a mechanical model of the TBM and a surrounding rock
The training of the jamming prediction model using numerical simulation technology is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
With respect to claim 3, the claim depends upon claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
the mechanical parameter of the TBM comprises a cutter head torque, a cutter head rotation speed, a penetration, and a cutter head propulsion (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of parameters, based on boundary conditions and load conditions according to the tunnel boring machine and the surround rock, to simulate a tunnel process under different conditions, wherein the mechanical parameters comprise a cutter head torque, a cutter head rotation speed, a penetration, and a cutter head propulsion)
the geological parameter of the surrounding rock comprises a compressive strength, an elastic modulus, an elastic wave velocity, and a water content (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of parameters, based on boundary conditions and load conditions according to the tunnel boring machine and the surround rock, to simulate a tunnel process under different conditions, wherein the geological parameters comprise a compressive strength, an elastic modulus, an elastic wave velocity, and a water content)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 4:
With respect to claim 4, the claim depends upon claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the jamming influencing factors comprise a compressive strength, an elastic modulus, an elastic wave velocity, a water content, and an integrity coefficient of the rock, and a cutter head torque, a cutter head rotation speed, a penetration, and a cutter head propulsion of the TBM (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of different numerical simulations schemes according to a designed orthogonal test scheme based on a range of jamming influencing factors, where the factors comprise a compressive strength, an elastic modulus, an elastic wave velocity, a water content, and an integrity coefficient of the rock, and a cutter head torque, a cutter head rotation speed, a penetration, and a cutter head propulsion of the TBM )
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 5:
With respect to claim 5, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
according to the numerical simulation scheme, operating a numerical simulation model, calculating stress change, deformation features and stability of the surrounding rock under each structure and the jamming degree of the TBM, establishing a jamming risk discrimination index, and calibrating a jamming risk level of each scheme (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of a numerical simulation scheme using a numerical simulation model)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
storing the jamming influencing factor, the jamming risk discrimination index and the jamming risk level of each scheme as a numerical sample in the jamming numerical sample library as the training data of the Transformer
acquiring B-scan diagrams of different geological structures as training data for training the CNN
As discussed above, the additional elements of storing data and acquiring data, which are recited at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
training the Transformer using the jamming numerical sample library, and updating a weight and a bias of the network by a back propagation algorithm, so that an error between an output value of the network and a real value of a sample is minimized to obtain the jamming prediction model
The training of the jamming prediction model using numerical simulation technology is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
storing the jamming influencing factor, the jamming risk discrimination index and the jamming risk level of each scheme as a numerical sample in the jamming numerical sample library as the training data of the Transformer
acquiring B-scan diagrams of different geological structures as training data for training the CNN
As discussed above, the additional elements of storing data and acquiring data, which are recited at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
training the Transformer using the jamming numerical sample library, and updating a weight and a bias of the network by a back propagation algorithm, so that an error between an output value of the network and a real value of a sample is minimized to obtain the jamming prediction model
The training of the jamming prediction model using numerical simulation technology is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6:
With respect to claim 6, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
exploring and judging the geological structure (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to explore the geological structure and an judgement to judge the geological structure)
calculating predicted values of the jamming risk discrimination index and the jamming risk level through the jamming prediction model as the output data of the jamming prediction model (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of the jamming risk based upon calculating predicted values)
performing real-time monitoring and early warning of the TBM jamming according to the output data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of output data by performing real-time monitoring)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
geological radar
The additional elements of a geological radar are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional elements:
inputting the geological structure into the trained CNN model to obtain the jamming weight output by a CNN
thereafter, collecting the real-time data of the TBM, such as a cutter head torque, a propulsion, a rotation speed, and a slag discharge and the geological parameters of the surrounding rock, such as lithology, a water content, and a compressive strength
taking the jamming weight output by the CNN model, the real-time data of the TBM and the geological parameters of the surrounding rock as input data of the jamming prediction model
transmitting the input data to the jamming prediction system
As discussed above, the additional elements of transmitting data and acquiring data, which are recited at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
geological radar
The additional elements of a geological radar are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional elements:
inputting the geological structure into the trained CNN model to obtain the jamming weight output by a CNN
thereafter, collecting the real-time data of the TBM, such as a cutter head torque, a propulsion, a rotation speed, and a slag discharge and the geological parameters of the surrounding rock, such as lithology, a water content, and a compressive strength
taking the jamming weight output by the CNN model, the real-time data of the TBM and the geological parameters of the surrounding rock as input data of the jamming prediction model
transmitting the input data to the jamming prediction system
As discussed above, the additional elements of transmitting data and acquiring data, which are recited at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7:
With respect to claim 7, the claim depends upon claim 5. The analysis of claim 5 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the jamming risk discrimination index is:
Newv = Vtσt / Vt+1σt+1
Newv ≥ 0.3 jamming
0.2 ≤ Newv < 0.3 the risk of jamming is very high
0.1 ≤ Newv < 0.2 The risk of machine jamming is high
Newv < 0.2 basically no jamming
Vt is the cutter head rotation speed of the TBM at time t and σt is the probability of jamming according to the geological structure in the CNN (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of a plurality of parameters to determine a ratio of cutter head rotation speed and probability of jamming according to a geographical structure)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 8:
With respect to claim 8, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the numerical simulation technology is a finite difference method (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation using a finite difference method to generate sample library)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
the numerical simulation software is FLAC3D
The additional elements of a geological radar are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
the numerical simulation software is FLAC3D
The additional elements of a geological radar are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
calculate predicted values of a jamming risk discrimination index and a jamming risk level according to the input data as the output data of the jamming risk prediction model (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to monitor and evaluation of a jamming prediction model to perform a judgement to predict jamming of a tunnel boring machine)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
a sensor and monitoring device
The additional elements of a sensor and monitoring device, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
configured to collect real-time data of the TBM, that is, geological parameters of a surrounding rock
As discussed above, the additional elements of data collecting real-time data of the TBM including geological parameters of a surrounding rock is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
a jamming prediction model
The jamming prediction model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
a sensor and monitoring device
The additional elements of a sensor and monitoring device, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
configured to collect real-time data of the TBM, that is, geological parameters of a surrounding rock
As discussed above, the additional elements of data collecting real-time data of the TBM including geological parameters of a surrounding rock is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
a jamming prediction model
The jamming prediction model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 115526096, published 27 December 2022, hereafter Cao) and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0267456, published 20 August 2020, hereafter Huang) and further in view of Liang et al. (US 12346806, filed 30 June 2021, hereafter Liang).
As per independent claim 1, Cao discloses a method of predicting tunnel boring machine (TBM) based on a deep neural network and numerical simulation, comprising the following steps:
constructing a sample library by using a numerical simulation technology (claim 1: Here, a simulation of the actual work of the tunnel boring machine (shield machine) is generated and used for obtaining a final prediction parameter)
establishing a prediction model based on the numerical sample library by using a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) (claim 5: Here, the neural network model is a composite model of a LSTM neural network and a convolutional neural network (CNN)
implementing real-time monitoring and early warning of the TBM by using the prediction model (page 8, second paragraph: Here, “according the final simulation verification of the shield tunneling parameter, if the tunnelling field monitoring deformation measured value is greater than the deformation control standard, then reminding the driver to adjust the tunnelling parameter.” This provides a warning to an operator, based upon observed and standards determined by the neural network, to adjust the tunnelling)
Cao fails to specifically disclose:
predicting jamming by a tunnel boring machine
a transformer
However, Huang, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting jamming by a tunnel boring machine, discloses predicting jamming by a tunnel boring machine (paragraph 0104: Here, interactions between surround rocks and the TBM are monitored by one or more sensors to obtain test data. This information is processed to judge shield jamming probability and transmits this data to the TBM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Huang with Cao, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for using a CNN (Cao: claim 5) to predict jamming by a TBM (Huang: paragraph 0104) to provide an alert to TBM operator (Cao: page 8) prior to jamming (Huang: paragraph 0104).
Further, Liang, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward updating models, discloses a transformer (Figures 3A-3B; column 7, lines 45-59: Here, a CNN provides a backbone network (item 304) and works in conjunction with a transformer (item 314) to generate predictions using a model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Liang with Cao-Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for improved prediction (Liang: claim 1).
As per dependent claim 2, Cao, Huang, and Liang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Cao discloses:
establishing a mechanical model of the TBM, setting reasonable boundary conditions and loading conditions according mechanical parameters of the TBM, and simulating the tunneling process of the TBM (claim 1: Here, a simulation of the actual work of the tunnel boring machine (shield machine) is generated and used for obtaining a final prediction parameter)
setting the range of different jamming influencing factors, and generating different numerical simulation schemes according to a designed orthogonal test scheme (claims 1 and 2: Here, the parameters define the range of different jamming influence factors for testing the TBM)
Cao fails to specifically disclose:
surrounding rock
geological parameters of the surrounding rock… under different geological conditions
However, Huang, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting jamming by a tunnel boring machine, discloses:
surrounding rock (paragraphs 0006-0007: Here, the interaction between surrounding rocks and the TBM are monitored)
geological parameters of the surrounding rock… under different geological conditions (paragraph 0006-0007: Here, the parameters, such as the squeezing force of the surrounding rocks apply to the TBM are monitored by the sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Huang with Cao, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for monitoring factors related to the surrounding rocks in order improve use of the TBM (Huang: paragraph 0006).
As per dependent claim 3, Cao, Huang, and Liang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 2, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Cao discloses wherein the mechanical parameter of the TBM comprises a cutter head torque, a cutter head rotation speed, a penetration and a cutter head propulsion (page 6: Here, tunnelling parameters may include cutter head torque, cutter head rotating speed, propulsion speed, tunneling mode, and pushing pressure).
Cao fails to specifically disclose wherein the geological parameter of the surrounding rock comprises a compressive strength, an elastic modulus, an elastic wave velocity, and a water content. However, Huang, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting jamming by a tunnel boring machine, discloses wherein the geological parameter of the surrounding rock comprises a compressive strength, an elastic modulus, an elastic wave velocity, and a water content (paragraph 0006-0007: Here, the parameters, such as the squeezing force (compressive strength) of the surrounding rocks apply to the TBM are monitored by the sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Huang with Cao, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for monitoring factors related to the surrounding rocks in order improve use of the TBM (Huang: paragraph 0006).
As per dependent claim 4, Cao, Huang, and Liang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 2, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Cao discloses wherein the jamming influencing factors comprise a cutter head torque, a cutter head rotation speed, a penetration, and a cutter head propulsion of the TBM (page 6: Here, tunnelling parameters may include cutter head torque, cutter head rotating speed, propulsion speed, tunneling mode, and pushing pressure).
Cao fails to specifically disclose wherein the jamming influencing factors comprise a compressive strength, an elastic modulus, an elastic wave velocity, water content, and an integrity coefficient of the rock. However, Huang, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting jamming by a tunnel boring machine, discloses wherein the geological parameter of the surrounding rock comprises a compressive strength (paragraph 0006-0007: Here, the parameters, such as the squeezing force (compressive strength) of the surrounding rocks apply to the TBM are monitored by the sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Huang with Cao, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for monitoring factors related to the surrounding rocks in order improve use of the TBM (Huang: paragraph 0006).
Additionally, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to identify geological parameters including elastic modulus, elastic wave velocity, water content, and integrity coefficient of the rock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with Cao-Huang-Liang, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for building a robust model including geological parameters including elastic modulus, elastic wave velocity, water content, and integrity coefficient of the rock.
As per dependent claim 6, Cao, Huang, and Liang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Cao discloses:
inputting data into the trained CNN model to obtain the weight output by a CNN model (page 4: Here, a weighted matrix is used by the CNN to identify jamming)
thereafter, collecting the real-time data of the TBM, such as a cutter head torque, a propulsion, a rotation speed, and a slag discharge model (page 8, second paragraph: Here, “according the final simulation verification of the shield tunneling parameter, if the tunnelling field monitoring deformation measured value is greater than the deformation control standard, then reminding the driver to adjust the tunnelling parameter.” This provides a warning to an operator, based upon observed and standards determined by the neural network, to adjust the tunnelling. This includes tunnelling parameters including cutter head torque, cutter head rotating speed, propulsion speed, tunneling mode, and pushing pressure (page 6))
taking the weight output by the CNN model, the real-time data of the TBM (page 4: Here, a weighted matrix is used by the CNN to identify jamming)
transmitting the input data to the prediction system, and calculating predicted values of the risk discrimination index and the risk level through the prediction model as the output data of the prediction model (page 8, second paragraph: Here, “according the final simulation verification of the shield tunneling parameter, if the tunnelling field monitoring deformation measured value is greater than the deformation control standard, then reminding the driver to adjust the tunnelling parameter.” This provides a warning to an operator, based upon observed and standards determined by the neural network, to adjust the tunnelling.
performing real-time monitoring and early warning of the TBM jamming according to the output data (page 8, second paragraph: Here, “according the final simulation verification of the shield tunneling parameter, if the tunnelling field monitoring deformation measured value is greater than the deformation control standard, then reminding the driver to adjust the tunnelling parameter.” This provides a warning to an operator, based upon observed and standards determined by the neural network, to adjust the tunnelling.
Cao fails to specifically disclose:
jamming
first, exploring and judging the geological structure by geological radar, and inputting the geological structure into the trained CNN model to obtain the jamming weight output by a CNN model
geological parameters of the surrounding rock, such as lithology, a water content, and a compressive strength
the geological parameters of the surrounding rock as input data of the jamming prediction model
However, Huang, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting jamming by a tunnel boring machine, discloses predicting jamming by a tunnel boring machine (paragraph 0104: Here, interactions between surround rocks and the TBM are monitored by one or more sensors to obtain test data. This information is processed to judge shield jamming probability and transmits this data to the TBM) by:
first, exploring and judging the geological structure by geological radar, and inputting the geological structure (paragraph 0006-0007: Here, the parameters, such as the squeezing force of the surrounding rocks apply to the TBM are monitored by the sensors. The examiner interprets these sensors as the claimed geological radar)
geological parameters of the surrounding rock, such as lithology, a water content, and a compressive strength (paragraph 0006-0007: Here, the parameters, such as the squeezing force (compressive strength) of the surrounding rocks apply to the TBM are monitored by the sensors)
the geological parameters of the surrounding rock as input data of the jamming prediction model (paragraph 0006-0007: Here, the parameters, such as the squeezing force (compressive strength) of the surrounding rocks apply to the TBM are monitored by the sensors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Huang with Cao, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for using a CNN (Cao: claim 5) to predict jamming by a TBM (Huang: paragraph 0104) to provide an alert to TBM operator (Cao: page 8) prior to jamming (Huang: paragraph 0104).
As per dependent claim 8, Cao, Huang, and Liang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Cao discloses wherein the numerical simulation technology is a finite difference method and the numerical simulation software is Flac3D (page 7: Here, constructing the simulation model of the machine to be tested and the simulation of the model of the construction section can be realized by using Flac3D simulation software).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao and further in view of Huang.
As per independent claim 1, Cao discloses a system of predicting TBM jamming based on deep neural network and numerical simulation, comprising the following components:
a jamming prediction model, which is configured to calculate predicted values of a jamming risk discrimination index and a jamming risk level according to the input data as the output data of the jamming prediction model (claim 5: Here, the neural network model is a composite model of a LSTM neural network and a convolutional neural network (CNN). Further, “according the final simulation verification of the shield tunneling parameter, if the tunnelling field monitoring deformation measured value is greater than the deformation control standard, then reminding the driver to adjust the tunnelling parameter.” This provides a warning to an operator, based upon observed and standards determined by the neural network, to adjust the tunnelling (page 8))
Cao fails to specifically disclose a sensor and monitory device, which is configured to collect real-time data of the TBM, that is, geological parameters of a surrounding rock and predicting jamming by a TBM.
However, Huang, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting jamming by a tunnel boring machine, discloses a sensor and monitory device, which is configured to collect real-time data of the TBM, that is, geological parameters of a surrounding rock and predicting jamming by a tunnel boring machine (paragraph 0104: Here, interactions between surround rocks and the TBM are monitored by one or more sensors to obtain test data. This information is processed to judge shield jamming probability and transmits this data to the TBM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Huang with Cao, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for using a CNN (Cao: claim 5) to predict jamming by a TBM (Huang: paragraph 0104) to provide an alert to TBM operator (Cao: page 8) prior to jamming (Huang: paragraph 0104).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhou et al. (US 2018/0136099): Discloses a tunnel boring machine that includes prediction and prevention of jamming (paragraph 0003)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights