DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed June 18th 2026. This action is made final.
Status of the Claims
Claim 1 is amended.
Claim status is currently pending and under examination for Claims 1 and 10 of which independent claim is 1.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 112(a) rejection for the limitation “critical values of the maximum value index M of the monitoring value and the geographic interpolation index Q are determined by critical values of a corresponding type of monitoring data set in Coal Mine Safety Regulations and other coal industry regulation documents”, and each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 7th 2026.
In regards to the rejection of Claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement, Applicant argues that the amended limitation “critical values of the variation trend index St of the monitoring value and the geographic gradient index G are predetermined empirical constants” is supported by the written description (see Applicant’s Response, Page 7).
On Page 7 of Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues that critical values for indexes St and G are clearly defined and supported by the written description. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since there are no meaningful definitions for critical values nor is there any support to suggest that critical values are “predetermined empirical constants”.
In regards to the critical value of index St, the Applicant’s written description only describes that transmission rules are satisfied if index St exceeds a critical value, (see excerpt below). Empirical constants are not explicitly mentioned, nor is there any support to suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use predetermined empirical constants as critical values, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude to use predetermined empirical constants as a critical value for index St.
Applicant’s written description at (P. 8, Lines 10-18) “The characteristic indexes and transmission rules of the entity objects of the continuous monitoring type comprise judgment of a sensor monitoring status and a sensor monitoring value; firstly, the sensor monitoring status is judged; if the monitoring status is “faulty” or “off-line”, it is directly determined that the transmission rules are satisfied; otherwise, next judgment is made; and then, the maximum value index M and the variation trend index St of the monitoring value of the sensor in the last 5 minutes are calculated, and the rule is that if one of the index M and the index St exceeds the critical value, the transmission rules are satisfied; otherwise, the transmission rules are not satisfied.”
In regards to the critical value of index G, the Applicant’s written description only describes that if index G exceeds a critical value, an anomaly exists (see excerpt below). Empirical constants are not explicitly mentioned, nor is there any support to suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use predetermined empirical constants as a critical value, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude to use predetermined empirical constants as a critical value for index G. At best, a person of ordinary skill in the art can conclude that a critical value for index G is determined by a threshold of geographic cloud maps.
Applicant’s written description at (P. 8, Lines 24-28) “The characteristic indexes and transmission rules of the entity objects of the geological continuity type are determined by thresholds of geographic cloud maps, the indexes are a geographic interpolation index Q and a geographic gradient index G, and the rule is that if one of the two indexes exceeds the critical value, an anomaly exists; otherwise, no anomaly exists.”
Thus, the rejections of Claims 1 and 10 as failing to comply with the written description requirement are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations that the Applicant’s disclosure at the time of filing did not provide support for:
“and critical values of the variation trend index St of the monitoring value and the geographic gradient index G are predetermined empirical constants”
On Page 4, Lines 17-21 of Applicant’s specification, using a critical value to determine if transmission rules for variation trend index St are satisfied is disclosed. Page 5, Lines 1-3 of Applicant’s specification discloses that geographic gradient index G is compared to a critical value to determine if an anomaly exists. There is no discussion describing how a critical value is initialized, obtained, measured, or defined for index St and index G, therefore, there is not enough support in the original disclosure to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably concluded that critical values for variation trend index St and geographic gradient index G are predetermined empirical constants. While a person of ordinary skill in the art could devise a way to use a predetermined empirical constant as a critical value for indexes St and G without detail, there is not enough support in the original disclosure for a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that using predetermined empirical constants is a necessary step to perform the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, therefore, the same rationale of rejection applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 10 are allowable over the prior art. Below are the closest cited references, each of which disclose various aspects of the claimed invention:
Wang (WO 2021056197 A1) teaches traversing a propagation graph to locate an abnormal node that is the root cause of an abnormal situation based on node weight and node abnormal probability.
Wu et al. (CN 103016064 A) teaches constructing a gas alarm cause analysis tree to quickly locate the location of an alarm set off for a gas accident and to determine the cause of the alarm.
Beller et al. (US 20200311565 A1) teaches determining entity relationships in a knowledge graph based on geospatial proximity between entities.
Houchens et al. (WO 2018106278 A1) teaches identifying an environmental anomaly associated with a sensor node of a graph and generating a decision tree based on the environmental anomaly to determine a cause of the anomaly.
Zhang et al. (CN 115330268 A) teaches creating a knowledge graph from mine disaster case data to monitor and predict mine disasters.
However, none of the prior art references of record—alone or in combination—disclose or suggest the combined features recited in the independent claims, including specifically (for claim 1):
“A mine disaster tracing method based on a knowledge graph, characterized in that: the method comprises the following steps:
S1: establishing a mine disaster-related knowledge graph;
S2: constructing characteristic indexes of entity objects, and determining transmission rules of the entity objects;
S3: after a disaster early warning occurs in a certain place of a mine, carrying out mine disaster tracing based on the transmission rules of the entity objects and a graph traversal algorithm, and presenting direct causes and root causes of a disaster;
wherein S1 further comprises the following steps:
S11: establishing a conceptual model for mine disaster tracing of dust, gas, fire, mine pressure and water disaster by summarizing expert experience;
S12: collecting entity objects of a mine from a relational database of a data center, and using a storage primary key as unique identification of the entity objects, wherein attribute information contains object names, object types, object storage table names, object monitoring status field names and object monitoring value field names, and binding spatial information combined with a geological map;
S13: establishing a relationship between entities based on a position relationship and process logic in the conceptual model, thus establishing the mine disaster-related knowledge graph, wherein the position relationship specifically adopts an inclusion relationship, an intersection relationship and an adjacency relationship;
wherein in the S13, the position relationship between entity objects is calculated from spatial information topology, spatial information of the entity objects are divided into three types: point, line and surface, and the model specifically adopts three position relationships of inclusion, intersection and adjacency; and for the adjacency relationship, a spatial distance of two entity objects is less than a certain value D, and the value of D is determined according to drawing accuracy and calculation accuracy;
wherein for four types of indexes contained in the S2, indexes M and St involving continuous monitoring data are based on continuous monitoring data for last 5 minutes, and indexes Q and G involving geological continuity data are based on geographic data cloud maps;
in a calculation method for the maximum value index M of a monitoring value, direct sequencing and direct valuing are adopted; and a specific calculation formula is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein xt is a monitoring value at time t, t0 is current time, and ti is time before 5 minutes;
a calculation method for the variation trend index St of the monitoring value is as follows: a principle of first order linear fitting with a least square method is adopted; and a specific calculation formula is as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
182
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein xi is a difference between ith data time and the current time in the last 5 minutes, yi is a monitoring value at the ith data time,
x
-
is an average value of xi, in the last 5 minutes,
y
-
is an average value of yi in the last 5 minutes, and n is the total amount of monitoring data in the last 5 minutes;
a calculation method for the geographic interpolation index Q is as follows: the interpolation index Q at position 0 is directly valued based on the geographic data cloud maps; and a specific calculation formula is as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
106
595
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein f0 is a value at a corresponding grid point;
a calculation method for the geographic gradient index G is as follows: the gradient index G is 2-norm of the gradient here, and gradient calculation is based on a finite difference method; and a specific calculation formula is as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
194
855
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein f1, f2, f3, and f4 are values at four grid points, and h is spacing of grid points;
critical values of the maximum value index M of the monitoring value and the geographic interpolation index Q are predetermined threshold values corresponding to respective types of monitoring data, and critical values of the variation trend index St of the monitoring value and the geographic gradient index G are predetermined empirical constants;
in the S2, characteristic indexes of entity objects are constructed, transmission rules of the entity objects are determined, and the entity objects are divided into four types according to the needs of data types: a discrete reporting type, a continuous monitoring type, a geological structure type and a geological continuity type;
the characteristic indexes and transmission rules of the entity objects of the discrete reporting type are compared with a normal threshold interval of the entity objects based on latest reported data; if beyond the normal threshold interval, the transmission rules are satisfied; otherwise, the transmission rules are not satisfied;
the characteristic indexes and transmission rules of the entity objects of the continuous monitoring type comprise judgment of a sensor monitoring status and a sensor monitoring value; firstly, the sensor monitoring status is judged; if the monitoring status is "faulty" or "off-line", it is directly determined that the transmission rules are satisfied; otherwise, next judgment is made; and then, the maximum value index M and the variation trend index St of the monitoring value of the sensor in the last 5 minutes are calculated, and the rule is that if one of the two indexes exceeds the critical value, the transmission rules are satisfied; otherwise, the transmission rules are not satisfied;
the characteristic indexes and transmission rules of the entity objects of the geological structure type are determined by intersection of a structure buffer area, and the rule is that if an early warning area intersects with a 20 m buffer area of the geological structure, the transmission rules are satisfied; otherwise, the transmission rules are not satisfied;
the characteristic indexes and transmission rules of the entity objects of the geological continuity type are determined by thresholds of geographic cloud maps, the indexes are a geographic interpolation index Q and a geographic gradient index G, and the rule is that if one of the two indexes exceeds the critical value, an anomaly exists; otherwise, no anomaly exists;
wherein in S3, when the system receives certain disaster early warning information, master node entity objects of early warning are located on the mine disaster-related knowledge graph constructed in step S1 according to the position of early warning and the type of the disaster;
depth- first traversal is started on entity objects from the current node; for each specific entity object traversed, the corresponding characteristic index is calculated according to the entity object type, and the specific calculation method is shown in formulas (1), (2), (3) and (4); on the basis of the characteristic index, whether the current entity node has an anomaly is judged according to the transmission rules: if no anomaly exists, the entity node is not added to the cause tree, the branch traversal of the node is finished, and the remaining child entity nodes of the parent entity node of the current node are traversed until the end; if an anomaly exists, all child entity nodes of the current node are further traversed until all the entity nodes with an anomaly are traversed.”
Although no particular limitation seems to be novel/non-obvious in itself, the combination of limitations recited are such that the claim—when considered as a whole—is non-obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEDRO J MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6106. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MIRANDA M HUANG can be reached at (571)270-7092. 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.
/PEDRO J MORALES/Examiner, Art Unit 2124
/MIRANDA M HUANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2124
Prosecution Insights