Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 5/28/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 5/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, in line 7, recites the limitation “a porous medium”. However, this limitation is already recited in line 4 of claim 1. Therefore, it is not clear that the limitation in line 7 is the same as that in line 4 or a different one. Claims 2-7 are dependent on claim 1 and are rejected as well. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets both the limitations as the same.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Examiner presents a 101 analysis of the independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7 according to the procedure as outlined in outlined in MPEP 2106 (Patent Subject Matter Eligibility).
Step 1: is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? The answer is yes, it is to a method, therefore we proceed to step 2.
Step 2A, Prong one: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, instant claim 1 recites constructing a geometrical model, a physical model, and a simulation model for diffusion of polyurethane grout through a porous medium. The setup of these models is an abstract idea since they can be done in one’s mind or can be written down using a pen or paper or coded in a computer. Additionally solving the models, as recited, is an abstract idea for the reasons stated above. The Examiner notes that similar analysis is also applicable to claims 2-7. Furthermore, the mathematical concepts recited in claims 3 and 4 also considered to be judicial exceptions. Since the answer to this stage is yes, we will proceed to the next stage.
Step 2A, Prong two: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The answer is no. Upon solving the simulation model, nothing is done with the results. No practical step(s) is taken to integrate the results of these abstract ideas and modeling into a practical application by modifying or improving a process or a method. The Examiner notes that similar analysis is also applicable to claims 2-7. In addition, and in claim 2, the adjusting step can be considered an insignificant post solution activity which would still make the claim subject matter ineligible.
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements either individually or in an ordered combination that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The answer is no. Claims 1-7 recites various models that are setup and then solved. There are no additional elements to these abstract ideas.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUI (CN-116293187-A and its English translation), hereinafter QUI, in view of SHANG (CN-118052164-A and its English translation), hereinafter SHANG. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, QUI discloses A method for simulating polyurethane permeation grouting diffusion {[0025] note the method for establishing a numerical model for grouting that is the simulating, [0008] note the grouting material is polyurethane resin, [0009] note permeation of the grouting that is the simulation of diffusion of thee grouting}.
QUI, however, is silent on the details of this simulation.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to diffusion simulation of compounds in soil, SHANG discloses comprising: constructing a geometric model of permeation grouting diffusion of polyurethane in a porous medium to be injected based on physical property data of the porous medium to be injected {note that polyurethane is disclosed by QUI, [0004] note simulation of migration which is the permeation or diffusion, [0012], [0016] note gathering the physical property date of the area, note gathering soli porosity data};
establishing a physical field of the geometric model using a Richards equation and a dilute species transport equation for a porous medium {[0008], [0016] note the seepage model in the species transport equation, [0054] note model tree for dilute mass transfer in porous media},
and adjusting the geometric model based on a material property parameter of the geometric model obtained based on the physical field, wherein the physical field reflects an influence of a material property of the polyurethane on a seepage diffusion process {[0016], [0062] note refining the mesh which is adjusting the model}};
setting a boundary condition and an initial value for an adjusted geometric model {[0016] note determining the boundary conditions},
and performing mesh division on the adjusted geometric model based on a local refinement method to obtain a simulation model for permeation grouting diffusion {[0015], [0062]};
and solving the simulation model for permeation grouting diffusion using a transient solver to complete a simulation of permeation grouting diffusion of the polyurethane in the porous medium to be injected {[0011] note obtaining the prediction results that is solving the model}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of SHANG in the method of QUI and have established and solved a proper simulation model for the diffusion of polyurethane grouting of QUI. As disclosed by SHANG, such numerical simulation provides realistic data for diffusion {[0004]} and assist in accuracy of predicting actual transport using this mature numerical simulation method {[0005]}.
Regarding claim 5, SHANG discloses wherein constructing the geometric model of permeation grouting diffusion of the polyurethane in the porous medium to be injected based on the physical property data of the porous medium to be injected comprises: converting, based on a cross-section method, a permeation grouting diffusion process of the polyurethane in the porous medium to be injected into a two- dimensional representation to obtain a two-dimensional model of permeation grouting; determining a geometric parameter of the two-dimensional model based on the physical property data of the porous medium to be injected; and constructing the geometric model of the polyurethane in the porous medium to be injected based on an infinite source domain method and the geometric parameter {[0013] note the use of two-dimensional model, [0015]}. Note that the obviousness rationale presented under claim 1 applies here as well.
Regarding claim 6, SHANG discloses wherein performing mesh division on the adjusted geometric model based on the local refinement method to obtain the simulation model for permeation grouting diffusion comprises: performing a preliminary mesh division on the adjusted geometric model to obtain a sparse mesh; identifying key regions in the sparse mesh based on a simulation requirement of the geometric model, wherein the key regions at least comprise a grouting pipe region and an interior region of the porous medium; and performing secondary mesh densification on the key regions using the local refinement method to obtain the simulation model for permeation grouting diffusion {[0015], [0062]}. Note that the obviousness rationale presented under claim 1 applies here as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights