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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on September 23, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independents claim 1, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method for generating intervention resource allocations. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the method for generating intervention resource allocations for electrical infrastructure components. The claim recites the steps: generating an intervention resource allocation segment by: retrieving the TCO values, ranking the electrical infrastructure components, adding electrical infrastructure components to the intervention resource allocation segment by traversing the ranked TCO values until the operational constraint is reached, and combining the intervention resource allocation segment, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk.
The claim recites the steps of: generating an intervention resource allocation segment by: retrieving the TCO values, ranking the electrical infrastructure components, adding electrical infrastructure components to the intervention resource allocation segment by traversing the ranked TCO values until the operational constraint is reached, and combining the intervention resource allocation segment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “storing, in a memory of a computing device, respective total cost of owner ship (TCO) values”, “obtaining, at a processor of a computing device, a planning horizon value”, “obtaining, at the processor, an operational constraint”, and “outputting the combined intervention resource allocation segment.” The claim also recites that the steps of “storing respective total cost of owner ship (TCO) values”, “obtaining a planning horizon value”, “obtaining an operational constraint”, generating an intervention resource allocation segment by: retrieving the TCO values, ranking the electrical infrastructure components, adding electrical infrastructure components to the intervention resource allocation segment by traversing the ranked TCO values until the operational constraint is reached, and combining the intervention resource allocation segment, and “outputting the combined intervention resource allocation segment” are performed by a processor.
The additional elements “storing, in a memory of a computing device, respective total cost of owner ship (TCO) values”, “obtaining, at a processor of a computing device, a planning horizon value”, “obtaining, at the processor, an operational constraint”, and “outputting the combined intervention resource allocation segment” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and transmitting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the computing device, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the steps of “storing respective total cost of owner ship (TCO) values”, “obtaining a planning horizon value”, “obtaining an operational constraint”, generating an intervention resource allocation segment by: retrieving the TCO values, ranking the electrical infrastructure components, adding electrical infrastructure components to the intervention resource allocation segment by traversing the ranked TCO values until the operational constraint is reached, and combining the intervention resource allocation segment, and “outputting the combined intervention resource allocation segment”, are recited as being performed by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In limitations “storing respective total cost of owner ship (TCO) values”, “obtaining a planning horizon value”, “obtaining an operational constraint”, and “outputting the combined intervention resource allocation segment”, the processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations generating an intervention resource allocation segment by: retrieving the TCO values, ranking the electrical infrastructure components, adding electrical infrastructure components to the intervention resource allocation segment by traversing the ranked TCO values until the operational constraint is reached, and combining the intervention resource allocation segment, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, the memory, the computer-readable storage medium, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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 -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “storing, in a memory of a computing device, respective total cost of owner ship (TCO) values”, “obtaining, at a processor of a computing device, a planning horizon value”, “obtaining, at the processor, an operational constraint”, and “outputting the combined intervention resource allocation segment” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “storing, in a memory of a computing device, respective total cost of owner ship (TCO) values”, “obtaining, at a processor of a computing device, a planning horizon value”, “obtaining, at the processor, an operational constraint”, and “outputting the combined intervention resource allocation segment” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “storing respective total cost of owner ship (TCO) values”, “obtaining a planning horizon value”, “obtaining an operational constraint”, generating an intervention resource allocation segment by: retrieving the TCO values, ranking the electrical infrastructure components, adding electrical infrastructure components to the intervention resource allocation segment by traversing the ranked TCO values until the operational constraint is reached, and combining the intervention resource allocation segment, and “outputting the combined intervention resource allocation segment”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claim 10, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 10 directed to a device, is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18, have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent- ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 11, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting prior to string the TCO values, generating the TCO values based on input data…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 12, the claims recite in response to receiving updated input data…, regenerating a portion of the TCOs…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 13, the claims recite in response to regenerating the TCO values, repeating the generating of an intervention resource allocation segment activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 14, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting storing, for each electrical infrastructure component, on of a plurality of group identifiers…, and generating an intervention resource allocation segment by retrieving the TCO values…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 15, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting obtaining a respective intervention budget…, wherein obtaining the operational constraint incudes selecting the active group identifier, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 16, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting repeating the generation of intervention resource allocation segments…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 17, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting determining, for each electrical infrastructure component, an incremental cost value…, and ranking the electrical infrastructure components…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 9 and 18, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting discarding electrical infrastructure components with negative incremental cost values, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “for each of the set of candidate intervention time periods corresponding to the planning horizon value, generating an intervention resource allocation segment by: (i} retrieving the TCO values corresponding to the candidate intervention time period, (ii) ranking the electrical infrastructure components based on the retrieved TCO values, and (iii) adding electrical infrastructure components to the intervention resource allocation segment by traversing the ranked TCO values until the operational constraint is reached; and combining the intervention resource allocation segments” recited in the independent claims 1 and 10.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (See details above).
In response to the Applicant’s arguments “The claimed subject matter represents an improvement to the functionality of the underlying computing hardware implementing the method. The limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 10 enable the computing device implementing those limitations to generate intervention resource allocation segments (e.g., pools of infrastructural components on which to perform maintenance in given time periods) that previously could only be generated by human operators. The implementation of functionality previously limited to human operators constitutes an improvement in computing technology”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that while the Specification states that “the improvement in computer functionality noted above is accomplished in part by dividing the optimization process into discrete, computationally-feasible stages”, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of generating intervention resource allocation segments. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
8. Claims 1-18 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bagchi et al. (US 2005/0080696) disclose a method and system for generating a business case for one or more alternative server infrastructure scenarios relative to a baseline server infrastructure scenario.
Feria et al. (US 7,020,621) disclose a method for determining the total cost incurred per user of information technology (IT) in a distributed computing environment includes obtaining base costs and ongoing costs of an IT system and applying those costs to a series of metrics.
Vogel et al. (US 8,311,865) disclose systems and techniques for resource allocation planning. A future supply of resources and a future demand for resources may be identified for one or more future time periods and/or for one or more resource categories.
Phan et al. (US 9,959,514) disclose a system and method for generating an optimal preventive maintenance/replacement schedule for a set of assets.
Servidone et al. (US 2020/0202267) disclose a system to provide an automated risk relationship resource allocation tool via back-end application computer server of an enterprise.
Pecenak et al. (US 2020/0334609) disclose an adaptive, multiyear economic planning method for energy systems, microgrid and distributed energy resources.
Haselhoff et al. (US 2023/0281442) disclose a computer-implemented method for scheduling multiple pathways in a schedule, each pathway including a collection of related events.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 October 16, 2025