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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending. Claim 14 is cancelled. Claims 1, 9, 12, 17 and 20-21 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 14-16, that the claims are not directed to the alleged abstract idea nor are the claims directed to any judicial exception. Applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite a mental process because the recited features cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has categorized the claims as certain method of organizing human activity and not mental processes. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as organizing information for projects and tasks (See Specification, par. 0002). The generic computer implementations do not change the character of the limitations.
Applicant argues, on pages 16-19, that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant argues that amended claim specifies how the assessment how the assessment server device retrieves information including a first requirement, presents assessment of the information, and modifies operational parameters of a machine in a worksite based on the assessments.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements (assessment server device, computer, client device, interface, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on pages 19-22, that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant argues that similar to Diamond v Diehr, the claims recite transforming the
determined assessment measure into a modification of at least one of power consumption, processing speed, or cooling intensity of the machine operating at the worksite.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. These steps fall under the abstract idea and can be performed by a human to modify the machine in response to data received. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Furthermore, with respect to the inventive concept, Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, claims are ineligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the office action mailed on 06/18/2025. The claims would be considered allowable if re-written or amended to overcome the rejection in this office action.
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 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 and 21 are directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claims 9-13 and 15-16 are directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claim 17-20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media and therefore are an article of manufacture.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
…
retrieving a first project schema … comprising a first project field associated with a first project …;
the first project field including a precondition project field having first requirements for the first project including at least one of:
one or more permits,
one or more licenses,
a feasibility study,
funding, or
resources;
determining a first relevance level indicated by the first project field, wherein the first relevance level represents a respective readiness level from a plurality of readiness levels at which a first requirement corresponding to the first relevance level is triggered based on transitioning from being optional to being required;
determining a first maturity level associated with the first project field, wherein the first maturity level represents a measure of confidence in definitional maturity of the first requirement;
selecting a current readiness level from the plurality of readiness levels, wherein the current readiness level represents an estimated maturity of the first project;
determining a readiness value based on whether the first relevance level satisfies a triggering condition represented by the current readiness level;
determining a maturity value based on whether the first maturity level satisfies a maturity condition;
determining an assessment measure associated with the first project field based on the readiness value and the maturity value;
providing a project report that includes the assessment measure …; and
modifying the operational parameter … provided by the first project schema based on the assessment measure, wherein modifying the operational parameters … incudes at least one of:
modifying a power consumption of the machine,
modifying a processing speed of the machine, or
modifying a cooling intensity of the machine.
The limitations of Claim 9 recites:
receiving, as an input …, the first project schema … comprising a first project field associated with a first project …, in accordance with an operational parameter, the first project field including a precondition project field having first requirements for the first project including at least one of:
one or more permits,
one or more licenses,
a feasibility study,
funding, or
resources,
wherein:
the first project field is associated with a first relevance level,
the first relevance level represents a respective readiness level from a plurality of readiness levels at which at least one of the first requirements corresponding to the first relevance level is triggered based on transitioning from being optional to being required,
the first project field is associated with a first maturity level, and
the first maturity level represents a measure of confidence in definitional maturity of the first requirement;
receiving a current readiness level from the plurality of readiness levels, wherein the current readiness level represents an estimated maturity of the first project;
providing the first project field and the current readiness level to a readiness determination subsystem;
receiving, from the readiness determination subsystem, a readiness value based on whether the first relevance level satisfies a triggering condition represented by the current readiness level;
providing the first project field to a maturity determination subsystem;
receiving, from the maturity determination subsystem, a maturity value based on whether the first maturity level satisfies a maturity condition;
determining, …, a recommended value for an operational parameter … associated with the first project schema based on the readiness value and the maturity value;
transmitting the recommended value to …; and
modifying a value of the operational parameter … to the recommended value, wherein modifying the value of the operational parameter includes at least one of:
modifying a value of a power consumption of the machine,
modifying a processing speed of the machine, or
modifying a cooling intensity of the machine.
The limitations of Claim 17 recites:
receiving, …., a first project schema comprising a first project field associated with a first project …,the first project field including a precondition project field having first requirements for the first project including at least one of:
one or more permits,
one or more licenses,
a feasibility study,
funding, or
resources,
wherein:
the first project field is associated with a first relevance level,
the first relevance level represents a respective readiness level from a plurality of readiness levels at which at least one of the first requirements corresponding to the first relevance level is triggered based on transitioning from being optional to being required,
the first project field is associated with a first maturity level,
the first maturity level represents a measure of confidence in definitional maturity of the first requirement, and
the first project schema includes a current readiness level from the plurality of readiness levels the current readiness level representing an estimated maturity of the first project;
transmitting, …, a recommended value for an operational parameter …, wherein:
the … determines the recommended value based on a readiness value and a maturity value,
the readiness value is determined based on whether the first relevance level satisfies a triggering condition represented by the current readiness level, and
the maturity value based on whether the first maturity level satisfies a maturity condition; and
modifying the operational parameter … to the recommended value, wherein modifying the operational parameter includes at least one of:
modifying a power consumption of the hardware device to the recommended value,
modifying a processing speed of the hardware device to the recommended value, or
modifying a cooling intensity of the hardware device to the recommended value.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as organizing information for projects and tasks (See Specification, par. 0002). The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method, performed by an assessment server device associated with a machine, the machine operating in a worksite in accordance with an operational parameter
a client device in communication with the assessment server device
a user interface of the assessment server device
Claim 9:
A computing system, comprising:
a processor;
a display coupled to the processor, the display providing a user interface that enables a user to input project details and assign readiness and maturity levels to various requirements of a first project schema; and
memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
Claim 17:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of an assessment server device associated with a hardware device operating in a worksite in accordance with an operational parameter, cause the processor to perform operations, comprising:
Client device
System controller
Computing system
Hardware device
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-13, 15-16 and 17-21 further narrow the recite the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1 and 9 and 17, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-8 and 10-13, 15-16 and 17-21 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 6
Natural language processing model
Claim 15
Machine learning models
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628