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 April 14, 2026, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-28 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1 and 14: the first occurrence of acronyms M&R should be spelled out.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-28 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. Claims 1-13 recite the limitations a specialized PCI calculator, a specialized work planning module, a specialized lifetime calculator, and a specialized return on investment calculator; Claims 14-27 recites the limitations a specialized common cost calculator, a specialized EUAC(wo) calculator, and a specialized EUAC(w) calculator; Claims 24-27 recite the limitations a specialized LocalCostCalc module, a specialized historical calculator, a specialized planned calculator, a specialized future calculator, and a specialized cost calculator; Claim 28 recites the limitations a specialized EUAC(wo) calculator and a specialized EUAC(w) calculator, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-28 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 independent 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 system for pavement analysis. Thus, the claim is to a machine, 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 a system for pavement analysis. The claim recites the steps: select at least one pavement section…; specify a financial budget; specify an evaluation date for calculating an estimated uniform annual cost; determine a PCI value for the selected section by applying a deterioration curve that is dynamically adjusted…; integrate risk and return on investment calculations into pavement work planning…; calculate a lifetime of the section…, and determine an estimated uniform annual cost per unit of the section…, 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”, 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.
Accordingly, 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 “an input interface” and “a database for storing.” The claim also recites that the steps of select at least one pavement section…; specify a financial budget; specify an evaluation date for calculating an estimated uniform annual cost; determine a PCI value for the selected section by applying a deterioration curve that is dynamically adjusted…; integrate risk and return on investment calculations into pavement work planning…; calculate a lifetime of the section…, and determine an estimated uniform annual cost per unit of the section…, are performed by a processor and software components (a specialized PCI calculator, a specialized work planning module, a specialized lifetime calculator, and a specialized return on investment calculator).
The additional elements “an input interface” and “a database for storing” 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 outputting, 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.
Further, the limitations select at least one pavement section…; specify a financial budget; specify an evaluation date for calculating an estimated uniform annual cost; determine a PCI value for the selected section by applying a deterioration curve that is dynamically adjusted…; integrate risk and return on investment calculations into pavement work planning…; calculate a lifetime of the section…, and determine an estimated uniform annual cost per unit of the section…, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and are 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 generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor and software components (a specialized PCI calculator, a specialized work planning module, a specialized lifetime calculator, and a specialized return on investment calculator) 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).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the processor, the memory, the calculators, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, displaying data and performing an abstract idea.
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 “an input interface” and “a database for storing” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. 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 “an input interface” and “a database for storing” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and outputting 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); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations select at least one pavement section…; specify a financial budget; specify an evaluation date for calculating an estimated uniform annual cost; determine a PCI value for the selected section by applying a deterioration curve that is dynamically adjusted…; integrate risk and return on investment calculations into pavement work planning…; calculate a lifetime of the section…, and determine an estimated uniform annual cost per unit of the section…, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
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 dependent claims 2-13, 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. For example, Claim 2 recites wherein the M&R family comprises: a cost curve…, a plurality of specific types of global work…, a cost table…, a PCI reconstruction…; Claim 3 recites wherein the database comprises: a work history of section…, an evaluation date…, and a lifetime of section…; Claim 4 recites wherein the specialized work planning module is configured to: estimate a condition of the section in future years…, determine what maintenance and repair work to do in which year, estimate work costs for each plan year…, generate a work plan…, and generate a set of conditions…; Claim 5 recites wherein the specialized lifetime calculator is configured to calculate the lifetime …; Claim 6 recites wherein the specialized lifetime calculator is configured to factor into the calculation …; Claim 7 recites wherein the estimated uniform annual cost factors in performance of a particular category of work…; Claim 8 recites wherein the specialized return on investment calculator is configured to generate an estimated uniform annual cost per unit of a section; Claim 9 recite wherein the estimated annual cost factoring in non-performance of particular category at the evaluation time; Claim 10 recites wherein the specialized return on investment calculator is configured to generate: a change in estimated uniform annual cost per unit area…, a return on investment for performing work…, and an estimated repair cost per unit of a section pavement…; Claim 11 recites a specialized risk calculator configure to calculate and annual risk cost…; Claim 12 recites a specialized solver configure to accurately determine…; Claim 13 recites a Section M&R computer configured to schedule maintenance and repair work…; that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping 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). Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 14, 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 data processing system for generating a predictive pavement maintenance analysis. Thus, the claim is to a machine, 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 a data processing system for generating a predictive pavement maintenance analysis. The claim recites the steps: specify a Section of road for evaluation…; calculate a common cost…; determining an estimate uniform annual cost per unit area the section without performing work…, and determining an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for the section when performing work… , 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”, 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.
Accordingly, 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 “an input interface.” The claim also recites that the steps of specify a Section of road for evaluation…; calculate a common cost…; determining an estimate uniform annual cost per unit area the section without performing work…, and determining an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for the section when performing work…, are performed by a processor and software components (a solver, a work calculator, a work planner, a common cost calculator, a EUAC calculator).
The additional elements “an input interface” is 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 outputting, 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.
Further, the limitations specify a Section of road for evaluation…; calculate a common cost…; determining an estimate uniform annual cost per unit area the section without performing work…, and determining an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for the section when performing work…, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and are 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 generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor and software components (a solver, a work calculator, a work planner, a common cost calculator, a EUAC calculator) 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).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the processor, the memory, the calculators, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, displaying data and performing an abstract idea.
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 “an input interface” was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. 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 “an input interface” is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and outputting 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 specify a Section of road for evaluation…; calculate a common cost…; determining an estimate uniform annual cost per unit area the section without performing work…, and determining an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for the section when performing work…, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
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 dependent claims 15-23, 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. For example, Claim 15 recites wherein the work calculator is configure to determine actual global work cost…; Claim 16 recites wherein the particular work category is global work; Claim 17 recites wherein the work planner is configure to: calculate a cost of planned global work; compute… , and store the cost in a work planned for the Section or road; Claim 18 recites wherein the specialized EUAC calculator is configure to: resolve variables…, determine a lifespan…, determine a condition…, and directing a LocalCostCale module to determine a localized cost component …; Claim 19 recites wherein the specialized EUAC calculator is configured to resolve variables …; Claim 20 recites wherein the specialized EUAC calculator is configured to determine a global work type…; Claim 21 recites wherein the EUAC calculator is configured to convert the lifespan increase to a new PCI…; Claim 22 recites wherein the EUAC calculator is configured to shift …; Claim 23 recites wherein the EUAC calculator is configured to direct a LocalCostCalc module to determine a localized cost…, calculate cost for global repairs…, and distressed recorded in HIS…; Claim 24 recites a specialized LocalCostCalc module configured to calculate a localized cost component…; Claim 25 recites wherein the historical calculator is configure to calculate the PCI for each year…, and produce the first cost vector…; Claim 26 recites wherein the planned calculator is configured to calculate the PCI…, and product the second cost vector…; Claim 27 recites wherein the specialized planned calculator is configured to calculate the PCI…, and product the third cost vector…; that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 14. 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). Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 28, 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 system for generating a multi-faceted data structure for optimizing pavement maintenance decision. Thus, the claim is to a machine, 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 a system for generating a multi-faceted data structure for optimizing pavement maintenance decision. The claim recites the steps: specify a pavement Section…, compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for Section without performing work…, compute Major$..., compute G$..., calculate L$..., determine EUAC using the formula…, compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for Section when performing work…, compute Major$..., compute G$..., calculate L$..., determine EUAC using the formula… , 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”, 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.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for Section without performing work…, compute Major$..., compute G$..., calculate L$..., determine EUAC using the formula…, compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for Section when performing work…, compute Major$..., compute G$..., calculate L$..., determine EUAC using the formula…, are directed to Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Accordingly, 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 “an input interface.” The claim also recites that the steps of specify a pavement Section…, compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for Section without performing work…, compute Major$..., compute G$..., calculate L$..., determine EUAC using the formula…, compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for Section when performing work…, compute Major$..., compute G$..., calculate L$..., determine EUAC using the formula…, are performed by a processor and software components (EUAC calculators).
The additional elements “an input interface” is 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 outputting, 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.
Further, the limitations specify a pavement Section…, compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for Section without performing work…, compute Major$..., compute G$..., calculate L$..., determine EUAC using the formula…, compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for Section when performing work…, compute Major$..., compute G$..., calculate L$..., determine EUAC using the formula…, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and are 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 generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor and software components (EUAC calculators) 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).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the processor, the memory, the calculators, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, displaying data and performing an abstract idea.
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 “an input interface” was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. 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 “an input interface” is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and outputting 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 specify a pavement Section…, compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for Section without performing work…, compute Major$..., compute G$..., calculate L$..., determine EUAC using the formula…, compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for Section when performing work…, compute Major$..., compute G$..., calculate L$..., determine EUAC using the formula…, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
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).
Accordingly, claims 1-28 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
8. 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:
a specialized PCI calculator configured to determine a PCI value for the selected section by applying a deterioration curve that is dynamically adjusted based on the information history information; a specialized work planning module configured to integrate risk and return on investment (ROI) calculations into pavement work planning based on the rules and costs of the MF, twp and the financial budget; a specialized lifetime calculator configured to calculate a lifetime of the section S based on the PCI value and teval (T⁵w(teval); and a specialized return on investment calculator configured to determine an estimated uniform annual cost per unit of the Section based on teval EUAC⁸w(teval)., recited in the independent claim 1;
a specialized EUAC calculator configured to compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for S without (wo) performing work of a particular category on S at time/age; a specialized EUAC calculator configured to compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for S when performing work of a particular category on S at time/age, recited in the independent claim 14;
a specialized EUAC calculator configured to compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for S without (wo) performing work of a particular category on S at time/age…, a specialized EUAC calculator configured to compute an estimated uniform annual cost per unit area for S when performing work of a particular category on S at time/age…, recited in the independent claim 28.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
9. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-28 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-28 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).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims recite a system for pavement analysis, for generating a predictive pavement maintenance analysis, and for generating a multi-faceted data structure for optimizing pavement maintenance decision. The claims recite the steps, 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”, 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claims Recite a Specific Technical Improvement”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
The claim recites the additional elements of “an input interface”, “a database for storing”, “a processor and software components” (a specialized PCI calculator, a specialized work planning module, a specialized lifetime calculator, and a specialized return on investment calculator).
The additional elements “an input interface” and “a database for storing” 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 outputting, 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.
Further, the additional elements “a processor and software components” (a specialized PCI calculator, a specialized work planning module, a specialized lifetime calculator, and a specialized return on investment calculator) are recited at a high level of generality and are 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 generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor and software components (a specialized PCI calculator, a specialized work planning module, a specialized lifetime calculator, and a specialized return on investment calculator) 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).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, the processor, or other technology. They just merely used as general means for performing the abstract idea. They do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “an input interface” and “a database for storing” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and outputting 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); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor and the software components to perform the recited limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
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 claims are not patent eligible.
According, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-28 are rejected.
12. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shahin (US 2012/0143566) discloses a method for adjusting a complex index with inherent anomalies due to the presence of multiple quality levels of the same indexed characteristic in a single sample.
Baskin et al. (US 2010/0235203) disclose an automated user-implemented method for optimizing cost, schedule and performance of maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) on manmade structure, such as pavements.
Sunde et al. (US 2022/0101272) disclose a system and method for delivering optimized road maintenance analysis to a municipality.
Bishop et al. (US 2021/0350524) disclose a method of assessing the condition of a pavement site.
Ebe et al. (US 2020/0164884) disclose calculating accumulated road damage, estimates a road life from an allowable total road damage amount and the accumulated road damage.
Posavljak (US 2017/0103371) disclose cross asset trade off analysis for roadway networks.
13. 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 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights