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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to application 18372136 filed 09/25/2023 and Applicant’s 10/03/2025 election to the restriction requirement dated 07/03/2025.
MPEP 310
- Government License Rights to Contractor-Owned Inventions Made Under Federally Sponsored Research and Development -
Examiner notes the Original Specification states at ¶ [0001]: “The invention described herein was made by an employee of the United States Government and may be manufactured and used by the Government of the United States of America for governmental purposes without the payment of any royalties thereon or therefore” apparently to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(6).
37 CFR § 1.105 - Requirement for Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the Examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application. Examiner’s search appears to suggest Applicant publicly used the PAVER Pavement Management Software or product for determining maintenance or repair, as evidenced by at least the following references:
- Shain MY et al, Pavement Maintenance Management for Roads and Streets Using the PAVER System, 1 Jul, 1990, Funding Numbers: IAO E87870160
- Shahin MY, 20 years experience in PAVER pavement management system, InPavement management implementation ASTM International, p256-71 Jan 1991
- Shahin MY, Use of micropaverfor Budget and Project Planning, In23rd piarc world road congress Paris, 17-21 September 2007
- Shahin MY et al, New Techniques for Modeling Pavement Deterioratíon, undated
The information is required to identify products and services embodying the disclosed subject matter of determining maintenance or repair for pavement and identify the properties of similar products and services found in the prior art.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide any additional citation and a copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to develop the disclosed subject matter that describes the applicant’s invention, particularly as to determining maintenance or repair.
For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development of the disclosed subject matter. Specifically, Examiner requests brochures, manuals, white papers, training materials, demos, sales presentations or the like related to the aforementioned product(s) software and/or other software directed to the determining maintenance or repair.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide the citation and a copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to draft the claimed subject matter. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in distinguishing the claimed subject matter from the prior art.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the disclosed prior art of determining maintenance or repair.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the claimed subject matter.
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure. The fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained will be accepted as a complete response to the requirement for that item. This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete response to the enclosed Office action must include a complete response to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action, which is 3 months.
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Status of Claims
Claims 1-29 are currently pending of which:
Claims 10-29 are withdrawn from consideration as directed to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1-9 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the telephonic call made on October 3rd, 2025. Election of Inventive Group I of Claims 1-9 was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 3rd, 2025.
Making the record clear - Claim Interpretation under MPEP 2181
Claims 1-9 are directed to an “computer” or machine, with independent Claim 1 reciting
A PMVA computer comprising a processor and tangible memory storing non-transitory computer readable software configured to cause the processor to execute a pavement repair program specialized in determining major maintenance and repair costs (Maj or M&R); the program comprising:
an input interface configured to allow a user to specify to the program:
a Section of pavement for evaluation (S) having a lifetime;
a PCI family (PF) assigned to Section (S) defined as PFs; wherein PCI is a pavement condition index of the Section;
Cinit an initial critical PCI estimate;
Δh: halting delta in the range [0,2];
B: integer iteration bound > 1;
[Cmin,Cmax]: acceptable critical PCI range; and
PCrecon: Reconstruction PCI;
a PClcrit determination module configured to indicate a point in time wherein spending additional resources on preventive maintenance work no longer economically makes sense to perform on a local or global level on a section in the family;
the pavement repair program configured to use a calculated value of critical PCI to determine an ROI calculation requiring a method of determining PCcrit without relying on the calculated value of PCcrit;
loop setting PClcrit for PF to the current estimate Ccur;
a EUAC (estimated uniform annual cost) calculator configured to execute a program loop comprising steps of:
determining EUAC for major repairs to calculate the ROI for major work at each age from 0 to trecon;
using ROIPF(t) to resolve the ROI (return-on-investment); and
determining a critical PCI for a PCI family PF.
Here, the “program” or software as recited in the preamble of independent Claim 1 is executed by the “processor”, which is clear structure as read in light of Original Specification ¶ [0014]. Thus, even if considered arguendo as generic placeholders, rather than software, the “input interface”, “PClcrit determination module”, “pavement repair program”, “loop setting” and “EUAC” “calculator”, as compris[ed] by the “pavement repair program”, of Claims 1-3, 5-7 would also be executed or modified by the “processor”, as sufficient structure, and thus, failing the third prong of the 112(f) test. Thus, Claim 1 and by the same test the Claims 2-7 that further narrow Claim 1, are believed not to invoke 112(f) based on any purported MPEP 2181 investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is independent and recites: “A PMVA computer comprising a processor and tangible memory storing non-transitory computer readable software configured to cause the processor to execute a pavement repair program specialized in determining major maintenance and repair costs (Maj or M&R); the program comprising:
an input interface configured to allow a user to specify to the program:
a Section of pavement for evaluation (S) having a lifetime;
a PCI family (PF) assigned to Section (S) defined as PFs; wherein PCI is a pavement condition index of the Section;
Cinit an initial critical PCI estimate;
Δh: halting delta in the range [0,2];
B: integer iteration bound > 1;
[Cmin,Cmax]: acceptable critical PCI range; and
PCrecon: Reconstruction PCI;
a PClcrit determination module configured to indicate a point in time wherein spending additional resources on preventive maintenance work no longer economically makes sense to perform on a local or global level on a section in the family;
the pavement repair program configured to use a calculated value of critical PCI to determine an ROI calculation requiring a method of determining PCcrit without relying on the calculated value of PCcrit;
loop setting PClcrit for PF to the current estimate Ccur;
a EUAC (estimated uniform annual cost) calculator configured to execute a program loop comprising steps of:
determining EUAC for major repairs to calculate the ROI for major work at each age from 0 to trecon;
using ROIPF(t) to resolve the ROI (return-on-investment); and
determining a critical PCI for a PCI family PF”. [bolded emphasis added].
Claim 1 is rendered vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for
- the range [0,2];
- the calculated value of PCcrit;
- the current estimate Ccur
It is also unclear if “the family” as subsequently recited at “a PClcrit determination module” limitation related back to “a PCI family (PF)” at first limitation of “an input interface”
Claim 1 is recommended to be amended to recite, as an example only: “A PMVA computer comprising a processor and tangible memory storing non-transitory computer readable software configured to cause the processor to execute a pavement repair program specialized in determining major maintenance and repair costs (Maj or M&R); the program comprising:
an input interface configured to allow a user to specify to the program:
a Section of pavement for evaluation (S) having a lifetime;
a PCI family (PF) assigned to Section (S) defined as PFs; wherein PCI is a pavement condition index of the Section;
Cinit an initial critical PCI estimate;
Δh: halting delta in a range of [0,2];
B: integer iteration bound > 1;
[Cmin,Cmax]: acceptable critical PCI range; and
PCrecon: Reconstruction PCI;
a PClcrit determination module configured to indicate a point in time wherein spending additional resources on preventive maintenance work no longer economically makes sense to perform on a local or global level on a section in the PCI family;
the pavement repair program configured to use a calculated value of critical PCI to determine an ROI calculation requiring a method of determining PCcrit without relying on a calculated value of PCcrit;
loop setting PClcrit for PF to a current estimate Ccur;
a EUAC (estimated uniform annual cost) calculator configured to execute a program loop comprising steps of:
determining EUAC for major repairs to calculate the ROI for major work at each age from 0 to trecon;
using ROIPF(t) to resolve the ROI (return-on-investment); and
determining a critical PCI for a PCI family PF”.
Claim 1 is also rendered vague and indefinite because the term “major” as in “major work” and the terms “makes sense” as in “additional resources on preventive maintenance work no longer economically makes sense to perform on a local or global level on a section in the family” as recited at independent Claim 1 are relatives terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “major work” and “no longer economically makes sense” are not defined by the claim 1, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of said terms, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, what might be construed as “major” or mak[ing] “sense” for one person of ordinary skills in the art would be different for another. In addition, it would also have been unclear when infringement would have occurred give such unclarity or relativity in terminology .
Claims 2-9 are rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 1.
Claim 2 further recites: “The PMA computer of Claim 1 wherein the PCIcrit determination module is configured to:
determine a second derivative of a family curve to determine a point in the lifetime of a section of pavement where PCI begins to decrease; and
determine a third derivative of a family curve to determine a point in the lifetime of section of payment where decay rate of the pavement quality accelerates”.
Claim 2 is rendered vague and indefinite because while there is prior recitation of “a Section of pavement for evaluation (S) having a lifetime” at patent independent Claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the lifetime of a section of pavement where PCI begins to decrease” and “the lifetime of section of payment where decay rate of the pavement quality accelerates” as subsequently recited at child dependent Claim 2. It is also unclear if “PCI” as subsequently recited in said dependent Claim 2 relates back to “PCI” as antecedently recited at parent independent Claim 1.
Claim 2 is recommended to be amended to recite, as an example only: The PMA computer of Claim 1 wherein the PCIcrit determination module is configured to:
determine a second derivative of a family curve to determine a point in a first lifetime of a section of pavement where the PCI begins to decrease; and
determine a third derivative of a family curve to determine a point in a second lifetime of section of payment where decay rate of the pavement quality accelerates.
Claim 3 is rejected based on rejected parent dependent Claim 2.
Claim 3 further recites: “The PMA computer of Claim 2 wherein the PCIcrit determination module is configured to:
recommend major repair work for a section of pavement that has PCI lower than the critical PCI; and
wherein the critical PCI is a point in the lifetime of a section of pavement wherein preventive maintenance no longer generates a positive ROI”.
Claim 3 is further rendered vague and indefinite because, while there is prior recitation of “a Section of pavement for evaluation (S) having a lifetime” at patent independent Claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the lifetime of a section of pavement wherein preventive maintenance no longer generates a positive ROI” as subsequently recited at child dependent Claim 3. It is also unclear if “PCI” as subsequently recited in said dependent Claim 3 relates back to “PCI” as antecedently recited at parent independent Claim 1.
Claim 3 is recommended to be amended to recite, as an example only: The PMA computer of Claim 2 wherein the PCIcrit determination module is configured to:
recommend major repair work for a section of pavement that has the PCI lower than the critical PCI; and
wherein the critical PCI is a point in a third lifetime of a section of pavement wherein preventive maintenance no longer generates a positive ROI”. Also, the terms “major” as in “major work” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of said term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, what might be construed as “major” or for one person of ordinary skills in the art would be different for another person of ordinary skills in the art. In addition, it would have been unclear when infringement would have occurred given such unclarity or relativity for said term.
Claim 5 recites: “The PMA computer of Claim 1 wherein the EUAC calculator is configured to: locate a t value wherein ROIF(t) is maximized; and set the PCI at this age to be a candidate in a next estimate” rendering said claim 5 vague and indefinite because it is unclear if expression “at this age” refers to “a t value” as previously recited in said claim.
Claim 5 is recommended to be amended to recite, as an example only: The PMA computer of Claim 1 wherein the EUAC calculator is configured to: locate a t value wherein ROIF(t) is maximized; and set the PCI at said t value to be a candidate in a next estimate.
Claim 6 recites: “The PMA computer of Claim 1 wherein the EUAC calculator is configured to determine a current program loop to have converged and selecting the current estimate as a result when a computed difference between a candidate in a new estimate and the candidate in the previous estimate is below a threshold value”, rendering said claim 6 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the candidate in the previous estimate”.
Claim 6 is recommended to be amended to recite, among others: a candidate in a previous estimate is below a threshold value”,
Claim 8 recites: “The PMA computer of Claim 4 wherein the EUAC calculator is configured to:
check against an iteration boundary to avoid non-convergence of the iteration; and
increment the iteration counter, setting the new estimate, and repeating the program loop”
Claim 8 is thus rendered vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the iteration”, “the iteration counter” and “the new estimate”.
Claim 8 is recommended to be amended to recite, as an example only: The PMA computer of Claim 4 wherein the EUAC calculator is configured to:
check against an iteration boundary to avoid non-convergence of an iteration within the iteration boundary; and
increment an iteration counter, setting a new estimate, and repeating the program loop”
Claim 9 recites “The PMA computer of Claim 4 wherein the EUAC calculator is configured to use inspection or work history data to shift the curve PF”, rendering said claim 9 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the curve PF”.
Claim 9 is recommended be amended to recite, as an example only: The PMA computer of Claim 4 wherein the EUAC calculator is configured to use inspection or work history data to shift a curve of the PF.
Clarifications and/or corrections are required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s), describe, or set forth the abstract1 computer-aided mental processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C on what appears to be fundamental economic principles [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A] of “costs” and “return on investment” “(ROI)” (Claims 1,3,5) and economic optimization set forth by “determining major maintenance and repair costs (Maj or M&R)” summarized in preamble of independent Claim 1 and “a point in time wherein spending additional resources on preventive maintenance work no longer economically makes sense to perform” in the body of independent Claim 1. Said computer-aided mental processes set forth in Claims 1-9 as combination of computer-aided evaluation, and judgement cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2 implementable through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations, cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A,B,C. For example, MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) I B iii found the iterative formula (B1=B0 (1.0–F) + PVL(F)) of computing a limit in a petrochemical process in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978) set forth the abstract exception. Similarly, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I ¶4 cited SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to stress that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on selected information” are again directed to abstract ideas. Also, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I ¶4 cited Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) to again highlight that claims of a “process of organizing information through mathematical correlations” are directed to the abstract exception. Specifically, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A iv. revealed that the patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The Court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. Here, the Examiner finds that such abstract mathematical manipulations, iteration[s] and/or correlations and the subsequent organizing this information into a new form are recited throughout Claims 1-9, culminating with “determining a critical PCI for a PCI family PF” as in the repetitive or iterative determining of the critical alarm limit in “Flook” in the petrochemical industry.
It would thus follow that, similar to the legal findings of Parker v. Flook, SAP and Digitech, as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I, the current manipulations, iteration[s] and/or correlations and the subsequent organizing this information into a new form as recited throughout Claims 1-9 would also remain abstract.
It is equally noted that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C is clear that: #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, #2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, and #3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, do not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception. Thus, it can be argued that here, the computer-aided tools of “input interface”, “PClcrit determination module”, “pavement repair program”, “loop setting” and “EUAC” “calculator”, as compris[ed] by the “pavement repair program”, as recited throughout Claims 1-7, to perform such evaluation and judgment through mathematics, starting with allow[ing] “a user to specify”: “a Section of pavement for evaluation (S) having a lifetime; a PCI family (PF) assigned to Section (S) defined as PFs; wherein PCI is a pavement condition index of the Section;Cinit an initial critical PCI estimate; Δh: halting delta in the a range of [0,2]; B: integer iteration bound > 1; [Cmin,Cmax]: acceptable critical PCI range; and PCrecon: Reconstruction PCI”, and then continuing “to indicate a point in time wherein spending additional resources on preventive maintenance work no longer economically makes sense” [as exemplary abstract judgment] “to perform on a local or global level on a section in the family”; and then “to use a calculated value of critical PCI to determine an ROI calculation requiring a method of determining PCcrit without relying on the a calculated value of PCcrit”; set[] “PClcrit for PF to the a current estimate Ccur”, as examples of mathematical or computer-aided evaluations, and finally “determining EUAC for major repairs to calculate the ROI for major work at each age from 0 to trecon”; “using ROIPF(t) to resolve the ROI (return-on-investment)”; “and determining a critical PCI for a PCI family PF”, as the result of such evaluations and judgement, at independent Claim 1 would also not preclude said claim from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception. These mathematical principles are further narrowed by equally abstract mathematical concepts at dependent Claims 2-9. Yet MPEP 2106.05 I ¶2 is clear that "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract".
Last but certainly not least, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D which cites Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n1 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1, to state that a wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid was found to be integral the abstract exception. This rationale was later echoed in TDE Petroleum Data Sols., Inc v. AKM Enter., Inc 657 Fed. Appx. 991 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Court found determining well operation state as an abstract idea: “As we discussed at greater length in Electric Power, the claims of the '812 patent recite the what of the invention, but none of the how that is necessary to turn the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Electric Power [2016 BL 247416] 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13861 [2016 BL 247416], 2016 WL 4073318, at *4-5. Therefore, we find that claim 1 is patent-ineligible under § 1011”.
Here, “determining major maintenance and repair costs (Maj or M&R)” as summarized in preamble of Claim 1, and then detailed throughout the body of Claims 1-9, can be argued to follow a similar ineligibility path as that of the wide-area real-time performance monitoring system in Electric Power Group and/or the monitoring of equipment state in TDE Petroleum. Specifically here, similar to Electric Power Group, the monitoring refers to “a lifetime” of “a Section of pavement for evaluation (S)” and its associated metrics (independent Claim 1), as well as “the lifetime of a section of pavement where PCI begins to decrease”; “and” “a point in the lifetime of section of payment where decay rate of the pavement quality accelerates” (dependent Claim 2), and “a point in the lifetime of a section of pavement wherein preventive maintenance no longer generates a positive ROI” (dependent Claim 3) and various age[s] at Claims 1,4,5, etc.. In fact, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A, ¶5 cites Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); to state that the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, set forth or describe the abstract mental processes grouping. The fact that such abstract concept is limited to “pavement repair”, does not necessarily render the claims non-abstract because according to MPEP 2106.04 I claims directed to “narrow laws that may have limited applications"2 [were still] held ineligible. Here, similar to “TDE Petroleum”, the state of the “pavement repair” project takes into account various variables of limited applications, that do not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract idea.
Given the preponderance of legal evidence shown above, it is clear that the claims’ character as a whole is undeniably abstract. Step 2A prong one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual, or combination, of the additional, computer-based elements are/is found, per MPEP 2106.05(f), to merely apply the above abstract idea and/or narrow it to a field of use or technological environment per MPEP 2106.05(h). To be clear, the recitations of “input interface”, “PClcrit determination module”, “pavement repair program”, “loop setting” and “EUAC” “calculator”, as compris[ed] by the “pavement repair program” executed by the “processor”, as recited throughout Claims 1-9 were initially tested above as computer aids at the prior step.
Examiner now submits that even if now more granularly tested as additional computer-based elements, at Step 2A prong 2 of the analysis, they would not integrate the aforementioned abstract exception into a practical application. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i) they would represent mathematical algorithm being applied on a computer to perform a planning practice of business considerations that takes into account “costs” and “return on investment” “(ROI)” (Claims 1,3,5) and economic optimization set forth by “determining major maintenance and repair costs (Maj or M&R)” summarized in preamble of independent Claim 1 and “a point in time wherein spending additional resources on preventive maintenance work no longer economically makes sense to perform” in the body of independent Claim 1. Also, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks to receive, transmit, store, data, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application3. Equally important, as stated by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1, even claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application4. For example, monitoring audit log data by a computer, as cited by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (iii), is reflected here by recitations of “a lifetime” of “a Section of pavement for evaluation (S)” and its associated metrics (independent Claim 1), as well as “the lifetime of a section of pavement where PCI begins to decrease”; “and” “a point in the lifetime of section of payment where decay rate of the pavement quality accelerates” (dependent Claim 2), and “a point in the lifetime of a section of pavement wherein preventive maintenance no longer generates a positive ROI” (dependent Claim 3) and various age[s] at Claims 1,4,5. Also, requiring software to tailor information, as cited by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v) is reflected here as: “an input interface configured to allow a user to specify to the program: a Section of pavement for evaluation (S) having a lifetime; a PCI family (PF) assigned to Section (S) defined as PFs; wherein PCI is a pavement condition index of the Section; Cinit an initial critical PCI estimate; Δh: halting delta in the range [0,2]; B: integer iteration bound > 1; [Cmin,Cmax]: acceptable critical PCI range; and PCrecon: Reconstruction PCI” while providing the ensuing results of such algorithmically manipulated or tailored information culminates with “using ROIPF(t) to resolve the ROI (return-on-investment)”; “and determining a critical PCI for a PCI family PF” at independent Claim 1. Yet, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2),(iii),(v), these represent mere examples of applying the abstract idea, which do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
More to the point, according to MPEP 2106.05(h) vi, even limiting the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to a field of use or technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application5. It would then follow that here, the narrowing of the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, to a field of use represented here by a “pavement repair” project and its underlining technological environment represented here by “input interface”, “PClcrit determination module”, “pavement repair program”, “loop setting” and “EUAC” “calculator”, as compris[ed] by the “pavement repair program” executed by the “processor” could be argued as narrowing the abstract idea to a field of use, with respect to the aforementioned abstract exception. The same principle applies to the further narrowing of dependent Claims 2-9.
Thus, there is a preponderance of legal evidence showing that no additional elements integrate, either alone or in combination, the abstract exception into a practical application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea and/or link use of the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment. Specifically, Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II guidelines and carries over the findings tested per MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h) to submit that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more.
In conclusion, Claims 1-9 although directed to a statutory category (“computer” or machine) they still recite, or at least set forth the abstract exception (Step 2A prong one), with no additional, computer-based elements capable to integrate it into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than what was already found as abstract (Step 2B).
Thus, the Claims 1-9 are not patent eligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons for allowance
- overcoming the prior art only -
The closest prior art is Shahin; Mohammed Y. Windsor US 20120143566 A1 hereinafter Shahin teaching a complex index, in particular a pavement condition index (PCI), as well as Baskin; Arthur B., Shahin; Mohamed Y and Reinke; Robert E. US 20100235203 A1 hereinafter Baskin teaching Engineered Management System Particularly Suited For Maintenance And Repair (M&R) Management Of Structure Such As Pavement. However, neither Shahin nor Baskin, nor any prior art on record teaches either alone, or together with adequate rationales the combination of
an input interface configured to allow a user to specify to the program:
a Section of pavement for evaluation (S) having a lifetime;
a PCI family (PF) assigned to Section (S) defined as PFs; wherein PCI is a pavement condition index of the Section;
Cinit an initial critical PCI estimate;
Δh: halting delta in the range [0,2];
B: integer iteration bound > 1;
[Cmin,Cmax]: acceptable critical PCI range; and
PCrecon: Reconstruction PCI;
a PClcrit determination module configured to indicate a point in time wherein spending additional resources on preventive maintenance work no longer economically makes sense to perform on a local or global level on a section in the family;
the pavement repair program configured to use a calculated value of critical PCI to determine an ROI calculation requiring a method of determining PCcrit without relying on the calculated value of PCcrit;
loop setting PClcrit for PF to the current estimate Ccur;
a EUAC (estimated uniform annual cost) calculator configured to execute a program loop comprising steps of:
determining EUAC for major repairs to calculate the ROI for major work at each age from 0 to trecon;
using ROIPF(t) to resolve the ROI (return-on-investment); and
determining a critical PCI for a PCI family PF” as recited at independent Claim 1.
Claim 1 thus overcomes the prior art on record.
Claims 2-9 are dependent and overcome the prior art by dependency to parent Claim 1.
To be clear, novelty (35 USC 102) and non-obviousness (35 USC 103) still pertain to features that are all or nearly all abstract components of the abstract exception itself, and thus failing to render the claims patent eligible (35 USC 101). Simply said, the novelty and non-obviousness of such components in the amended independent Claims 1,14,15 do not necessarily render the claims eligible. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”.
Conclusion
This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105. A complete response to this Office action must include a complete response to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office action.
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
- WO 2016028251 A1 teaches Computerized Financial Method For Short, Mid And Long-term Cross-asset Roadway Network, Involves Performing Funding Allocation Programming On Resulting Electronic Database Of Pavement Network Of Actual And Equivalent Pavement Sections
- US 20210350524 A1 teaching Airport pavement condition assessment methods and apparatuses
- US 20200164884 A1 teaching Road damage calculation system, road damage calculation method, and non-transitory recording medium storing road damage control program
- Shain MY et al, Pavement Maintenance Management for Roads and Streets Using the PAVER System, 1 Jul, 1990,
- Shahin MY, 20 years experience in PAVER pavement management system, InPavement management implementation ASTM International, p256-71 Jan 1991
- Shahin MY, Use of micropaverfor Budget and Project Planning, In23rd piarc world road congress Paris, 17-21 September 2007
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/OCTAVIAN ROTARU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
November 8th, 2025
1 MPEP 2106.04(a) last ¶: “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings”.
2 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971
3 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
4 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
5 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)