DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
In the reply filed January 15, 2026, the applicant amended claims 1, 10, 11, and 15.
The applicant cancelled claim 5.
Currently claims 1-4 and 6-15 are under examination.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an apparatus (machine) without significantly more. As such, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus (machine). As such, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory a category of intention, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A. Step 2A of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong one, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “configured to calculate…an expected target reaching time” which is a mathematical calculation, “adapt the parameters…” and “calculate the expected target reaching time on an up-to-date basis” which is a mathematical calculation.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Furthermore, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)CID(A), claims directed toward a mental process include claims to “‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 199 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: “a control unit”, “a display device”, and “a calculation device”, “display”, and “borehole”.
As discussed above, the additional elements of a control unit or calculation device amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The elements of “a display device” and “display” are insignificant extra solution activity and cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to “borehole” generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to claim 1, As noted above, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In this instance, the additional elements of “a control unit”, “a display device”, and “a calculation device”, and “display” nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps are undertaken other than merely to controlling, calculating and displaying said idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements of a control unit or calculation device amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(f).
With respect to “borehole” generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 2 and 6, 8-10, 14, and 15 merely further the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 13 merely recite additional elements, generically recited which generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mehta (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0154570).
Regarding Claim 1, Mehta discloses a civil engineering machine for creating a foundation in the ground, which is configured to create a borehole (Mehta: 135) in the ground to a specified target depth (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]: parameters, including depth, compared against target wells) of the borehole (Mehta: 135) for forming at least one foundation element (Mehta: Paragraph [0052]: well completion) in the ground or to introduce at least one foundation element (Mehta: Paragraph [0052]: well completion) directly into the ground to the specified target depth (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]: parameters, including depth, compared against target wells), comprising
- a control unit (Mehta: 510, 520), and
- a display device (Mehta: Paragraph [0064]), in particular a screen, on which data on the operation of the civil engineering machine can be displayed by the control unit (Mehta: 510, 520), wherein
- a calculation device (Mehta: 530) is provided and configured to calculate, based on the input target depth (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]: parameters, including depth, compared against target wells) of the borehole (Mehta: 135) and depending on input parameters for producing the foundation, an expected target reaching time (Mehta: Paragraph [0062]) until the input target depth (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]: parameters, including depth, compared against target wells) of the borehole (Mehta: 135) is reached and to display it with the display device (Mehta: Paragraph [0064]), and the control unit (Mehta: 510, 520) or the calculation device (Mehta: 530) is configured to adapt the parameters to changing conditions during the production of the foundation and to calculate the expected target reaching time (Mehta: Paragraph [0062]) on an up-to-date basis and to display it by means of the display device (Mehta: Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claim 2, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein the parameters include values concerning one or more of the following indications: Ground type, ground profile, working method, civil engineering tool (Mehta: 142), machine type, drive power, rotational speed of the drive, rotational speed of the civil engineering tool (Mehta: 142), feed force and/or feed rate (Mehta: Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 3, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein the calculation device (Mehta: 530) is arranged integrated into the control unit (Mehta: 510, 520) of the civil engineering machine.
Regarding Claim 4, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Mehta: 510, 520) or the calculation device (Mehta: 530) is configured to automatically record parameters by means of one or more sensor devices and/or to retrieve them from a machine-internal and/or external data storage (Mehta: Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding Claim 6, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein the expected target reaching time (Mehta: Paragraph [0062]) can be indicated by displaying a time duration and/or a time of date when the target is reached (Mehta: Paragraphs [0062], [0075]).
Regarding Claim 7, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein a data transmission device is arranged, with which parameters can be transmitted from an external data storage or a main office to the control unit (Mehta: 510, 520) and/or from the control unit (Mehta: 510, 520) to the external data storage or the main office (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]: data from other wells).
Regarding Claim 8, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Mehta: 510, 520) or the calculation device (Mehta: 530) is configured to display further time indications for measures to be carried out or recommended measures on the display device (Mehta: Paragraph [0064]) depending on the expected target reaching time (Mehta: Paragraph [0062], [0072]).
Regarding Claim 9, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 7, wherein the control unit (Mehta: 510, 520) or the calculation device (Mehta: 530) is configured that the measures displayed on the display device (Mehta: Paragraph [0064]) can be confirmed and triggered directly by an operator (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 10, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Mehta: 510, 520) or the calculation device (Mehta: 530) is configured to identify an actual time of production when the target depth (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]: parameters, including depth, compared against target wells) of the borehole (Mehta: 135) is reached and to compare it with the calculated expected target reaching time (Mehta: Paragraph [0062]) and to take into account a comparison result when calculating an expected target reaching time (Mehta: Paragraph [0062]) when producing a subsequent foundation (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 11, Mehta discloses The civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein the civil engineering machine further comprises:
- a mobile carrier device (Mehta: Paragraph [0025]: various mobile rigs),
- a mast or a boom arm (Mehta: 112) which is arranged on the carrier device, and
- a civil engineering tool (Mehta: 142), which is adjustably arranged on the mast or the boom arm for carrying out a civil engineering measure for producing the foundation, in particular for reaching the target depth (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]: parameters, including depth, compared against target wells) of the borehole (Mehta: 135).
Regarding Claim 12, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein the civil engineering machine is configured as a drilling rig (Mehta: Figure 1), a trench cutter, a grab excavator, a pile driver or a vibrator.
Regarding Claim 13, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein the display device (Mehta: Paragraph [0064]) comprises at least one screen, data glasses, VR or AR glasses, a tablet, a smartphone, a head-up display, and/or an in-glass display.
Regarding Claim 14, Mehta discloses the civil engineering machine according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Mehta: 510, 520) or the calculation device (Mehta: 530) is configured to forward or transmit the calculated target reaching time (Mehta: Paragraph [0062]) to a main office or a remote device (Mehta: GUI).
Regarding Claim 15, Mehta discloses a method for producing a foundation in the ground, in particular with a civil engineering machine according to claim 1, in which a borehole (Mehta: 135) hole is created in the ground to a specified target depth (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]: parameters, including depth, compared against target wells) of the borehole (Mehta: 135) for forming at least one foundation element (Mehta: Paragraph [0052]: well completion) in the ground, or at least one foundation element (Mehta: Paragraph [0052]: well completion) is introduced directly into the ground to the specified target depth (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]: parameters, including depth, compared against target wells), and data for operating the civil engineering machine is displayed on a display device (Mehta: Paragraph [0064]), in particular a screen, of the civil engineering machine by a control unit (Mehta: 510, 520), wherein based on the specified target depth (Mehta: Paragraph [0067]: parameters, including depth, compared against target wells) of the borehole (Mehta: 135), an expected target reaching time (Mehta: Paragraph [0062]) is calculated by a calculation device (Mehta: 530) depending on input parameters for producing the foundation and is displayed to a machine operator by means of the display device (Mehta: Paragraph [0064]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-4 and 6-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200192467 (INTERACTIVE VIRTUAL REALITY MANIPULATION OF DOWNHOLE DATA).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS S WOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:30 AM - 7:00 PM EST.
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, Nicole A Coy can be reached at (571) - 272 - 5405. 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.
DOUGLAS S. WOOD
Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/DOUGLAS S WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672