DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed on January 26, 2026. Claims 1, 3, and 5–6 are amended, claim 12 is canceled, and claim 13 is newly added. Currently, claims 1–11 and 13 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 30, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As an initial matter, Examiner notes that Applicant’s remarks under Step 2A Prong One are not persuasive because the remarks are limited to an assertion that the claims do not recite mental processes without any argument or rationale underpinning that would support Applicant’s assertion. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive for the reasons asserted below under Step 2A Prong One.
Under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, Applicant asserts that the claims include additional elements that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the claims embody improvements in developing routes for roads and pipelines, as evidenced by paragraphs 4 and 43 of the Specification. Examiner disagrees. Examiner submits that the improvements described in the Specification are not technical improvements. Instead, the disclosed improvements are business improvements in the area of layout planning that are embodied in the claim elements identified as abstract under Step 2A Prong One. Further, the abstract, business improvements are achieved using a generic technological environment that neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two nor amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as asserted below. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because the alleged improvements are business improvements that do not embody a technical improvement.
Accordingly, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained, and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1–11 and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “collating soil aptitude information with relief information and hydrography information”. However, claim 1 subsequently recites “determining a soil aptitude class for each soil mapping unit based on each assigned grade, soil aptitude information, relief information, and hydrography information”. Examiner submits that the second recitations of “soil aptitude information”, “relief information”, and “hydrography information” render the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitations to reference the first recitations or intends to introduce second, different elements for “soil aptitude information”, “relief information”, and “hydrography information”.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “determining a soil aptitude class for each soil mapping unit based on each assigned grade, the soil aptitude information, the relief information, and the hydrography information”.
In view of the above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–11 and 13, which depend from claim 1, inherit the deficiency described above. As a result, claims 2–11 and 13 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “a grade to at least one of the soil mapping units”. However, claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, previously recites “a grade to at least one of the soil mapping units” in the element for “receiving a first user input”. As a result, the scope of claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 3 to reference the recitation of claim 1 or intends to introduce a second, different “grade”.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting the “method of claim 1, further comprising not assigning [[a]] the grade to at least one of the soil mapping units”.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–11 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “generating a soil aptitude map based at least in part on soil aptitude information, wherein the soil aptitude information comprises slope information and Topographic Wetness Index (TWI) information for the area”; “dividing the soil aptitude map into soil mapping units based at least in part on the soil aptitude information and soil-type information”; “receiving a first user input, the first using input comprising assigning a grade to at least one of the soil mapping units”; “collating soil aptitude information with relief information and hydrography information”; “determining a soil aptitude class for each soil mapping unit based on each assigned grade, soil aptitude information, relief information, and hydrography information”; “receiving a second user input, the second user input comprising defining a destination point and an origin point on the soil aptitude map”; “determining, based on each soil aptitude class, the origin point, and the destination point, a lowest cumulative distance cost for each portion of the soil aptitude map”; and “determining, based on each lowest cumulative distance cost, a lowest cost layout from the origin point to the destination point.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. The elements further recite certain methods of organizing human activity for fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people because the elements recite a process for determining a lowest cost infrastructure layout based on user inputs. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2–11 and 13 further describe the process for determining a lowest cost layout and further recite mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–11 and 13 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include steps for displaying a graphical representation and overlaying the graphical representation. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional display elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2 and 9 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a step for “generating a raster file” (claim 2) and a processor of a computing device (claim 9). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the additional element for “generating a raster file” does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 2 and 9 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3–8, 10–11, and 13 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the claims from which claims 3–8, 10–11, and 13 depend. As a result, claims 3–8, 10–11, and 13 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include steps for displaying a graphical representation and overlaying the graphical representation. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional display elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2 and 9 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a step for “generating a raster file” (claim 2) and a processor of a computing device (claim 9). The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the additional element for “generating a raster file” does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 2 and 9 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3–8, 10–11, and 13 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the claims from which claims 3–8, 10–11, and 13 depend. As a result, claims 3–8, 10–11, and 13 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623