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 .
Introduction
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application with serial number 19/274,683, filed on July 21, 2025.
Claim 1 is pending.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, claims(s) 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, under step 2A, prong one, the claims recite a judicial exception: evaluating river bottom protection through an index (as evidenced by claim 1; “”an evaluation criterion system on the implementation effect of the ecological [river bottom protection engineering of the inland channel based on an ecological compliance index rating of river bottom protection engineering”), an abstract idea. Mathematical concepts are ineligible abstract ideas, including formulas, equations, or calculations. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “a comprehensive evaluation index system;” “a weight and score criterion system of each index;” “an evaluation criterion system on the implementation effect of the ecological RBPE of the inland channel;” “the comprehensive evaluation index . . . comprises two levels, wherein five categories and fourteen indexes comprised in the five categories;” “a corresponding relationship [of properties];” and “an evaluation criterion [of properties].” The steps are all steps for defining an index that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of evaluating river bottom protection through an index. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of calculating an index which includes evaluating engineering elements in a manufactured riverbed structure .
Under step 2A, prong two, of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. The claims do not recite additional elements outsides the scope of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception.
For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jarzebski, M.P.; Karthe, D.; Chapagain, S.K.; Setiawati, M.D.; Wadumestrige Dona, C.G.; Pu, J.; Fukushi, K. Comparative Analysis of Water Sustainability Indices: A Systematic Review. Water 2024, 16, 961. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16070961
A review of different quantitative indices for measuring water sustainability is disclosed.
CN 115144554 A to Kim et al. A water body indexing system is disclosed.
CN 114881468 A to Zhao. A basin ecohealth monitoring system is disclosed.
US 7040157 B2 to Glasgow et al. A water monitoring system is disclosed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 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 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights