Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/355,572

HARMONIZING DATA

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Jun 23, 2021
Examiner
SINGLETARY, TYRONE E
Art Unit
3625
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Infrakit Group Oy
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
30%
Grant Probability
At Risk
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

30%
Career Allow Rate
56 granted / 186 resolved
Without
With
+47.6%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
34 pending
220
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
42.9%
+2.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§102
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
§112
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/10/2025 has been entered. Status of the Claims Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 18-23 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 1, 14, 20 and 22 are amended. Claims 8-9 and 17 are cancelled. Claim 23 is new. Response to Claim Amendments Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019). Examiner has further made note of the amendments that overcome the previous 112b rejection and the amendments to incorporate the previously noted claim language that was deemed distinguishable over the prior art in the Office Action dated 04/11/2025. Said claim language has been incorporated into the independent claims, thus overcoming the 103 rejection. Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments further are in rebuttal to the Advisory Action issued on 07/10/2025. In light of said arguments/amendments, Examiner will provide further clarification. An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology. MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a) provide a detailed explanation of how to perform this analysis. In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. In analyzing the specification, Examiner maintains that the specification sets forth an improvement, but in a conclusory manner and furthermore the claims do not reflect the disclosed improvement or effectively demonstrate an improvement to existing technology. In addition, (ref: Oct 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). Also, as previously stated, the claim still recites the abstract idea of Mental Processes. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed invention, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Furthermore, the additional elements provided in the claim do not help integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The computing elements listed in the claim are generic in nature and functionality and further are just being used to carry out the abstract idea without providing significantly more. 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. Regarding Claims 1-7, 10-13 and 21-23, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-7, 10-13 and 21-23 are directed to the abstract idea of harmonizing data and transmitting harmonized data. Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites receive data from at least a first data source and a second data source, the first data source comprising a data source and the second data source comprising a data source, wherein data received from at least the first data source and the second data source comprises at least: position data of the respective data source, a task of the respective data source in progress, and as built points connected to the task, wherein position data of the respective data source comprises one of: absolute or relative position of the data source in the geographical area in which the infrastructure construction project is carried out and wherein, the first data source and the second data source being uninteroperable with each other; harmonize the received data, wherein harmonizing the received data comprises processing and combining data received from at least the first data source and the second data source and transforming the received data into a predefined format to be transmittable in a centralized manner as harmonized data to a plurality of user devices concurrently, wherein the data transmittable as harmonized data comprises up-to-date information of the infrastructure construction operations of at least the first data source and the second data source comprising at least the as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source in progress with position data of the respective data source comprising completion of the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source: update the information model comprising the geographical area in which the infrastructure construction project is carried out in response to receiving data from at least one of the first data source and the second data source, wherein updating the information model by the data received from the at least one of the first data source and the second data source comprises updating the information model by the as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source, wherein the as- built points connected to the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source comprise completion of the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source, and wherein the updated information model is available for a plurality of users at the same time determine, based on an indication of data to be transmitted, harmonized data to be transmitted, the indication of the data to be transmitted being accompanied by identification information comprising at least a first user authentication data, indication of a format of the harmonized data to be transmitted, and information of a type of user device; and transmit, after a successful verification of at least the first user authentication data, at least the harmonized data to be transmitted, wherein the format of the harmonized data to be transmitted is selected based on the indication of the format of the harmonized data to be transmitted and on the information of the type of user device, and wherein the harmonized data to be transmitted comprises up-to-date information of the infrastructure construction operations of at least the first data source and the second data source comprising at least as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source with position data of the respective data source comprising completion of the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source for managing workflow relating to the infrastructure construction work site. These claim limitations individually and as a whole, fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can performed in the human mind (including an observation and/or evaluation) and/or with pen/paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-7, 10-13 and 21-23 further recite the abstract idea. Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of at least one processor, at least one memory, a first work machine, a second work machine, a plurality of user devices and a user device. The at least one processor, at least one memory, a first work machine, a second work machine, a plurality of user devices and a user device are merely generic computing devices. With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1, 4, 12 and 21 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include at least one processor, at least one memory, a first work machine, a second work machine, a plurality of user devices, a user device, a first adapter, a second adapter and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Pg 4 line 33 - Pg 5 line 27. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, the claims recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)...at least, 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). Therefore, Claims 1, 4, 12 and 21 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Regarding Claims 14-16 and 18-19, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 14- 16 and 18-19 are directed to the abstract idea of harmonizing data and transmitting harmonized data. Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 14, claim 14 recites receiving data from at least a first data source and a second data source, the first data source comprising a data source relating to or comprising a first work machine and the second data source comprising a data source relating to or comprising a second work machine, wherein data received from at least the first data source and the second data source comprises at least: position data of the respective data source, a task of the respective data source in progress, and as-built points connected to the task, wherein position data of the respective data source comprises one of: absolute or relative position of the respective data source in a geographical area in which an infrastructure construction project is carried out, wherein the as-built points connected to the task comprise completion of the task of the respective data source according to the position data of the respective data source, harmonizing the received data, wherein harmonizing the received data comprises processing and combining data received from at least the first data source and the second data source and transforming the received data into a predefined format to be transmittable in a centralized manner as harmonized data to a plurality of user devices concurrently, wherein the data transmittable as harmonized data comprises up-to-date information of the infrastructure construction operations of at least the first data source and the second data source comprising at least the as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source in progress with position data of the respective data source comprising completion of the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source; updating an information model in response to receiving data from at least one of the first data source and the second data source, the information model relating to the infrastructure construction work site and the information model comprising a representation of the infrastructure construction work site comprising the geographical area in which the infrastructure construction project is carried out, wherein updating the information model by the data received from the at least one of the first data source and the second data source comprises updating the information model by the as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source, wherein the as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source comprise completion of the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source, and wherein the updated information model is available for a plurality of users at the same time; determining, based on an indication of data to be transmitted, harmonized data to be transmitted, the indication of the data to be transmitted being accompanied by identification information comprising at least a first user authentication data, indication of a format of the harmonized data to be transmitted, and information of a type of user device; and transmitting after a successful verification of at least the first user authentication data, at least the harmonized data to be transmitted, wherein the format of the harmonized data to be transmitted is selected based on the indication of the format of the harmonized data to be transmitted and on the information of the type of user device, and wherein the harmonized data to be transmitted comprises up-to-date information of the infrastructure construction operations of at least the first data source and the second data source comprising at least as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source with position data of the respective data source comprising completion of the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source for managing workflow relating to the infrastructure construction work site. These claim limitations individually and as a whole, fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can performed in the human mind (including an observation and/or evaluation) and/or with pen/paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 15-16 and 18-19 further recite the abstract idea. Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a first work machine, a second work machine, a plurality of user devices and a user device. The first work machine, second work machine, plurality of user devices and a user device are merely generic computing devices. With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 14 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a first work machine, a second work machine, a plurality of user devices, a user device and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Pg 4 line 33 - Pg 5 line 27. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, the claims recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed ina merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)...at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, @.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, Claim 14 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Regarding Claim 20, it is directed to a computer readable medium, however the claim is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 20 is directed to the abstract idea of harmonizing data and transmitting harmonized data. Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 20, claim 20 recites receiving data from at least a first data source and a second data source, the first data source comprising a data source relating to or comprising a first work machine and the second data source comprising a data source relating to or comprising a second work machine, wherein data received from at least the first data source and the second data source comprises at least: position data of the respective data source, a task of the respective data source in progress, and as-built points connected to the task, wherein position data of the respective data source comprises one of: absolute or relative position of the respective data source in a geographical area in which an infrastructure construction project is carried out, wherein the as-built points connected to the task comprise completion of the task of the respective data source according to the position data of the respective data source, harmonizing the received data, wherein harmonizing the received data comprises processing and combining data received from at least the first data source and the second data source and transforming the received data into a predefined format to be transmittable in a centralized manner as harmonized data, wherein the data transmittable as harmonized data comprises up-to-date information of the infrastructure construction operations of at least the first data source and the second data source comprising at least the as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source in progress with position data of the respective data source comprising completion of the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source; updating an information model in response to receiving data from at least one of the first data source and the second data source, the information model relating to the infrastructure construction work site and the information model comprising a representation of the infrastructure construction work site comprising the geographical area in which the infrastructure construction project is carried out, wherein updating the information model by the data received from the at least one of the first data source and the second data source comprises updating the information model by the as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source, wherein the as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source comprising completion of the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source, and wherein the updated information model is available for a plurality of users at the same time; determining, based on an indication of data to be transmitted, harmonized data to be transmitted, the indication of the data to be transmitted being accompanied by identification information comprising at least a first user authentication data, indication of a format of the harmonized data to be transmitted, and information of a type of user device; and transmitting after a successful verification of at least the first user authentication data, at least the harmonized data to be transmitted, wherein the format of the harmonized data to be transmitted is selected based on the indication of the format of the harmonized data to be transmitted and on the information of the type of user device, and wherein the harmonized data to be transmitted comprises up-to-date information of the infrastructure construction operations of at least the first data source and the second data source comprising at least as-built points connected to the task of the respective data source with position data of the respective data source comprising completion of the task of the respective data source in progress according to the position data of the respective data source for managing workflow relating to the infrastructure construction work site. These claim limitations individually and as a whole, fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can performed in the human mind (including an observation and/or evaluation) and/or with pen/paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a first work machine, a second work machine, a plurality of user devices and a user device. The first work machine, second work machine, plurality of user devices and a user device are merely generic computing devices. With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 20 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a first work machine, a second work machine, a plurality of user devices, a user device and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Pg 4 line 33 - Pg 5 line 27. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, the claims recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed ina merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)...at least, 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). Therefore, Claim 20 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30. 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. /T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 23, 2021
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Apr 18, 2023
Response Filed
Jul 06, 2023
Final Rejection — §101
Sep 14, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 22, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 22, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 13, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 24, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 05, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Mar 13, 2024
Response Filed
May 29, 2024
Final Rejection — §101
Jul 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 26, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 28, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Dec 06, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 06, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 20, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
Jun 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12597080
DRILLING ACTIVITY RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12561623
IDENTIFYING ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SUSTAINABILITY ACTION PLANS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12488303
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF OPTIMIZING PACK SIZE AND CUSTOMER-FACING QUANTITY OF RETAIL PRODUCTS AT RETAIL FACILITIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12236382
SYSTEM AND GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR PROVIDING STORE-LEVEL DIAGNOSTICS AND REMEDIATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 25, 2025
Patent 12159254
APPARATUS FOR THE SEMANTIC-BASED OPTIMIZATION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES WITH EXPLAINABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 03, 2024

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
30%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+47.6%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 186 resolved cases by this examiner