DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 9/22/2025.
Claims 1-26 have been cancelled and claims 27-45 have been added new.
Claims 27-45 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
This application claims priority of Application 17/720639 filed on 4/14/2022. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/22/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. All non-patent literature cited has not been considered by the Examiner because no copy was provided.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 103 and 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 27-45, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101. Please see the rejection below and the most recent guidelines to subject matter eligibility as Applicant completely rewrote the claims. The Examiner further notes how new guidance on subject matter eligibility would render the parent patent ineligible if filed today. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 27-45, Applicant argues that the claims are allowable over 35 USC 103 because the claim amendments overcome the current art rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated rejection below since amendments by Applicant require additional reference to the Examiner’s art rejection.
The Examiner has applied prior art based on the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 27-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 27-45 are directed toward a process and product; which are statutory categories of invention. Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a computer-implemented method for reconciling databases of inconsistently heterogeneous data, the method comprising: receiving and storing in a first database delivered materials data comprising (a) an identification of delivered material corresponding to the delivered materials data, (b) an identification of a source of the delivered material, and (c) an identification of a delivery location of the delivered material, wherein the delivered materials data is received as respective materials from respective suppliers are delivered to a respective delivery location and is formatted into a common format; associating the stored delivered materials data to respective contractor data, wherein the respective contractor data is received from a project database and formatted into the common format; applying a comparator to both the stored delivered materials associated with the respective contractor data and project specification data received from the project database, wherein the comparator verifies the delivered material complies with a material specification requirement included in the project specification data, wherein the project specification data is formatted into the common format; and upon successful verification, storing in a second database delivery confirmation data for the delivered material and the associated contractor (Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing what materials are being delivered and comparing them to what materials are expected to be delivered by different contractors and storing the results, which is a commercial interaction. The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Mental Processes because the claimed limitations are analyzing what materials are being delivered and comparing them to what materials are expected to be delivered by different contractors and storing the results, which can be done in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the above “receiving and storing in a first database delivered materials data; storing in a second database delivery confirmation data” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a computer; a first database; a second database; project database; comparator; non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
In addition, dependent claims 28-35 and 37-45 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 28-29, 31, 37, and 39 additionally recite “a construction project database; an external database; vehicle scale” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
The Examiner asserts there is no actual formatting of data recited in the claims, but rather just extra details of storing generic data (e.g. what material was delivered), which can also be performed by a human writing on a piece of paper.
The claimed “a computer; a first database; a second database; project database; comparator; non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) and at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, method; System; and Product claims 27-45 recite a computer; a first database; a second database; project database; comparator; non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0137-0140 and Figures 1-3. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “receiving and storing in a first database delivered materials data; storing in a second database delivery confirmation data” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 28-35 and 37-45 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 28-29, 31, 37, and 39 additionally recite “a construction project database; an external database; vehicle scale” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 27-45: Claims 27-45 recite “applying a comparator to both the stored delivered materials associated with the respective contractor data and project specification data received from the project database, wherein the comparator verifies the delivered material complies with a material specification requirement included in the project specification data”. The Applicant’s specification has no support for how the claimed “comparator” is actually verifying the delivered material complies with material specification requirements. The claims comparator appears to be a piece of hardware/software, where Applicant merely provides this black box for making this comparison, without providing the necessary details as to how the comparator actually performs the comparison. Therefore, the limitation is determined to not meet the written description requirements and rejected under 35 USC 112a.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 27-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being (taught) by Blackburn et al. (US 2020/0410449 A1).
Regarding Claim 27: Blackburn et al. teach a computer-implemented method for reconciling databases of inconsistently heterogeneous data, the method comprising (See Figure 1G, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, and Paragraph 0049):
receiving and storing in a first database delivered materials data comprising (a) an identification of delivered material corresponding to the delivered materials data, (b) an identification of a source of the delivered material, and (c) an identification of a delivery location of the delivered material, wherein the delivered materials data is received as respective materials from respective suppliers are delivered to a respective delivery location and is formatted into a common format (See Paragraph 0047 – “Onsite verification of processes, inspections, completions and deliveries”, Paragraph 0048 – “Automated verification of quantities, quality, and correct product deliveries”, Paragraph 0049, Paragraph 0054 – “information may be tracked and stored on an ongoing basis”, and the Examiner interprets the common format is just generic storing of data);
associating the stored delivered materials data to respective contractor data, wherein the respective contractor data is received from a project database and formatted into the common format (See Paragraphs 0047-0048, Paragraph 0049, and Paragraph 0082 – “actual materials delivered to the construction site by a supply company”);
applying a comparator to both the stored delivered materials associated with the respective contractor data and project specification data received from the project database, wherein the comparator verifies the delivered material complies with a material specification requirement included in the project specification data, wherein the project specification data is formatted into the common format (See Paragraphs 0047-0048 – “Automated verification of quantities, quality, and correct product deliveries”, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0085 – “receive a material delivery information representing that the set of materials to be used at the construction site has been physically delivered to the construction site”, and Paragraph 0139);
and upon successful verification, storing in a second database delivery confirmation data for the delivered material and the associated contractor (See Figure 1G, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Paragraphs 0047-0048, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0085, and Paragraph 0139).
Regarding Claim 28: Blackburn et al. teach the limitations of claim 27: Blackburn et al. further teach wherein the received and stored delivered materials data is stored in a construction project database configured to additionally store the common format project specification data and the common format contractor data (See Figure 1G, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Paragraphs 0047-0048, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0085, and Paragraph 0139).
Regarding Claim 29: Blackburn et al. teach the limitations of claim 27: Blackburn et al. further teach wherein the successfully verified delivery confirmation data is stored in an external database (See Figure 1G, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Paragraphs 0047-0048, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0085, and Paragraph 0139).
Regarding Claim 30: Blackburn et al. teach the limitations of claim 27: Blackburn et al. further teach wherein the delivery confirmation data comprises payment approval data (See Paragraph 0061 and Paragraph 0116).
Regarding Claim 31: Blackburn et al. teach the limitations of claim 27: Blackburn et al. further teach further comprising: receiving, from a vehicle scale, an identification of the delivered construction material and an identification of a source of the delivered construction material; and storing the identification of the delivered construction material and the identification of the source of the delivered construction material in a shared database with the stored delivered materials data (See Figure 1G, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Paragraphs 0047-0048, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0085, Paragraph 0139, and the Examiner interprets that the claimed vehicle scale is actually a general purpose computer component specifically defined by Applicant because a normal vehicle scale would be taking a weight, which is not claimed.).
Regarding Claim 32: Blackburn et al. teach the limitations of claim 27: Blackburn et al. further teach wherein the construction project data comprises a computer-aided design (CAD) model (See Figure 3E, Paragraph 0082, and Paragraph 0085).
Regarding Claim 33: Blackburn et al. teach the limitations of claim 31: Blackburn et al. further teach further comprising updating chain-of-custody information as custody of construction material in each delivery of construction material changes (See Figure 1G, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Paragraphs 0047-0048, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0085, and Paragraph 0139).
Regarding Claim 34: Blackburn et al. teach the limitations of claim 27: Blackburn et al. further teach wherein associating the stored delivered materials data to respective contractor data further comprises accessing an electronic rule base comprising project specific rules for the association (See Figure 1G, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Paragraphs 0047-0048, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0085, and Paragraph 0139).
Regarding Claim 35: Blackburn et al. teach the limitations of claim 34: Blackburn et al. further teach further comprising automatically generating rules for the rule base by: generating proximity data by accessing source locational information of the source of the delivered construction material and delivery locational information of the delivered construction material; matching an identification of the delivered construction material and corresponding project specification data in the project database; matching a name in the corresponding project specification data; and inferring, based on one or more of the generated proximity data, the matched identification, or the matched name, an association between delivery of the delivered construction material and a project in the project specification data (See Figure 1G, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Paragraphs 0047-0048, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0085, and Paragraph 0139).
Regarding Claims 36-37 and 39-44: Claims 36-37 and 39-44 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 27-35 above; therefore the same rejections apply.
Regarding Claim 38: Blackburn et al. teach the limitations of claim 36: Blackburn et al. further teach wherein the delivery confirmation data is stored in the project database (See Figure 1G, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Paragraphs 0047-0048, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0085, and Paragraph 0139).
Regarding Claim 45: Blackburn et al. teach the limitations of claim 44: Blackburn et al. further teach wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to automatically generate rules for the rule base by: generating proximity data by accessing source locational information of the source of the delivered construction material and delivery locational information of the delivered construction material; matching an identification of the delivered construction material and corresponding project specification data in the project database; matching a name in the corresponding project specification data; and inferring, based on one or more of the generated proximity data, the matched identification, or the matched name, an association between delivery of the delivered construction material and a project in the project specification data (See Figure 1G, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 10, Paragraphs 0047-0048, Paragraph 0067, Paragraph 0069, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0085, Paragraph 0087, Paragraph 0098, and Paragraph 0139).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625