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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 7, 10-17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 are drawn to a method. As such, claims 1-6, 8 and 9 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the following steps:
A method of constructing a construction project, the method comprising the steps of:
collecting contract documents between a plurality of stakeholders involved in constructing the construction project, the plurality of stakeholders comprising three or more stakeholders and the contract documents defining more than one relationship between subsets of the plurality of stakeholders;
analyzing the contract documents to extract contract data, the contract data comprising: a plurality of construction steps that are required to construct the construction project; one or more responsible stakeholder for each of the plurality of construction steps; and links between adjacent construction steps;
creating a visualization of the plurality of construction steps and the links relative to the plurality of stakeholders, the visualization comprising links between a plurality of subsets of the plurality of stakeholders;
identifying a series of problems related to the construction steps based on the visualization;
identifying a plurality of problem-opportunity pairs ("POPs"), each of the POPs comprising one or more of the series of problems and a corresponding action to correct the related one or more of the series of problems, wherein the series of problems comprise deficiencies in construction steps and the corresponding actions are selected to correct the deficiencies in the construction steps;
assigning a consequence value and an implementation value to each of the POPs;
creating a plot of the POPs based on the consequence values and the implementation values; based on the plot, identifying a subset of the POPs to be implemented;
modifying the contract data associated with a subset of the POPs to satisfy the predetermined criteria, the modified contract data comprising one or more modified construction steps; and constructing the construction project based on the one or more modified construction steps.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen executing a project that has a plurality of stakeholders (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are no additional elements in the independent claims.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12,13 and 15-17, fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2, and 5 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
database (Claim 2)
a system (Claim 2)
a computer program (Claim 5)
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
2025/0022076 Furlani: Where the reference teaches: [0001] The present invention relates to a method and system for planning, managing and monitoring the phases and the financials (through automatic payments) of a construction project, more specifically a method and system for managing projects in the field of construction, following their progress over time, through the use of IoT devices, SysML, blockchain/smart contract.
2004/0059588 Burritt: Where the reference teaches modifying a project in response to a risk [problem opportunity pair].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Applicant submits that the steps above amount to more than the alleged judicial exception under step 2B of the 101 analysis.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the previous response. There are no technical elements in the independent claims and the dependent claims merely disclose a generic database and computer program, which could be software. The “links” recited in the claims are not technically based nor supported (such as in a hyperlink) and are interpreted to be a mere connection between the construction step and the respective stakeholder, therefore the entire independent claim is a mental process. The modification of the contract is interpreted as any manual process of updating a contract when a need arises for the change, which alternatively is interpreted as certain methods of human activity . Furthermore, the Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” (which Examiner does not concede as there are no apparent technical recitations) and that “courts have found 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” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). As such, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant Argues: By implementing a subset of solutions that have been identified to solve the corresponding problems, the construction project is, by definition, an improved construction project. In particular, by solving problems in the construction steps, deficiencies in the method have been eliminated.
The Applicant also notes that, as only a subset of POPs are identified to modify the contract data, the improved method of construction is also characterized by problems that are not solved. The Applicant therefore submits that the claimed method of constructing a construction project based on modifying the contract data as claimed amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Examiner maintains the previous response. The Examiner notes that this claim of significantly more than the judicial exception is not representative of an "actual" improvement to the technology itself, but at best is an improvement to the business method or abstract idea itself (which Examiner does not concede). In fact, Applicant can provide no tangible findings that there was actually anything different and/or improved in the instant system compared to prior "conventional systems", other than a mere allegation and unsubstantiated, conclusory statement that the instant invention improves existing systems and is significantly more than updating/ modifying a contract. Additionally, the Examiner respectfully notes that the features of the claimed invention (i.e. modifying the contract data ... the modified contract data comprising one or more modified construction steps) do not represent an improvement, it is merely performing operations with that could be interpreted as using the human mind as no significant technology is disclosed. IT should be noted that even the newly added limitation “creating a visualization of the plurality of construction steps” could be performed by a human drawing out the steps on paper. The Applicant cannot point to anything that was specifically done either in the claimed subject matter, the specification, or provided reasoning to show how this is significantly more or provides an improvement to the technology of the conventional system implementation. Moreover, the Examiner respectfully notes that the needed "improvement" in terms of patent eligibility is not one resulting from programming a generic processor to perform a different (or even improved) function, but rather a specific and actual improvement to the machine itself is needed. Based on these findings of fact, the Examiner contends the claims are indeed directed towards an abstract idea and Applicant's arguments to the contrary are considered to be non-persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The modified contract data is then used to improve the execution of the construction project using the one or more modified construction steps.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, constructing a construction project is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of constructing a construction project is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626