DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's arguments filed on March 30, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 12. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-7, 9-20 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 12.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 3/30/26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 9 of the remarks that the 101 rejection is improper. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues on p. 10 of the remarks that the claims recite a specific improvement to the way a computer processes, structures and displays versioned required data. Examiner disagrees and notes that such elements are not an improvement but rather tools for implementing the abstract idea. Applicant makes comparisons to the claims in Enfish. Examiner notes that applicant’s claims are not equivalent to those Enfish and do not share the same technical improvement. Examiner’s filter and displaying of the filtered data is not a similar technical improvement. Applicant argues on p. 11 of the remarks that the claims do not recite an abstract idea but rather steps of searching a database of versioned requirement records, constructing chronological sequences based on timestamped records, forward-propagating status values for missing states, and concurrently rendering reconstructed histories. Examiner notes these steps are not part of the abstract idea but rather considered additional elements to the abstract idea. Applicant argues on p. 11 of the remarks that the claims address a technical problem in computerized project management systems and argues the claims are analogous to the self-referential database in Enfish. Examiner disagrees and notes applicant’s claims are an improvement to the abstract idea and applicant’s claims are using searching a database or displaying data or forwarding data at best are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and are not an improvement to a computer or a technology. These elements are tools for implementing the project management. Applicant further argues on p. 12 of the remarks that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees and notes that receiving data, searching a database for some kind of results and displaying certain results is routine, well-understood and conventional ordered combination. Therefore, the 101 rejections are maintained. Examiner notes claim 8 if incorporated with the rest of the limitations of the independent claims would be considered eligible.
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 1-7, 9-20 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (apparatus and device). Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 12 recite the abstract idea of storing requirements for a building construction or remodel project, the stored requirements including at least a first requirement stored in a first record, each requirement specifying a physical description or a value related to the construction or remodel of a building and the first record including a requirement identifier and a date-stamp of when the first record was created and receive a change to the first requirement made during an edit session and create a new second record including the changed first requirement made during the edit session, the session record including the requirement identifier and a date-stamp of when the second record was created and and store the separate second record reflecting the changed first requirement made during the edit session and receive a request to view a requirement history from the first client device or a second client device the request identifying the first requirement and determine the first and second records include a creation of the first requirement or a change to the first requirement and responsive to determining that the first and second records include the creation of the first requirement or the change to the first requirement, provide information from the first and second records to the first client device or the second client device and to show how the first requirement has changed during the building construction or remodel project and receive a request to view a point-in-time history of requirements, the request identifying at least two requirements and each record comprising a requirement identifier, a date-stamp, and status information for the related edit session. The claims are directed to a type of project management. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including commercial interactions and business relations). Applicant’s claims are organized human activity because the claims show a construction project is a commercial or business project which can be considered human activity and the tracking an managing of the progression is a type of organization of such activity. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as a database and non-transitory instructions that are configured when executed by the processor to cause the processor to at least: receive, from a first client device and cause the first and second records to be displayed, by the first client device in association with each other such that the changed first requirement is displayed as a most recent version of the first requirement and a user interface displays the first requirement as specified in the first record in association within a date the first record was created and the first requirement as specified in the second record in association within a date the second record was created and machine-accessible device having instructions stored thereon that are configured when executed to cause a machine to perform steps and wherein the information from the first and second records is displayed in the user interface concurrently in relation to the date stamps of the first and second records and receiving a request from the first client device or a second client device by performing searching over the database for a plurality of records corresponding to the identified requirements and constructing, for each identified requirement, a chronological sequence of status information ordered according to the date- stamps, wherein a most recent status is copied forward for any date-stamp at which the requirement did not change and displaying, in the user interface, the constructed chronological sequences for the identified requirements concurrently are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a database and non-transitory instructions that are configured when executed by the processor to cause the processor to at least: receive, from a first client device and cause the first and second records to be displayed, by the first client device in association with each other such that the changed first requirement is displayed as a most recent version of the first requirement and a user interface displays the first requirement as specified in the first record in association within a date the first record was created and the first requirement as specified in the second record in association within a date the second record was created and machine-accessible device having instructions stored thereon that are configured when executed to cause a machine to perform steps and wherein the information from the first and second records is displayed in the user interface concurrently in relation to the date stamps of the first and second records and receiving a request from the first client device or a second client device by performing searching over the database for a plurality of records corresponding to the identified requirements and constructing, for each identified requirement, a chronological sequence of status information ordered according to the date- stamps, wherein a most recent status is copied forward for any date-stamp at which the requirement did not change and displaying, in the user interface, the constructed chronological sequences for the identified requirements concurrently (as evidenced by para [0028]-[0036], [0046]-[0055] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 2-6, 13-17, 20 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing indicate that the change to the first requirement as provided in the second record is unverified and receive a verification message from at least one of the first client device or the second client device indicative that the first requirement as specified in the second record is verified; and change a designation of the first requirement to indicate that the first requirement has been verified by an authorized user and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to transmit an alert if the first requirement has not been verified within a predefined time period of when the second record was created and provide a date at which the first requirement was verified and a name of an authorized user who verified the first requirement and wherein the date-stamp includes a time at which the respective first or second record was created and information identifying a project area, information identifying a requirement, information indicating a requirement has been verified, and information describing the first requirement and receive a cost of the change to the first requirement made during the edit session; and store the cost in association with the second record, the cost being displayable as a cost of the changes made during the edit session and receive a first indication that the change to the first requirement made during the edit session includes a level of significant scope; and determine the cost of the change to the first requirement based on the level of significant scope and at least store the changed first requirement to the second record only after the changes have been approved by an authorized user and receive an audit request for the first requirement; display the first requirement as specified in the first record and the first requirement as specified in the second record in response to the audit request; and display a date at which the first requirement was verified and the name of the authorized user and receive from the client device a time period; determine, as a point-in-time record, the second record has a date-stamp that is within the time period; and display, in the user interface, contents of at least the second record to show which requirements have changed during the specified time period and store to the first record a requirement identifier of the first requirement and a date-stamp of when the first record was created, and store to the second record the requirement identifier of the first requirement and a date-stamp of when the second record was created. Dependent claims 6-7, 9-11, 18-19 also claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a user interface and store a first image in association with the first record and receive a second image in associate with the second record; and display at least one of the first or second images in the user interface and splay the first and second images in the user interface as progression images of the first requirement and receive a progression image corresponding to the first requirement; associate the progression image with the first requirement; store a date the progression image was created to the first record; and concurrently display the first requirement as specified in the first record, the first requirement as specified in the second record, and a link to the progression image as specified in the first record and wherein the first and second records are stored in a data structure that is related to the building construction or remodel project and wherein the instructions are distributed among data storage servers in a cloud computing network and the machine-accessible device is operated by a processing server in the cloud computing network, the processing server being remotely located from the data storage servers and store the first record as a first file and store the second record as a second file (as evidenced by para [0028]-[0036], [0046]-[0055] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gauger et al. (US 2014/0279694 A1), a method for facilitating a financing process for clean energy and other projects employing software, process automation, project management, electronic communications, a pre-screening means, a vetting means, a project to investor matching means, and a due diligence system.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 pm.
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 on 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights