DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12-15, 18-22, and 24 are currently amended.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-24 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 03/25/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are non-abstract and patent eligible for similar reasons as in Enfish in that the claims recite similar architecture that is “designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer and/or memory storage capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” but are directed to improving the commercial task of filtering contractor/project information in order to connect contractors to service providers to complete a transaction. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in better recommendations for service providers, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field. There is no improvement to the system, devices, interface, etc. While these additional elements are used, it is the type of data filtered to make recommendations and fill online forms to facilitate a transaction that is an improvement. Including device-specific filtering is not a technical improvement to the device, but merely another type of data in which to filter data. Further, there is nothing regarding the encrypted network connection and populating interactive fields that is a technological improvement. As such, the claims do not analogous to those in Enfish.
Applicant further argues that the claims are non-abstract and patent eligible for at least the same reasons as in in Core Wireless in that Applicant’s claims restrain the data displayed in a user interface and that the automated data population streamlines online processing which is similar to an improved user interface for computing devices in Core Wireless. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that Applicant’s claims recite a plurality of limitations directed towards an abstract idea. The “automated data population” limitations is not similar to CoreWireless providing an improved user interface. Here, there is no improved user interface. Additionally, “streamlined online processing” is a conclusory statement. There is nothing that goes into detail as to how “streamlined online processing” is any sort of technical improvement. While additional elements regarding populating fields, web paged user interface, field information, filtered sets, etc. are described, there is no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are merely invoked as a tool”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraphs [0003]-[0008] of Applicant’s specification which describes Applicant’s claimed invention as directed towards solving problems related to construction project management between parties.
Applicant further argues that the newly amended limitations are not things that can be performed in the human mind and thus are not ‘mental processes.” Examiner notes that not every limitation of the claim is considered to be directed toward a mental process. However, certain limitations recite an abstract idea which is considered to be a mental process. This includes the limitations regarding applying data filters to create a filtered set of information and generating a recommendation, the at least one recommendation identifying a service provider for the project and connection information regarding a system of the service provider. These limitations describe a type of evaluation and judgment. Therefore, they are considered to be a mental process and recite an abstract idea.
With respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A, Applicant argues that the claims are incorporated into a practical application for at least similar treasons to Aatrix. Applicant argues that the importing of data in Aatrix is similar to the auto populating in Applicant’s claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, there is no improvement in the importing of data/changing of the field values. Rather, the improvements are regarding connecting contractors and service providers which is not a technological improvement. Although the claims include computer technology such as a system, online processing, a communication interface, a communication network, a contractor database, a memory , a processor, online form of an interactive user interface, a system of the service provider, and a device associated with the contractor, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the Court in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRo. Unlike those precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” but are directed to improving the commercial task of filtering contractor/project information in order to connect contractors to service providers to complete a transaction. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in better recommendations for service providers, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field. There is no improvement to the system, devices, interface, etc. While these additional elements are used, it is the type of data filtered to make recommendations and fill online forms to facilitate a transaction that is an improvement. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements. While paragraph [0139] discloses learning models may be developed to improve filtering by identifying filter sets and related actions, this merely represents a conclusory statement. Applicant’s specification does not provide any detail regarding how the claimed invention is providing any improvement to the functioning of the computer/other technology (i.e., the machine learning model), thereby making the statements merely conclusory. Similarly paragraphs [0154], [0137], and [0007] recite paragraphs regarding streamlined online processing and use of encrypted network connections. However, these statements in the paragraphs are merely conclusory and provide not detail as to what he improvement is to the functioning of the encrypted network connection/online processing.
Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that are integral to the claim. Examiner notes that the previous rejection and the current rejection below has identified the additional elements and explained why as a whole, the additional elements both individually and in combination fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, Applicant argues that the additional elements amount to an inventive concept and are “integral to the claims”. Applicant argues that the claims recite significant amount of details of how various processes in the claimed solution are accomplished, for instance detailing how data filtration is performed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites conclusory statements saying information is received and then automatically applying a combination of a plurality of data filters to received contractor information. There is no information as to what “applying a combination of a plurality of data filters” actually entails. There is no information as to how the user interface is improved compared to past user interfaces. There is no information as to how the populating automatically is an improvement from previous population technologies. There are no solutions as to how any “problems” are accomplished.
For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 101 rejection.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of 10/01/2025 has been withdrawn.
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, 9-15, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-6, 9, and 20-24, is directed to the process. Additionally, the system, as claimed in claims 10-15 and 18, is directed to a machine. Finally, the computer-readable storage medium, as claimed in claim 19, is directed to a manufacture.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of matching contractors and service providers to help implement a workflow. Specifically, representative claim 10 recites the abstract idea of:
Receive contractor information form a contractor, the received contractor information regarding a plurality of contractors,
Store instructions;
Apply a priority-based combination of a plurality of filters to the received contractor information to generate a custom filtered set of information that is associated with a contractor and a project, wherein a first filter of the plurality of data filters is based on a role of the contractor on the project, and wherein the secondary filters of the plurality of data filters filter differing levels of detail in subsets of the contractor information received from the different contractor of the plurality of contractors;
Generate based on the custom filtered set of information, at least one recommendation for a service provider for the project and connection information for a service provider;
Establish, based on the connection information, a connection through which information is shared between the contractor and the service provider; and
Populate at least a subset of a plurality of fields of a form with field information, wherein the field information is based on the custom filtered set of information and based on the information shared through the connection;
Modify at least a subset of the field information corresponding to at least one of the plurality of interactive fields based on an interaction to generate modified field information; and
Initiate the transaction between the contractor and the service provider based on the modified field information in the plurality of interactive fields
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 10 is a certain method of organizing human activity because receiving information, applying a combination of a plurality of data filters to create a filtered set of information, generating at least one recommendation, establishing a connection between contractor and service provider, populating a subset of plurality of interactive fields based on filtered set information and additional information, modifying at least one of the plurality of interactive fields, and initiating the transaction is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations.
Additionally, the abstract idea identified above is also considered to be a mental process. Mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). In this case, applying data filters to create a filtered set of information and generating a recommendation, the at least one recommendation identifying a service provider for the project and connection information regarding a system of the service provider is a type of evaluation and judgment. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 10 includes additional elements such as a system, online processing, a communication interface, a communication network, a contractor database, a memory , a processor, online form of an interactive web-based user interface, a system of the service provider, and contractor devices, an encrypted network connection. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 10 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing item information) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 10 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 10 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 10 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 10 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 10 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 11-15 and 18 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 10. For example, claims 11-15 and 18 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 10.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 10: a learning model (claim 15), a link (claims 18). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 11-14 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 10. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 10.
Thus, dependent claims 11-15 and 18 are also ineligible.
Independent claims 1 and 19 recite the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 10. Independent Claim 1 does not recite additional elements supplemental those in claim 10. Independent Claim 19 recites the additional elements of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The additional elements in Independent claims 1 and 19 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 10.
Similarly, the dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 20-24 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 11-15 and 18. Therefore, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 11-15 and 18, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 20-24 are also ineligible.
Subject Matter Free From Prior Art
Claims 1, 10, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-6, 9, 11-15, 18, and 20-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free from prior art:
The prior art made of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious a method for automated data filtration and population comprising: automatically applying a priority-based combination of a plurality of data filters to received contractor information to generate a custom filtered set of information that is associated with a contractor and a project, wherein a first filter of the plurality of data filters is based on a role of the contractor on the project, and wherein secondary filters of the plurality of data filters are device-specific and filter differing levels of detail in subsets of the contractor information received from the different contractor devices of the plurality of contractor devices.
Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
One piece of pertinent prior art is Kumar (US 2020/0219163) receiving information form a contractor database, storing one or more data filters associated with the contractor, apply a combination of data filters to the contractor information to receive a set of filtered information associated with the contractor and a project that is based on contractor profile, generate recommendation, establish a connection between the device of contractor and service provider, populate interactive files, modify the files, and initiate a transaction. See at least paragraph [0012], [0020], [0031], [0018],[0059], [0069], [0076], [0093]-[0094], [0114]. Another piece of pertinent prior art is Bae (US 2018/0114154) disclosing automatically populate at least a subset of a plurality of interactive files of an online form having an interactive user interface based on the filtered set of information and based on additional information associated with the connection. See at least paragraph [0143], [0178], [0339]. Another piece of pertinent prior art is Aaron et al. (US 2006/0047634) disclosing filtering information based on consumer processing devices. See at least paragraph [0005], [0006], [0008], [0027]. Another piece of pertinent prior art is Makipaa (US 2002/0165822) disclosing an encrypted connection between devices. See at least paragraph [0028], [0033], [0035], [0042]. Another piece of pertinent prior art is NPL: "Selecting the best contractor to get performance: On time, on budget, meeting quality expectations" (Kashiwagi, D., Byfield, R., Selecting the best contractor to get performance: On time, on budget, meeting quality expectations, 2022, Journal of Facilities Management; Vol. 1, Iss. 2, pages 103-116.) disclosing use of an artificial intelligence system in order to evaluate criteria of contractors for prioritization. However, none of these pieces of prior art, nor any others expressly provide for automatically applying a priority-based combination of a plurality of data filters to received contractor information to generate a custom filtered set of information that is associated with a contractor and a project, wherein a first filter of the plurality of data filters is based on a role of the contractor on the project, and wherein secondary filters of the plurality of data filters are device-specific and filter differing levels of detail in subsets of the contractor information received from the different contractor devices of the plurality of contractor devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights