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 .
Status of Claims
This is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 08/14/2025.
Claims 2 – 3, 6 – 7, and 10 – 11, have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1, 4 – 5, 8 – 9, and 12 are pending in this application.
Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Remarks
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Examiner’s Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant’s claims are directed to a method, which is a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, secondly, Applicant’s claim 1 recites the abstract idea, certain methods of organizing human activity. Particularly claim 1 recites commercial activities where the activities are business relations directed to transmitting information between a user and a computer for project management. For example claim 1 recites receiving user information; receiving project information; assign a job; evaluate a state of the job; and initiate an exchange based on the project information, the state of the job, and the user information; and, this is merely an abstract idea of business relations, even though Applicant recites generic computer components.
The claim is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a system, a processor, a memory, client device(s), and a GPS receiver are recited at a high level of generality and are merely generic computer components performing the judicial exception with generic computer functions. Particularly, a GPS receiver is recited as an additional element; but a GPS receiver is generic with computing devices, and there is no recitation of an improvement in technology in the claim 1 nor Specification with these additional elements, other than a recitation at a high level of generality of the additional elements.
The combination of the additional elements are merely linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. There is no inventive concept as we have here where a business problem is being resolved rather than having a technological improvement or inventive concept. Applicant is merely using a computer to resolve a business problem. Claim 1 as a whole is not significantly more than the recited judicial exception; and the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract idea as well and as a whole add nothing that is significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant’s claim 1 merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. Claims 5 and 9 are substantially similar and recite the same subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Applicant argues the systems and methods integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in a similar way to the claim of Example 42. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 42, claim 1, recites additional elements that provide a specific improvement over prior art systems by letting remote users share and update information dynamically in a standardized and non-standardized format. Applicant’s systems and methods using a server, client devices, and GPS receivers to determine a state of the job is not significantly more than the abstract idea, there is no inventive concept, nor do the independent claims provide a specific improvement over prior art systems; and particularly GPS receivers are ubiquitous in computing devices and electronic devices where for example a location can be shared.
Applicant argues BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility 119 USPQ2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) “BASCOM” as support for the eligibility of the pending claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. BASCOM, claim 1, is directed to an abstract idea; however there are additional elements in claim 1 of BASCOM that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. BASCOM recites specific limitations other than what are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities in the field and result in an improvement to the technology. Applicant’s instant claim 1, is not significantly more than the abstract idea. In addition, there is no specific improvement over prior art systems of project management.
Applicant argues Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “Visual Memory” and SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) “SRI Int’l” both illustrate examples of how technical improvements like Applicant’s pending claims system for project management using GPS. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim 1 is not similar to Visual Memory nor SRI Int’l. Visual Memory recites “the ‘multiple mode operation’ of the '740 patent confers a substantial advantage by ‘allow[ing] different types of processors to be installed with the [same] subject memory system without [1257] significantly compromising their individual performance.” There is no technological improvement recited as we have in Applicant’s claim 1. The additional element of a GPS receiver used in project management is not a technological improvement. GPS receivers and particularly GPS receivers are ubiquitous in computing devices and electronic devices where a location can be shared. In SRI Int’l the court determined under Alice that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, and that “the claims are directed to using a specific technique—using a plurality of network monitors that each analyze specific types of data on the network and integrating reports from the monitors—to solve a technological problem arising in computer networks: identifying hackers or potential intruders into the network.” The instant claim 1 merely collects data, assigns a job, determines a location, and transmits an exchange. However, there is no technological improvement in the instant claim 1 which is unlike SRI Int’l where the claims are directed towards a technological solution to a technological problem. Although the instant claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception, step 2B requires looking for an inventive concept in the additional elements. The additional elements in the instant claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant’s claim 1 merely uses the computer as a tool, and there is no technological improvement.
Applicant’s argues Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “Visionix” illustrates the patentability of systems that incorporate sensor data (like the location information from the GPS receivers of Applicant’s amended claims). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim 1 is not similar to Visionix. Visionix recites advantages over the prior art. Applicant recites location information from GPS receivers illustrates patentability of claim 1. However, Applicant’s claim 1 does not recite a technological improvement over prior art, as GPS receivers ubiquitous in computing devices and electronic devices where a location can be shared. Applicant’s claim 1 recites additional elements that are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
For the above reasons 35 U.S.C. § 101 remains for claims 1 – 12.
Examiner’s Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Applicant argues the rejection fails to disclose all of amended independent claims 1, 5, and 9 because Culver fails to disclose “determining a state of the job based on the location information from the first client device, wherein each client device of the plurality of client devices comprises a GPS receiver.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 5, and 9. A new search was necessitated due to the amendments to the independent claims and new art has been applied to the amended claims. Accordingly, claims 1 – 12 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. § 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, 4 – 5, 8 – 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 recites:
receive user information wherein the user information comprises location information;
receive project information wherein the project information represents a project, and wherein the project information includes information representing a plurality of jobs associated with the project information;
assign a job from the plurality of jobs to one the first client device;
determine a state of the job based on location information;
and initiate an exchange based on the project information, the state of the job, and the user information.
The limitations of claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a system, comprising: a processor, a memory, register a plurality of client device(s) wherein each client device of the plurality of client devices comprises a GPS receiver and location information from a GPS receiver of the first client device). Claim 1 particularly recites commercial interactions, where the claim recites business relations and managing interactions between people and a computer. For example, claim 1 recites observe user information wherein the user information comprises location information; observe project information wherein the project information represents a project, and wherein the project information includes information representing a plurality of jobs associated with the project information; observe assign a job from the plurality of jobs to one the first client device; evaluate determine a state of the job based on location information; and initiate an exchange based on the project information, the state of the job, and the user information, where the claim falls under the subgrouping of activity of a person that follows a set of instructions, where the activity is between a user and a computer to send and receive information pertaining to a project. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The limitations of claims 5 and 9, substantially recite the same subject matter as claim 1 and also include the abstract idea identified above. Accordingly claims 1, 5, and 9 recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas as well. For instance, claims 4, 8, and 12 are directed towards observing the state of the job comprises evaluating that the job is completed and thus encompasses the same abstract idea identified above.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a plurality of client devices, wherein each client device of the plurality of client devices comprises a GPS receiver and location information from a GPS receiver of the first client device; claim 5 recites the additional elements of a system, a client device, a GPS receiver, a server computing device, a network, a processor, and a memory; and claim 9 recites the additional elements such as a client device(s) and a GPS receiver all of which are generic computer components as per Applicant’s Specification shown below:
“[0069] Referring to FIG. 2, an example computing device200 upon which the methods described herein may be implemented is illustrated. It should be understood that the example computing device200 is only one example of a suitable computing environment upon which the methods described herein may be implemented. Optionally, the computing device200 can be a well-known computing system including, but not limited to, personal computers, servers, handheld or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, network personal computers (PCs), minicomputers, mainframe computers, embedded systems, and/or distributed computing environments including a plurality of any of the above systems or devices. Distributed computing environments enable remote computing devices, which are connected to a communication network or other data transmission medium, to perform various tasks. In the distributed computing environment, the program modules, applications, and other data may be stored on local and/or remote computer storage media.”
and thus, are not practically integrated nor significantly more.
The additional elements are generic computer components and are generally linking the computer components to a field of use and technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., processor). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a client device(s), a server computing device, a processor, a memory, a system, GPS receiver, and a network are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions and amount to no more than mere instructions using generic computer components to implement the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 4, 8, and 12, when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as ordered combination and individually add nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1, 4 – 5, 8 – 9, and 12 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4 – 5, 8 – 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Culver, Andrew et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/008,1897) hereinafter “Culver” in view of Betori, Richard Paul et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0334763).
Claims 1, 5, and 9:
A system, comprising: a processor; Culver teaches in ¶ 0044, each server in the central node may itself be another instance of the computing device comprised of the processor, the memory in the form of machine-readable storage and the I/O interface that are interconnected via connections.
and a memory operably coupled to the processor, wherein the memory has computer- executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: register a plurality of client devices; Culver teaches in ¶ 0115, a registration/authentication sub-module may be used when a member of the user community creates their user profile within the set of user profiles; Culver teaches in Fig. 1, multiple users; Fig, 2A teaches multiple client devices; Culver teaches in ¶ 0039, each of the clients may be in the form of a computing device, of which an example is provided in Fig. 2B. The computing device may be equipped with a processor, a memory and an input/output (I/O) interface. Culver teaches in claim 2, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having recorded and stored thereon instructions;
receive user information from a first client device of the plurality of client devices; Culver teaches in ¶ 0309, a set of interfaces that can be displayed by the user interface sub-module 910 to the logged-in user. As used here, the term “user interface” (or simply “interface”) generally refers to a graphical user interface that allows the user to input information to the system 10, as well as receive information from the system
receive project information from a second client device of the plurality of client devices, wherein the project information represents a project, and wherein the project information includes information representing a plurality of jobs associated with the project information; Culver teaches in ¶ 0162, output(s) from the tagging sub-module 650 may also be used by the email management sub-module 620 to alert other users and collaborate work in general. For example, assume that the system 10 is configured in such a way that the completion of a task by a first user in a project (e.g., a worker or junior employee) must be satisfactorily rated by a second user (e.g., a supervisor or senior employee) before the task may be considered complete and/or ‘signed-off’.
assign a job from the plurality of jobs to the first client device of the plurality of client devices; Culver teaches in ¶¶ 0054 – 0055, the projects module provides certain functionality typically related to managing individual projects, which may be related to building or construction projects, among others. The functionality provided by the projects module may include among others: creating and storing project-related data, such as activities, tasks, timelines and work assignments related to a particular project; ¶ 0058 processing project-related data to derive certain information related to a project as a whole, such as the overall project status; ¶ 0059 processing project-related data to derive certain information related to a particular aspect of the project, such as a list of tasks or activities that must be performed on a certain date (and/or the persons assigned for those tasks).
determine a state of the job based on the location information from the first client device;
and initiate an exchange based on the project information, the state of the job, and the user information; Culver teaches in ¶ 0467, the modules 302 and/or 304 may provide each of the five prospective candidates with information regarding the project and the ability to contact the first user to find out more information about the role (e.g., location of the development, specifications for the green roof and/or what payment can be offered for the candidate's expertise and services).
While Culver teaches location of the development, assigning, list of tasks or activities, tracking a project, and multiple devices, Culver does not explicitly teach GPS receiver. However, Patterson teaches the following:
wherein each client device of the plurality of client devices comprises a GPS receiver; Betori teaches in ¶ 0040, the mobile device includes a location receiver (such as a Global Positioning System location receiver);
wherein the user information comprises location information from a GPS receiver of the first client device; Betori teaches in ¶ 0043, the platform is enabled to track the location of the worker's mobile device (e.g., via GPS associated with the mobile device);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for enabling collaboration between individuals to design, construct and maintain a building of Culver with administrative issues monitored via dynamically generated geofences and mobile devices (mobile phones) carried by worker-users of Betori to assist businesses with monitoring workers at the jobsite (Betori Spec. ¶ 0017).
Claims 4, 8, and 12:
Culver and Betori teach claims 1, 5, and 9. Culver further teaches the following:
wherein determining the state of the job comprises determining that the job is completed; Culver teaches in ¶ 0163, a tagging submodule determining whether a task is complete to sign off on the task.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Note: these are additional references found but not used.
- Reference Scholar, David A. (U.S. Patent No. 11,157,848) discloses an interactive and collaborative, planning, designing and facilitating tool that connects users with organized information and relevant data, providers and facilitators to resolve technical issues in conceptualizing, designing and implementing a custom project..
- Reference Krause, Richard A. (U.S. Patent No. 11,321,791) discloses a computer-implemented, multi-modular, software-based construction project management system facilitates comprehensive construction project management from design to build completion stages.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on 571-272-6737. 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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
11/10/2025
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625