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
This is a non-final rejection.
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 03/17/2023 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Continuation
This application is a continuation of U.S. application 16/216,607 (filed 12/11/2018, now U.S. Patent No. 11,625,658). See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending double patenting will be maintained.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 103, will be maintained. The 103 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument received on date 10/14/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Response to Argument under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (pages 1-4) of the remark:
The Reasons for Allowance in the Notice of Allowability mailed on November 22, 2022 in the parent case (16/216,607) stated that "the present claims are integrated into a practical application due to the combination as the claims are now directed to a solution rooted in technology.
Applicant(s) respectfully submit(s) that the elements recited in claim 1 presents a "technology-based solution" or improvement in computer technology that provides synchronous communications to automatically procure, schedule, coordinate, and deliver materials to construction projects. … Claim 27 recites similar elements. Moreover, applicants respectfully submits that these elements impose meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea and are not insignificant extra-solution activity. As a result, applicant(s) respectfully submit(s) that claims I and 27, as a whole, integrate any alleged method of organizing human activity into a practical application, and are, therefore, eligible because they are not directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea). (Step 2A - Prong Two: YES).
In the event the claims are determined to be "directed to" a judicial exception, applicant(s) respectfully submit(s) that claims I and 27 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
First, applicant(s) respectfully submit(s) that the customized electronic interactive contractor calendars and customized electronic interactive supplier calendars are not generic computer components.
Applicant(s) respectfully submit(s) that the foregoing elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than a judicial exception because the components are not configured to perform well-understood, routine or conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, when taken as a whole, the claimed invention has limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Under this reasoning, claims I and 27 recite patent eligible subject matter (Step 2B: YES).
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Applicant's Specification titled "METHOD FOR SYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION TO PROCURE, SCHEDULE, COORDINATE AND DELIVER MATERIALS TO A PLURALITY OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AUTOMATICALLY USING A CALENDAR MODEL" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for linking clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data" ([0002] of the specification).
As the bolded claim limitations demonstrate, independent claim1 recites the abstract idea of systems for linking clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited provide a business offer of systems for linking clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite systems for linking clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
With regard to applicant argument toward U.S. Patent Application No. 16/216,607. First, examiner point out that with the new updated guidance and the office examples which are directed to the different features. The instant application is not integrated to a practical application and it’s a case by case basis to determine if the application is integrated to a practical application. Also, in applicant specification input different data to different electronic profiles. The claims recites the additional limitation a system, a database, devices, and an electronic calendar are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The use of generic computer component does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, and 27 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1 and 27 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include “a system, a database, devices, and an electronic calendar.
Examiner asserts that a system, a database, devices, and an electronic calendar are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, figure 1, of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The computing elements with a computing device is recited at high level of generality (e.g. a generic device performing a generic computer function of processing data). Thus, this step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer. In addition, using a processor to process data has been well-understood routing, conventional activity in the industry for many years.
Generic computer features, such as system or storage, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation for the invention using elements of a general-purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F .3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1791 (Federal Circuit 2015).
Response to Argument under 35 USC 103:
Applicant argues (pages 5-6) of the remark:
As a result, applicant(s) respectfully submit(s) that Livesay does not disclose, teach or suggest "automatically causing procurement, scheduling, coordination and delivery of the construction materials on the delivery date by inputting a construction material data into the construction project profile, inputting the matched supplier profiles into an electronic interactive contractor calendar of the contractor client device of each contractor profile linked to the construction project profile and an electronic interactive supplier calendar of the supplier client device of each matched supplier profile" as recited in claim 1. Claim 27 recites similar elements. Applicant(s) respectfully submit(s) that Karabin and Nagar do not cure this deficiency of Livesay for the reasons stated below.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Referring back to applicant specification with regard to “automatically causing procurement, schedule, coordination and delivery …. profile”, in [0038]. Livesay Figs. 17-18 [0185], “display calendars depicting the dates when specific requests were submitted, when a request expires and other time sensitive information. Fig. 17A provides an example output of the calendaring function for wells by start date. Similarly, Fig. 17B provides an example of the calendaring function as applied to proposal requests by due date. Those skilled in the art appreciate that the IBE and the present invention may be configured as desired, to calendar any event, due dates or other information”. Livesay [0186], “sellers are suitably notified of such changes so that they may resubmit and/or revise proposals as necessary. Finally, as showing in FIG. 18, sellers are suitably notified by the IBE of outstanding request, request to which they have expressed an interest, and entering into contracts”)
Applicant argues (pages 5-6) of the remark:
As a result, even if one were to combine elements of Livesay, Karabin and Nagar together, which applicant(s) do(es) not concede, the combination does not disclose "inputting the matched supplier profiles into an electronic interactive contractor calendar of the contractor client device of each contractor profile linked to the construction project profile and an electronic interactive supplier calendar of the supplier client device of each matched supplier profile, and inputting the matched supplier profiles with calculated times on the delivery date for the construction materials into the electronic interactive contractor calendar of the contractor client device of each contractor profile linked to the construction project profile and the electronic interactive supplier calendar of the supplier client device of each matched supplier profile, wherein the electronic interactive contractor calendar is customized for each contractor, and the electronic interactive supplier calendar is customized for each supplier" because none of the cited references disclose, teach or suggest these elements.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Karabin teaches inputting the matched supplier profiles into an electronic [[interactive]] contractor calendar of the contractor client device of each contractor profile linked to the construction project profile and an electronic [[interactive]] supplier calendar of the supplier client device of each matched supplier profile, and inputting the matched supplier profiles with calculated times on the delivery date for the construction materials into the electronic interactive contractor calendar of the contractor client device of each contractor profile linked to the construction project profile and the electronic [[interactive]] supplier calendar of the supplier client device of each matched supplier profile, wherein the electronic [[interactive]] contractor calendar is customized for each contractor, and the electronic [[interactive]] supplier calendar is customized for each supplier (Karabin [0071], “project management system for capturing data pertaining to locations targeted in a construction project”. Karabin [0139], “system 10 generally includes one or more user devices 12 coupled to computing system 14 via communications network 16, such as the internet, and/or any other suitable network”.. Karabin [0145-0147], “project participants module 62 includes the functions of receiving and managing details of the project stakeholders, such as contractors, sub-contractors, project team, vendors, trades, and clients …. project calendar module 66 manages project milestone dates, and allows user to identify major project milestone …. Calculate the schedule dates based on input of task data”. Karabin [0159], “access all stakeholders, such as employee, contractors, sub-contractors, vendors, suppliers, trades, companies, clients, and other with the system ….. review changes or variances made to project scope or schedules” Further in [0159] & [0208], “suppliers ….. calendar, tasks, workflow, places, and sub-places”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Livesay to include the feature of synchronizes calendars, as taught by Karabin, in order to allow the system to simultaneously inputting the matched supplier profile on the delivery date for the construction materials into an electronic calendar of the contractor client device and an electronic calendar of supplier client device of each matched supplier profile (Karabin [139] & [0159]). Also, it will improve the communication between different users with regard to a project(s).
Livesay in view of Karabin specifically fails to disclose interactive calendar
However, Nagar teaches the following limitation:
inputting the matched supplier profiles into an electronic interactive contractor calendar of the contractor client device of each contractor profile linked to the construction project profile and an electronic interactive supplier calendar of the supplier client device of each matched supplier profile, and inputting the matched supplier profiles with calculated times on the delivery date for the construction materials into the electronic interactive contractor calendar of the contractor client device of each contractor profile linked to the construction project profile and the electronic interactive supplier calendar of the supplier client device of each matched supplier profile, wherein the electronic interactive contractor calendar is customized for each contractor, and the electronic interactive supplier calendar is customized for each supplier (Nagar Col. 10 lines 17-20, ability to allocate work effect to resources through a calendar-based scheduling system”. Nagar Col. 45, an interactive calendar with time units for unlimited owners …. Allowing the interactive calendar time unit slots”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Livesay to include the feature of data structure and calendar, as taught by Nagar, in order to allow the database to contain a data structure and an interactive calendar for different user (Nagar Fig. 6 Col. 10 and Col. 45). Also, it will improve the communication between different users by using an interactive calendar.
Applicant argues (page 6) of the remark:
applicant(s) respectfully submit(s) that Nagar does not disclose, teach or suggest "simultaneously inputting the matched supplier profile on the delivery date for the construction materials into an electronic interactive contractor calendar of the contractor client device and an electronic interactive supplier calendar of the supplier client device of each matched supplier profile, wherein the electronic interactive contractor calendar is customized for each contractor, and electronic interactive supplier calendar is customized for each supplier" as recited in claims I and 27.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-26 are directed to a system (machine) and claims 27-28 are directed to a method (process). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-28 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claim 27 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1 , thus are abstract for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A system comprising:
a database containing a data structure comprising a plurality of supplier profiles, contractor profiles and construction project profiles, wherein each construction project profile is linked to one or more of the contractor profiles and supplier profiles; a processor connected to the database;
one or more supplier client devices;
one or more contractor client devices; and
wherein the processor:
compares a construction project site location geocode within the construction project profile to a supplier location geocode of each supplier profile linked to the construction project profile;
generates a geographic list of supplier profiles within a predefined serviceable distance to the construction site location geocode;
generates a chronological list of supplier profiles from the geographic list of supplier profiles that have availability on a delivery date required for construction materials in the construction project profile;
matches one or more of the supplier profiles from the chronological list of supplier profiles to one or more of the contractor profiles linked to the construction project profile; and
automatically causing procurement, scheduling, coordination and delivery of the construction materials on the delivery date by inputting a construction material data into the construction project profile, inputting the matched supplier profiles into an electronic interactive contractor calendar of the contractor client device of each contractor profile linked to the construction project profile and an electronic interactive supplier calendar of the supplier client device of each matched supplier profile, and inputting the matched supplier profile on the delivery date for the construction materials into the electronic interactive contractor calendar of the contractor client device of each contractor profile linked to the construction project profile and the electronic interactive supplier calendar of the supplier client device of each matched supplier profile, wherein the electronic interactive contractor calendar is customized for each contractor, and the electronic interactive supplier calendar is customized for each supplier.
The Applicant's Specification titled "METHOD FOR SYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION TO PROCURE, SCHEDULE, COORDINATE AND DELIVER MATERIALS TO A PLURALITY OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AUTOMATICALLY USING A CALENDAR MODEL" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for linking clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data" ([0002] of the specification).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claim1 recites the abstract idea of systems for linking clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer of systems for linking clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite systems for linking clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-26, and 28 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 a supplier information, a supplier name, a construction project to be quoted, a construction project scheduled, a construction project in progress, a history of construction projects, a plurality of supplier material designs, a supplier location geocode, and a supplier client device contact phone number.
claim 3 wherein the electronic interactive supplier calendar contains a construction project to be quoted, a construction project scheduled, a construction project in progress, and a history of construction projects.
claim 4 automatically generates and populates a supplier executive dashboard using the supplier profiles and the contractor profiles, and transmits the supplier executive dashboard to at least one of the supplier client devices.
claim 5 a contractor information including contractor name, a construction projects to be quoted from a supplier, a construction projects scheduled, a construction projects in progress, a history of construction projects, and a contractor client device contact number.
Claim 6 wherein the electronic interactive contractor calendar contains a construction project to be quoted, a construction project scheduled, a construction project in progress, and a history of construction projects.
claim 7 automatically generates and populates a contractor executive dashboard using the supplier profiles and the contractor profiles, and transmits the contractor executive dashboard to at least one of the contractor client devices.
claim 8 generates on the contractor executive dashboard a hold indicator activated by a user when the construction project is on hold, a resume indicator activated by the user when the construction project that was on hold is resumed, a complete indicator activated by the user when the construction project is complete, and a rating indicator that presents feedback from suppliers and contractors indicating satisfaction with product, timeliness of services, and errors in product and service.
claim 9 (Similarly Claim 28) the data structure further comprises a plurality of consultant profiles, wherein each construction project profile is linked to one or more of the consultant profiles;
one or more consultant client devices; and
automatically transmitting the matched supplier profiles to the consultant client device of each consultant profile linked to the construction project profile, and
simultaneously inputting the matched supplier profile on the delivery date for the construction materials into an electronic interactive consultant calendar of the consultant client device, wherein the electronic interactive consultant calendar is customized for each consultant.
claim 10 a consultant information, a consultant name, a construction projects scheduled, a construction projects in progress, a history of construction projects, and a consultant client device contact phone number.
claim 11 wherein the electronic interactive consultant calendar contains a construction projects scheduled, a construction projects in progress, and a history of construction projects.
claim 12 generates and populates a consultant executive dashboard using the suppliers profiles and the contractors profiles, and transmits the consultant executive dashboard to one or more of the consultant client devices.
claim 13 verifies the information stored in each supplier profile, contractor profile, and consultant profile; and
inserts an account approval in each supplier profile, contractor profile, and consultant profile that is verified.
claim 14 a construction project information, a construction material design specifications, and a construction project site location geocode.
claim 15 at least three of:
constituents of aggregate, sizes of aggregate, temperature of aggregate, type of aggregate, weight of aggregate, pour rate of aggregate, a batch rate for each type of aggregate, a cement ratio, a water ratio, a strength rating in psi, a cure rate, and a flex modulus.
claim 16 a project name, an editable type of pour, an editable pour rate, an editable pour quantity, an editable pour date, an editable pour start time, digital images, analog images, digital data files, processed digital data files on construction projects, ad mixtures, pounds per square inch (PSI) and project specific notes.
claim 17 wherein the processor further inputs a supplier mix design into each construction project profile, wherein each supplier mix design comprises: calcium, silica, pigment, concrete retarder, plasticizer, fly ash, carbon fibers, and additive for increased air entrainment.
claim 18 generates and transmits a construction project executive dashboard and provide a link enabling a user to reject or approve a supplier construction materials mix design.
claim 19 wherein the processor compares the construction project site location geocode within the construction project profile to the supplier location geocode of each supplier profile linked to the construction project profile using a predefined serviceable distance for each supplier to the construction project site location geocode.
claim 20 calculates a time required for each step of the construction materials pouring process; and updates the electronic interactive supplier calendar and the electronic interactive contractor calendar with the calculated time(s).
claim 21 inputs a contractor pour rating for each contractor into the respective contractor profile; and compares the pour ratings of each contractor profile and forms a list of contractor profiles from highest to lowest pour rating; and transmits the list of contractor profiles from highest to lowest pour rating to at least one of: the consultant profiles, the contractor profiles, and the construction projects.
claim 22 inputs a supplier pour rating for each supplier into the respective supplier profile;
compares the pour ratings of each supplier profile and forms a list of supplier profiles from highest to lowest pour rating; and
transmits the list of supplier profiles from highest to lowest pour rating to at least one of: the consultant profiles, the contractor profiles, and the construction projects.
claim 23 wherein the processor further automatically generates and transmits a visual interactive map with locatable pin using the construction project location geocode to identify a construction project location.
claim 24 wherein the processor further stores a plurality of prewritten messages, and selectively transmits one or more of the stored prewritten messages to the supplier profiles and contractor profiles simultaneously associated with the construction project when at least one of a date changes a pour quantity changes, material status changes, and pour rate changes.
claim 25 transmits one or more notifications to the supplier profiles and the contractor profiles associated with the construction project when any modifications are made to the construction project.
claim 26 administrative information, construction projects scheduled, construction projects in progress, a history of construction projects, an administrative client device contact phone number, reports, controls, and profile administration.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1 and 27.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-28 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1 and 27 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1 A system comprising:
a database containing a data structure, devices, an electronic calendar
Claim 27 a database containing a data structure, devices, an electronic calendar
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, and 27 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a system, a database, devices, and an electronic calendar. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claim 1 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps of linking clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention link clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-26, and 28 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 27 respectively, claim 23 recite a visual interactive map but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 17, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-28 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1 and 27, include a system, a database, devices, and an electronic calendar. Further, claim 23 recite a visual interactive map. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to linking clients, suppliers, contractors and causing procurement, scheduling coordination and delivery of the construction materials based on different received data.
Claims 1-28 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of Application No. 16/216,607 (filed , now U.S. Patent No. 11625658). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in each application recite substantially similar limitations directed to a process for scheduling a patient appointment.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 in the referenced patent and claim 1 recited substantially similar limitation. however, claim 2 in the referenced patent is more narrow. The breadth of claim 1 of the instant application would read on the more narrow claim 1 of the referenced patent.
Thus claim 1 in the instant application is an obvious variant of claim 1 in the reference application.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 18-19, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livesay et al. US 2008/0126265 (hereinafter Livesay) in view of Karabin US 2017/0091685 (hereinafter Karabin). Further, in view of Nagar et al. US 8,738,414 (hereinafter Nagar).
Regarding Claim 1:
A system comprising:
a database containing a data [[structure]] (Livesay [0138], “the profiles may be centrally generated and/or remotely generated. Profiles may also be packetized and distributed across the internet”.) comprising a plurality of supplier profiles, contractor profiles and construction project profiles, wherein each construction project profile is linked (Livesay [0141], “profile link feature”. Livesay [0163], “system enables the user to add or delete team members by selecting specific person from a drop down menu and designating a role for the person) to one or more of the contractor profiles and supplier profiles; a processor connected to the database; (Livesay Figs. 3-4 and 6-7 [0018-0020], “associated buyer (i.e., contractor) profile information with identifications of seller ….. factor such as the location of the buyer … “profile link”- which is herein defined to include any process or system for providing profile information for a seller or a buyer to another buyer or seller … utilize database of sellers (i.e., suppliers) within which profiles have established …. Based upon profiles established for buyers, profiles established for seller, and the current on-line activities of a buyer”. Also, see Livesay [0073])
one or more supplier client devices; one or more contractor client devices; (Livesay [0017], [0126], [0131-0132]) and
wherein the processor: compares a construction project site location geocode within the construction project profile to a supplier location geocode of each supplier profile linked to the construction project profile; (Livesay Fig. 14A-14G [0014], “upon identification of specifications for a project (see [0015], project parameters “geographical parameters (e.g., located in Colorado”) by a buyer, generates a request for either goods or services needed to fulfill the project and provides the request to those seller designated by the buyer and/or those sellers that can provide the requested good and/or services. Livesay [0074], “allowing a buyer to identify a project in terms of project parameters … match buyer with sellers”.)
generates a geographic list of supplier profiles within a predefined serviceable distance to the construction site location geocode; (Livesay [0015], “geographical parameters (e.g. located in Colorado). The geographical parameter, or any other parameters may be appropriate for completion of the project”)
generates a chronological list of supplier profiles from the