DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, in this case the exception is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.03).
Step 2A – Prong One:
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 17,
The recited claim limitations can be performed through pen and paper to set a prime configuration as a predefined set of data fields for the construction data objects in a construction project.
Alternatively, the limitations also recite a certain method of organizing human activity by managing personal relationships and interactions between people. This abstract idea is usually performed by a project manager who oversees construction projects including collaboration across multiple stakeholders involved in a construction management project. Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, this abstract idea is recited where the claim limitations recite creating the data objects, receive an extension to the prime configuration for the at least one type of data object, wherein the extension to the prime configuration defines one or more customizations that are to be included in instances of the at least one type of data object that are accessed by users associated with the second user account but that are not to be included in instances of the at least one type of data object that are accessed by users associated with the first user account;
associate the extension to the prime configuration with the second user account but not with the first user account determine that the second end-user device is associated with the second user account; based on (i) the extension to the prime configuration being associated with the second user account and (ii) the determination that the second end-user device is associated with the second user account, cause a first instance of a given data object of the at least one type of data object to be displayed via the second end-user device in accordance with (i) the prime configuration and (ii) the extension to the prime configuration, such that the first instance of the given data object includes the one or more customizations defined by the extension to the prime configuration; determine that the first end-user device is associated with the first user account; and based on (i) the extension to the prime configuration not being associated with the first user account and (ii) the determination that the first end-user device is associated with the first user account, cause a second instance of the given data object to be displayed via the first end-user device in accordance with the prime configuration but not the extension to the prime configuration, such that the second instance of the given data object does not include the one or more customizations defined by the extension to the prime configuration.
The claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II). But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people for collaboration in construction projects. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The scope of the independent claim limitations incorporate the following additional elements:
a network interface; a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; program instructions; data objects [data structure or data record]; and end-user devices
These additional elements listed above, whether viewed individually or as a combination of these elements, amount to nothing more than simply state the abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’, MPEP 2106.05(f). The system elements, such as a processor and user devices to implement the abstract idea amount to mere instructions to apply it using generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Further additional elements recite generally implemented computer processes like receiving and displaying data objects. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would view the utilization of a prime configuration is recited at a high level of generality amount to nothing more than instructions to apply the abstract idea without any improvement to technology, technical field, or to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements, whether evaluated individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the combination of additional elements is evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea of developing a prime configuration to manage the data elements in a construction project. The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component to perform generic computer functions. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims,
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 18 further recite the additional element of a prime configuration comprising of a predefined set of data fields, with predefined values for the respective data fields, for at least one type of data object. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the inclusion of predefined data fields does not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 19 further recite the additional element of a prime configuration comprising of a predefined set of location entities within a construction project, with respective names for the location entities. Additionally, the extension of the prime configuration will comprise of sublocations. These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the incorporation of location entities into the prime configuration and the extension of the prime configuration do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 further recite the additional elements of a workflow and of a prime configuration comprising of a predefined set of steps to complete a workflow. Additionally, the extension of the prime configuration will comprise of at least one step to complete the workflow. These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the incorporation of workflow into the prime configuration and the extension of the prime configuration do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 8, 16 and 20 further recite the additional elements to receive a second extension of the prime configuration from a third user and then display the information on the first, second and third user device. These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because receiving prime configuration information and displaying the information on user devices do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Amendment & Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment has been considered however they are unpersuasive.
Regarding 101, Applicant’s argument that amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite technological improvements to a construction management software application that involve functionality for improving data compatibility among parties collaborating on a construction project is unpersuasive. Improvement to an abstract idea is not the same as improvement to technology. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people for collaboration in construction projects. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights