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 .
Claims submitted by Applicant on 3/5/2026 are rejected in this Final Office Action.
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 1-4,6-8,10-15,17-18 and 20-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. Claims 1-4,6-8,10-15,17-18 and 20-24 all fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claims 12 and 20 for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 comprising:
facilitating management of construction projects;
creating prequalification forms and defining rules related to the prequalification;
establish rules related to prequalification to work on one or more construction projects to apply to prequalification information;
defining a set of one or more rules related to prequalification to work on one or more construction projects to apply to prequalification information, each rule of the set of one or more rules specifying a respective prequalification condition for one or more entities to work on the one or more construction projects;
receiving an identification of a first entity that is invited to seek prequalification to work on the one or more construction projects via a prequalification form;
causing a first client associated with the first entity to present submitting prequalification information;
receiving a completed submission of the prequalification form comprising a given set of prequalification information for the first entity;
after receiving the completed submission, evaluating the given set of prequalification information; and
in response to the evaluation of the given set of prequalification information revealing that a given criteria of a given rule of the second subset of the set of rules is not met, automatically implement the change that is associated with the given rule of the second subset of the set of rules.
wherein each rule of a first subset of the set of rules specifies one or more rules specifying a respective prequalification condition for one or more entities to work on the one or more construction projects, and wherein each rule of a second subset of the set of rules specifies (i) a respective criteria and after receiving the user input, establish the new prequalification form;
The underlined claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least 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).
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 because the claimed steps recite managing one or more construction projects in response to the evaluation of the given set of prequalification information revealing that one or more of the rules of the set of one or more rules are not met. 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.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). The claims 1, 12 and 20 include the following additional elements:
A computing system comprising :at least one processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system;
cause a first client station associated with the first entity to present a first interface for submitting prequalification information; receive, from the first client station (data); and
implement a change to a configuration of an external software tool;
provide a prequalification software tool implemented as part of a suite of software tools; cause a first client station associated with a first entity to present a first interface for creating [data]; receive, from the first client station associated with the first entity, user input [data];
(ii) a respective change to be applied to a configuration of a respective software tool of the suite of software tools if the respective criteria is not met, wherein the respective software tool is different from the prequalification software tool;
in response to the evaluation of the given set of prequalification information revealing that a given criteria of a given rule of the second subset of the set of rules is not met, automatically implement the change to the configuration of an external the respective software tool of the suite of software tools that is associated with the given rule of the second subset of the set of rules
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and comparing data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Additionally, cause a first client station associated with the first entity to present a first interface for submitting prequalification information; receive, from the first client station (data); and implement a change to a configuration of an external software tool amounts to data gathering, outputting and selecting a particular data source or type of data (update data) to be manipulated, thus does not add any meaningful limitations, and since receiving, storing and transmitting data is considered one of the most basic functions of a computer, these additional elements are deemed as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The legal precedent in Electric Power Group and Ultramercial cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis and display, and requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, are all insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Additionally, re-evaluating the insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, it is determined that they are also well-understood, routine, and conventional, as well. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Ultramercial, Versata, Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory, as well as receipt and transmission of information over a computer network, and updating an activity log are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities) and also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive”).
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 receive and output data, and update software tool with updated data to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for dependent claims, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. Furthermore dependent claims comprise the following additional elements:
a punch-list software tool, a daily- log software tool, an invoicing software tool and a commitments software tool.
These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in claims 1-4,6-8,10-15,17-18 and 20-24 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Closest Relevant Prior Art
As a whole, the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination of limitations claimed in this application for the independent claims of this application.
Prior art, BARNES (US20170161657) for construction project performance management discloses evaluating entities involved in a construction project. When the selected triggering event is included in the plurality of events, the processing unit is configured to automatically prompt a user to complete an evaluation for a second entity, receive the completed evaluation from the user, and make an aggregation of the completed evaluation available to the first entity, the second entity, and a third entity, however, does not teach nor suggest the specific claimed limitations as a whole, either alone or in combination.
Prior Art, TUGGLE (US20140278705) for hierarchical workflow management system discloses workflow management systems and methods are provided that enable users in the building trades to coordinating workflows for projects having at least three levels and graphically displaying estimated costs and actual costs for the project in real time. However, the specific claimed limitations in the allowed independent claims are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art, either alone or in combination.
Specifically, none of the prior art, sufficiently teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a method and system comprising define a set of one or more rules related to prequalification to work on one or more construction projects to apply to prequalification information, each rule of the set of one or more rules specifying a respective prequalification condition for one or more entities to work on the one or more construction projects; receive an identification of a first entity that is invited to seek prequalification to work on the one or more construction projects via a prequalification form; cause a first client station associated with the first entity to present a first interface for submitting prequalification information; receive, from the first client station, a completed submission of the prequalification form comprising a given set of prequalification information for the first entity; after receiving the completed submission, evaluate the given set of prequalification information; and implement a change to a configuration of an external software tool for managing the one or more construction projects in response to the evaluation of the given set of prequalification information revealing that one or more of the rules of the set of one or more rules are not met, in combination with other recited limitations of independent claims 1 & 12 and 20, as a whole.
The prior art teachings as recited above fail to set forth any sufficient rationale for combining or otherwise modifying any of the relevant prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, as a whole. To arrive at the claimed invention with the precise combination of claimed features would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art without relying on improper hindsight to substantially reconstruct Applicant’s claimed invention.
Response to Amendment & Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, amendments and arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant argues:
“Amended independent claims 1, 12, and 20 recite computer-implemented functionality for streamlining a prequalification process that involves provide a prequalification software tool for creating prequalification forms and defining rules related to the prequalification that is implemented as part of a suite of software tools for facilitating management of construction projects. The computer-implemented functionality also provides for automatically implementing changes to configurations of one or more software tools of the suite of software tools that are each different from the prequalification software tool. This computer-implemented functionality is an inherently technological process that is plainly not activity falling within managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people.
The specification clearly describes how the claimed technology improves over existing technology for streamlining a prequalification process. After introducing existing technology for streamlining a prequalification process, the specification proceeds to explain that the existing technology is still rudimentary and has several limitations. The specification further details this improvement by explaining that the prequalification information that is obtained via the disclosed prequalification software tool can also be leveraged by the other construction management software tools in the suite.
Advantageously, by implementing the disclosed prequalification software tool as part of a suite of construction management software tools, the prequalification information that is obtained via the disclosed prequalification software tool can also be leveraged by the other construction management software tools in the suite to help improve the other construction management tasks facilitated by these tools. In this respect, the software technology disclosed herein also includes a software engine that is configured to evaluate the prequalification information submitted by an approved subcontractor via the disclosed prequalification software tool.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s concept is merely merging two existing software tools together for convenience as “leverage” to manage construction projects and also provide clients with prequalification by an approved subcontractor. Automating two concepts together using existing computer technology is not sufficient to provide significantly more than the abstract idea nor improvement to any specific technology.
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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the previous and/or current PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)270-5066. Examiner interviews are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. For sending Interview agendas, the Examiner’s direct fax number is (571) 270-6066. For filing Authorization for Internet Communication, please see https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf. The Examiner's Part-Time work schedule and general availability is typically 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Lynda Jasmin, can be reached at (571) 272-6782.
/Laura Yesildag/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629