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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
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 1-2, 8, 11-13, 20-33 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 1-2, 8, 11-13, 20-33 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 using the set of rules; and
based on the evaluation of the given set of prequalification information using the set of rules, (i) dynamically reconfigure and change the operational behavior when used by one or both of the first entity or the second entity to facilitate management of the one of more construction projects.
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];
(i) a respective reconfiguration condition that if not met, causes a dynamic reconfiguration of a respective software tool of the suite of software tools, wherein the respective software tool is different from the prequalification software tool;
dynamically reconfigure one or more software tools of the suite of software tools and thereby change the operational behavior of the one or more software tools, wherein each of the one or more software tools is different from the prequalification software tool.
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.
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).
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 1-2, 8, 11-13, 20-33 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.
Response to Amendment & Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, amendments and arguments are unpersuasive. The amendment pertaining to a dynamic reconfiguration of a respective software tool of the suite of software tools and dynamically reconfiguring one or more software tools of the suite of software tools and thereby change the operational behavior of the one or more software tools, fails to provide a technological improvement. There are no technical details claimed of what constitutes “dynamic reconfiguration” of an off-the shelf “software tool” nor what constitutes “changing the operational behavior” of the software tool. Applicant’s concept does nothing more that update data using a software tool and labeling it as “dynamic reconfiguration” is merely merging two existing software tools together for convenience to manage construction projects and also provide clients with prequalification process by an approved subcontractor to expedite the project management which is merely applying the computer system generically to the abstract idea itself, not providing an actual technological improvement. 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
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
Prosecution Insights