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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 22, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-18 remain pending in the application.
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, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites a method that includes storing a labour management module; executing the labour management module; receiving shift report data from one or more mobile devices associated with one or more workers working on the project, the shift report data including an electronic timesheet and a progress report, wherein the shift report data further comprises a contract identifier, a worker identifier, a trade union name, location, shift type, date, start and end time, determining collective bargaining agreement rates from the trade union name and the location and comparing collective bargaining terms with the shift type, date, start and end time; determining a project status of the project in response to receiving the shift report data; and automatically generating and presenting an alert report relating to the project status and a recommendation for managing the project. This is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., the workers working on the project and a user (e.g., project manager)). The mere nominal recitation of a memory, a processor cooperating with the memory, a data transceiver cooperating with the processor and the memory, and a user interface cooperating with the processor does not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of storing; executing; receiving; determining; comparing; determining; and automatically generating and presenting in a computer environment. The claimed memory, processor, data transceiver, and user interface are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of storing; executing; receiving; determining; comparing;
determining; and automatically generating and presenting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 2-4 and 17 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 2 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining the alert report; and, claim 3 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining a plurality of business rules. Claim 4 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining an artificial intelligence module for generating the alert report and the recommendation. Claim 17 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining identifying and confirming a discrepancy or non-compliant element of the shift data report. These limitations are all directed to a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., the workers working on the project and a user). Thus, claims 2-4 and 17 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 2-4 and 17 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites a method of organizing human activity because the claims recite a method that includes storing a labour management module; executing the labour management module; receiving shift report data from one or more mobile devices associated with one or more workers working on the project, the shift report data including an electronic timesheet and a progress report, wherein the shift report data further comprises a contract identifier, a worker identifier, a trade union name, location, shift type, date, start and end time, determining collective bargaining agreement rates from the trade union name and the location and comparing collective bargaining terms with the shift type, date, start and end time; determining a project status of the project in response to receiving the shift report data; and automatically generating and presenting an alert report relating to the project status and a recommendation for managing the project. This is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., the workers working on the project and a user). The mere nominal recitation of a memory, a processor, a data transceiver cooperating with the processor and the memory, and a user interface does not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of storing; executing; receiving; determining; comparing; determining; and automatically generating and presenting in a computer environment. The claimed memory, processor, data transceiver, and user interface are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of storing; executing; receiving; determining; comparing;
determining; and automatically generating and presenting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 7-9 and 18 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 6 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 7 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 6 by e.g., further defining the alert report; and, claim 8 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 6 by e.g., further defining a plurality of business rules. Claim 9 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 6 by e.g., further defining an artificial intelligence module for generating the alert report and the recommendation. Claim 18 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining identifying and confirming a discrepancy or non-compliant element of the shift data report. These limitations are all directed to a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., the workers working on the project and a user). Thus, claims 7-9 and 18 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 6 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 7-9 and 18 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites a method of organizing human activity because the claims recite a method that includes storing a contract tender module; executing the contract tender module, the contract tender module generating a labour bid form; transmitting the labour bid form and receiving a plurality of contractor bids specifying contractor labour rates; wherein the contract tender module executed by the processor compares the contractor labour rates in the contractor bids with known labour rates established by one or more collective bargaining agreements, and identifies excessive labour rates, comparing the contractor bids based on collective bargaining agreement terms, past project data, historical contractor performance, and local market conditions; and automatically generating and presenting a report identifying the excessive labour rates. This is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., the contractors and a user). The mere nominal recitation of a memory, a processor cooperating with the memory, a data transceiver cooperating with the processor and the memory, a database, a user interface cooperating with the processor does not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of storing; executing; transmitting; receiving; comparing; and automatically generating and presenting in a computer environment. The claimed memory, processor, data transceiver, database and user interface are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of storing; executing; transmitting; receiving; comparing; and automatically generating and presenting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 12 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 11 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 12 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 11 by e.g., further defining calculating contractor margins. These limitations are all directed to a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., the contractors and a user). Thus, claim 12 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 11 and does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claim 12 describes neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites a method of organizing human activity because the claims recite a method that includes storing a contract tender module; executing the contract tender module to generate a labour bid form; transmitting the labour bid form; receiving a plurality of contractor bids specifying contractor labour rates; wherein the contract tender module compares the contractor labour rates in the contractor bids with known labour rates established by one or more collective bargaining agreements, and identifies excessive labour rates, comparing the contractor bids based on collective bargaining agreement terms, past project data, historical contractor performance, and local market conditions; and automatically generating and presenting a report identifying the excessive labour rates. This is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., the contractors and a user). The mere nominal recitation of a memory, a processor cooperating with the memory, a data transceiver cooperating with the processor and the memory, a database, a user interface does not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of storing; executing; transmitting; receiving; comparing; and automatically generating and presenting in a computer environment. The claimed memory, processor, data transceiver, database and user interface are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of storing; executing; transmitting; receiving; comparing; and automatically generating and presenting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 14 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 15 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 14 by e.g., further defining calculating contractor margins. These limitations are all directed to a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., the contractors and a user). Thus, claim 15 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 14 and does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claim 15 describes neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Novel & Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1 and 6 would be allowable over the prior art for disclosing wherein the shift report data comprises a contract identifier, a worker identifier, a trade union name, location, shift type, date, start and end time, and wherein the labour management module determines collective bargaining agreement rates from the trade union name and the location and compares collective bargaining terms with the shift type, date, start and end time.
Moran teaches weekly timesheet data that is exported from a payroll data base, wherein the timesheet data may include information about an employee working on a project and the number of hours he or she worked on the project or a particular task of the project. The timesheet data, including hours assigned against or charged to cost codes and possibly units installed, is correlated and compared with the cost code's estimated hours and estimated units to determine the state of the tasks and the project as a whole. The timesheet data and hours charged to a particular project, or task of the project, or multiple projects and/or tasks, are reviewed by a company executive. However, the cited art does not teach weekly timesheet data comprising a contract identifier, a worker identifier, a trade union name, location, shift type, date, a start time, and an end time. In addition, the cited art does not teach the process of determining collective bargaining agreement rates from the trade union name and the location, and comparing collective bargaining terms with the shift type, date, start and end time.
Claims 11 and 14 would be allowable for disclosing wherein the contract tender module also compares the contractor bids based on collective bargaining agreement terms, past project data, historical contractor performance, and local market conditions.
Ketchel teaches a cost comparison graphic 324, and a provider listing section 326. Information that is presented in cost comparison graphic 324 can be generated based on the average cost information included in the respective information record that is maintained for the particular service in available services database 114g (for example, to present a display of average prices for the service for patients that are uninsured and/or have a high deductible insurance plan in comparison. Furthermore, Sthanumoorthy teaches calculating work hours for an employee based on work hour rounding rules, such as rules associated with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). However, the cited art does not teach a contract tender module that compares the contractor bids based on collective bargaining agreement terms, past project data, historical contractor performance, and local market conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
these claims are not directed to a method of organizing workers or coordinating how they work. Rather, these claims provide a novel technique to track worker shift data and to communicate the worker shift data using mobile devices in the field (e.g., at ajobsite), which are configured to communicate the worker shift data to a computing device over a wireless link to enable the computing device to track labor costs for a project and to generate an alert based on these costs
(p. 12). The Examiner disagrees. For instance, the last element of claim 1 recites “generate and present … a recommendation for managing the project.” It is not clear how a method that uses a “labour management module” to provide a “recommendation for managing a project” for “workers working on the project” is not a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., the “workers working on the project” and a user (e.g., project manager)).
Applicant argues that:
The computing device and mobile devices provide a practical application by which worker shift data is collected remotely from workers at the end of their shift and then communicated over the air to the computing device for daily tracking of project costs … The computing device provides a practical application by which contractor bids are analyzed
(p. 14). The Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, claimed computing device/hardware elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that “under Step 2B, it is clear that these claims are directed to the inventive concept of using mobile devices to supply worker shift data to a computing device to track project status” (pp. 14-15). The Examiner disagrees. A claim that recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea) is eligible. Therefore, any purported inventive concept has to be an additional element that is not part of the abstract idea. In the present claims, there is no inventive concept that is in addition to (i.e., not a part of) the abstract idea. For instance, the process of supplying worker shift data to track project status cited by Applicant above is part of the abstract idea (i.e., the process is part of the method of managing interactions between people). If the purported inventive concept is part of the abstract idea, it is not an “additional element” under Step 2B. Therefore, even assuming arguendo that the abstract limitations were novel/non-obvious, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that “Further, with respect to claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, under Step 2B there is an inventive concept of analyzing contractor bids” (p. 15). The Examiner notes that Applicant argues features not recited in the present claims.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUANE MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-7544. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached on (571)272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights