DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communication(s) received on 12/22/25. Claim(s) 1 and 2 has/have been amended, claim(s) 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 20-21 is/are cancelled, claim(s) 22-30 is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification as there are no amendments. Therefore, Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16, 18 and 22-30 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16, 18 and 22-30 do not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention include Gundewar et al. (US 6,381,610 B1) in view of Goncalves (US 2004/0167797 A1), Ito (US 5,761,674 A1), Sweat et al. (US 7,062,532 B1), and FDOT.
These are the same references used in the allowance(s) of 14/985,280 and 17510112 from which the applicant is a continuation of.
In contrast to 14/985,280, application 17510112 does not include limitations of a) a group of databases consisting of a consultation package database, an inspiration gallery database, a design center database, and a scrapbook database and b) the use of various data contained in a (the databases) in the subsequent limitations of the independent and dependent claims of 14/985,280.
In contrast to 14985280 the instant application does not include limitations of a) a group of databases consisting of a consultation package database, an inspiration gallery database, a design center database, and a scrapbook database, b) the use of various data contained in a (the databases) in the subsequent limitations of the independent and dependent claims of 14/985,280. In contrast to 17510112 the instant application does not include generate a second portion of the project portfolio on the memory comprising a second list of professionals is different from the first list of professionals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/22/25, with respect to objection(s) for claim(s) 2. The Examiner respectfully withdraws objection(s) for claim(s) 2.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/2/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-18 and 20-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 9-20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims are an abstract idea directed to performing work in a construction project.
While the amendment does further the argument by a) including enabling secure access and limiting via access permission (claim(s) 1), and granting role-based access (claim(s) 22, 29), b) it does not appear that the claims with the inclusion of “a)” will yield a transformation of the project into something more, c) it does not appear that the claims with the inclusion of “a)” provides specific use of access permission such that access permission is more than apply it. The claims are directed to a business solution as the refinement is based on collaboration with others where the project planning’s capacity is changed (adjusted) from one value to another in the same state or things not turning the project into a different state as the claims are not directed to physically changing the project. Furthermore, the input from other users is not new data that was not previously available nor it is data that is now available because it was transformed. Thus, it is unclear what improvement is being done to a computer or other technology or technical field as the improvement is utilizing previously available data to refine project planning.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16, 18 and 22-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1, 22, and 29 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to performing work in a construction project.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-18 and 20-21 recites a series of steps).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s) in the following representative claim(s):
Claim 1: receiving, via a first graphical user interface (GUI), first construction project data comprising a construction type and a designated space within a structure;
applying, by the processor, a first set of dynamically selected filters from a plurality of preconfigured filters stored in memory, wherein the filters are selected based on the received construction type and designated space, to retrieve relevant space specific construction data from a structured database;
generating, by the processor, a first portion of a virtual project portfolio comprising a vision album that includes the retrieved construction project data, wherein the vision album is formatted for interactive modification via the first GUI;
transmitting the first portion of the virtual project portfolio to the first GUI for user modification;
receiving, via the first GUI, first selection inputs modifying the first portion of the project portfolio enabling secure access to the modified first portion of the project portfolio by a first professional user through a second GUI;
notifying the first professional user to provide second construction project data via the second GUI;
receiving, via the second GUI, second construction project data and modifying the first portion of the project portfolio based on the second data;
generating a second portion of the project portfolio based on the modified first portion and storing it in memory;
transmitting the second portion to the second GUI for further modification receiving second selection inputs via the second GUI;
enabling secure access to the second portion of the project portfolio by a second professional user through a third GUI;
notifying the second professional user to provide third construction project data via the third GUI;
receiving, via the third GUI, third construction project data and modifying the project portfolio accordingly;
generating, by the processor, at least one of a task list and a product list for use by a third party or owner to execute at least part of the construction project, wherein the product list includes at least one product selected from a memory stored catalog or an external source; and
limiting users and professionals that can access the project portfolio to those with access permission;
wherein the method improves collaborative construction planning by enabling real-time, multi-user modification of a structured virtual portfolio through a sequence of GUI-based interactions and dynamic data filtering.
Claim 22: the server configured by executable instructions to operate on planning sheets stored as a hierarchical tree of plan sections, classes and subclasses with code tags and searchable branches, comprising:
(a) receiving and incorporating project inputs from a first user interface and assigning code tags that identify plan section, class and subclass membership for storage in the planning sheets;
(b) executing a staged filter pipeline that (i) organizes, aggregates and codes external provider data via data filter, (ii) segregates coded content into corresponding plan sections via filter, and (iii) narrows segregated content to primary selections using filter based on compatibility with stored codes and project guidelines, and writes the results to a primary results portion of the planning sheets;
(c) generating a vision album by compiling the primary selections and rendering them to the first user interface;
(d) granting role-based access to a design-team user interface and, in response to collaborative edits, applying filter to update the planning sheets while enforcing a phase-specific final write/commit constraint that permits only the designated user group for that phase to enter final data into the planning sheets;
(e) automatically generating trade-specific work orders linked to selected products in the planning sheets, each work order including a calculator that computes quantities from task geometry entered by the build team and populates product information and maintenance/warranty metadata;
(f) dispatching event-triggered electronic messages to invite outside agencies or participants to review or input data for specified plan sections and recording the outside agencies or participants' responses into the planning sheets;
(g) assembling a project journal that includes time-stamped records of actions taken by the build team and the outputs of the calculators; and
(h) outputting a project portfolio comprising the vision album, project guide, and project journal generated from the planning sheets.
Claim 29: (a) maintaining planning sheets as a hierarchical tree of plan sections with code tags;
(b) receiving first construction project inputs and assigning code tags to store the inputs into corresponding nodes;
(c) executing the staged filter pipeline to segregate and narrow content to a primary results portion;
(d) presenting a vision album comprising the primary selections;
(e) granting role-based access to a design-team interface and applying filter while enforcing phase-specific final write/commit;
(f) generating a project guide and trade-specific work orders with embedded calculators that compute quantities from task geometry and populate product information and warranty metadata;
(g) dispatching event-triggered messages to external reviewers and receiving and incorporating responses from external reviewers into the planning sheets; and(h) assembling and outputting the project portfolio comprising the vision album, project guide, and project journal.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16, 18, 23-28, and 30 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1, 22, and 29 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with performing work in a construction project.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include computer, processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, graphical user interfaces (GUIs), database, memory (claim(s) 1), computer, server, database, network (claim(s) 22), one or more computers, network (claim(s) 29).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0046]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0046]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus 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 for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
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 JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624