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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action.
Claims [1-20] are currently pending and have been examined based on their merit.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, and 17-20 are currently amended see REMARKS September 16, 2025.
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 claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-19 recite a method (i.e. a series of steps) and claim 20 recites a system, and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?)
The representative claims 1 and 20 recite: A method for team analysis and recommendation, the method comprising: receiving team data corresponding to a team associated with a project, wherein the team includes at least one contractor, wherein the team data includes project history information indicative of timeliness associated with at least one prior project worked on by the at least one contractor before the project; analyzing the team data to generate a confidence score associated with the team related to the project, wherein the confidence score represents an estimated level of confidence in an ability of the team to fulfill a specified obligation type within a predetermined timeframe corresponding to the project; identifying, based on the team data and the confidence score, a recommended offer for a loan to assist at least a subset of the team to obtain a material to fulfill an obligation of the specified obligation type by a deadline associated with the predetermined timeframe, wherein the obligation is associated with use of the material to advance the project, the recommended offer being customized for the team based on at least the confidence score; and sending the recommended offer to the user to request that the user present the recommended offer; receiving, by the server and from the user device, an indication of a second interaction corresponding to an input received; and initiating, the loan associated with the recommended offer in response to the second interaction.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure recites a fundamental economic practice. The claims recite a series of steps to identify a team for a project based on team member information and determine a confidence score for the team to accomplish a project within a desired timeframe, and determining an offer for a loan for materials to be used to accomplish the project. Merely performing steps to receive and analyze team data to determine an offer for a loan based on a confidence score that a team is capable of accomplishing a project is a certain method of organizing human activity as the claims recite generic steps for a project financer to evaluate a project and determine the eligibility of a user or team to receive a loan to afford the materials necessary for a project. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims alternatively recite a mental process. As the claims recite series of steps to recommend a loan to a user or a team based on a confidence score determined on the historical performance of the users and the confidence that the users will be able to accomplish the project within a desired timeframe. The claims recite the steps of receiving team data, analyzing the team data to generate a confidence score, identify at least one recommended loan offer for assisting at least a subset of the team, and sending a recommended offer to a user. A person such as a loan officer is capable of mentally, or by using simple tools such as pen and paper, receiving and analyzing team data to generate a confidence score based on how likely the team is to accomplish the project in a desired timeframe, and to use the confidence score to determine an offer for a loan amount to help a user acquire materials to accomplish a project. Furthermore, the courts have identified concepts such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions as mentally processes. Therefore, performing a series of steps to identify a recommended offer for a loan to assist at least a subset of the team based on team data and a confidence score would be capable of being performed in the human mind or with simple tools such as pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite;
Claim 1: a server, a user device, an interactive user interface, an external platform; a first interaction with the interactive user interface, and wherein the external platform is external to the team; present the recommended offer through the interactive user interface; an indication of a second interaction with the interactive user interface corresponding to an input received at the user device.
Claim 20: A system for team analysis and recommendation, the system comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor, wherein execution of instructions stored in the at least one memory by the at least one processor, and a user device; an interactive user interface, an external platform; a first interaction with the interactive user interface, and wherein the external platform is external to the team; present the recommended offer through the interactive user interface; an indication of a second interaction with the interactive user interface corresponding to an input received at the user device.
The additional elements of generic computer elements such as a user device to perform the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing information are not an improvement to a technology or technical field. The limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). As the additional elements merely recite using generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea of receiving team data, analyzing the team data, and sending at least one recommended offer to a user. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field but merely utilize the generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of receiving team data, analyzing team data to generate a confidence score, identifying at least one recommended offer for assisting at least a subset of the team with at least an aspect of the project, and sending the recommended offer to a user. Therefore, the additional elements do not direct the claims to significantly more.
The dependent claims 2-19 further narrow the abstract idea of analyzing team data such as payment history, timeliness history, completion history, repayment of a loan, as well as monitoring team data over time to identify a change in the team data such as by adding or removing team members and adjusting the confidence score, recited in the independent claims 1 and 20 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 16-19: at least one trained machine learning model.
However, the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements such as a machine learning model to perform the abstract idea of analyzing team data to generate a confidence score.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed September 16 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims are do not recite an abstract idea as they are similar to “CoreWireless” as the claims recite an interactive user interface. However, the examine respectfully disagrees as CoreWireless disclosed an improvement to a user interface for electronic devices and how data was displayed. While the current claims recite a method for receiving team data, analyzing the team data to generate a confidence score associated with a team completing an obligation in a predetermine timeframe, identifying a recommended offer for a loan based on the confidence score, sending the recommended offer to a user, and receiving an indication from the user to initiate the loan. The examiner finds that the claims recite a mental processes as a person such as a loan officer would be capable of mentally, or with simple tool such as pen and paper, assessing a team to determine a confidence score of how confident they are that the team would be capable of performing an obligation in a timeframe based on their history and offering a loan to a user for the materials to accomplish the objective based on the confidence score. Additionally, the claims recite concepts the courts have identified as being mental processes such as observation (receiving the team data), evaluation (determining a confidence score), determination (determining a loan offer based on the confidence score), and opinions. Therefore the examiner finds that the claims are not similar in concept to the CoreWireless and the claims recite a mental process. Alternatively, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as they claims recite a series of steps to evaluate a user or a team of users, identify an offer for a loan, and allow a user to select to initiate the loan. The processes of evaluating and offering a person or a team a loan based on a confidence of their ability to accomplish an objective is a fundamental economic principle as it is a standard and generic process for offering a person a loan for things such as a business expense. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The applicant further argues that the additional elements are directed to a practical application as they are similar to “AMDOCS” and “Bascom” as the claims recite an external platform, a server, and a user device for recommending an offer customized for a team based on the confidence score and an interaction with a user interface. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as AMDOCS recited an improvement to a network and Bascom recited an improvement to filtering network accounts. While the current claims do not recite similar subject matter. Additionally, the additional elements of the claims are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements such as a server and a user device with an interactive user interface to perform the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing team data to identify and send a loan offer to a user and receive a response from a user to initiate the loan. As such the claims do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field but merely utilize generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a practical application.
The applicant further argues that the claims amount to significantly more as they system generates a confidence score by analyzing team data and identifies the recommended offer that is customized based on a first interaction with a user interface and initiating a loan based on an interaction with a user interface. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as merely using generic computer elements such as a server to perform the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing team data to generate a confidence score is not an improvement to a technology or technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Similarly, merely using a user interface to perform steps such as inputting information to customize a team and perform actions such as initiating a loan are not an improvement to a technology but merely using generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the current 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that claims 2-19 are allowable as being dependent on claims 1 and 20 and therefore are rejected under the same rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed September 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield (US 2023/0214741) in view of Patil (US 2023/0419204) are persuasive.
Claims 1 and 20: Applicant argues that the combination of prior art does not teach the newly amended claim limitations of “receiving team data including project history information indicative of timeliness associated with at least one prior project worked on by the at least one contractor before the project”, “analyzing the team data to generate a confidence score”, “identifying a recommended offer for a loan from an external platform to assist at least a subset of the team to obtain a material to fulfill an obligation of the specified obligation type by a deadline associated with the predetermined timeframe”, and “initiating the loan associated with the recommended offer.” Upon further search and consideration the examiner finds that the current combination of prior art does not disclose the newly amended claim limitations.
The closest prior art Hatfield (US 2023/0214741) discloses a system of team selection for a project by receiving data associated with potential team members and determining a compatibility score for each member for accomplishing a project together (Hatfield [0003]).
The second closest prior art Patil (US 2023/0419204) teaches a system of determining team members for a project that fill resource gaps. Patil further teaches analyzing the profile of a potential team member to determine their potential impact on a project (Patil [0009]).
The third closest prior art is Luhr (US 2005/0209897) which teaches a system of determining a score for a potential contractor based on information such as their historical project performance (Luhr [0031]).
The forth closest prior art is Thywissen (US 2008/0235155) which teaches a system for determining the price for a project. Thywissen further teaches calculating the projected cost of a project including factors such as materials, labor, changes in requirements, etc. (Thywissen [0055]).
However, the prior art independently and in combination do not disclose identifying based on the team data and the confidence score a recommended offer for a loan from an external platform to assist at least a subset of the team to obtain a material to fulfill an obligation” and “initiating, by the server and based on communication with the external platform, the loan associated with the recommended offer.”
Therefore, the examiner finds claims 1 and 20 allowable over U.S.C. 103.
Claims 2-19 were argued as being allowable only as being dependent on claims 1 and 20. Therefore, the claims are also found to be allowable over U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kruglick (US 2013/0332380) Determination of a contractor team.
Mislavsky (US 2011/0213631) System and method for performing project management attendant to any of various types of projects.
Vierra (US 2022/0012658) Client/contractor home improvement communication platform.
Strauss (US 2007/0130064) Construction loan process system and method.
Carlson (US 2016/0098727) Arrangements for administrating and managing a construction project.
Kaminski (US 2020/0320212) Systems and methods for implementing an interactive contractor dashboard.
Cunningham (US 2002/0107788) Application and payment database system for lenders and builder and a method thereof.
Ingram (US 2002/0077967) Automated construction loan administration method and system.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COREY RUSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3629