DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 8/8/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-14, and 16-20 have been amended, claim 11 has been cancelled, and claim 21 has been added new.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Amendments
The previously pending 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments.
The previously pending 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. See below for reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-10 and 12-21, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner asserts that the claims recite performing determinations for determining supply related issues and using models to perform parts of the determinations. The models appear to just be math, which can be done in the human mind since they are recited at such a high level of generality (See MPEP 2106.05). The Examiner further notes that if the claims cannot be done in the human mind they are still rejected as being directed towards the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 2 of the McRO-Bascom Memo from December 2016, "The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation "that improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process." The Applicants’ claims are geared toward making determinations about potential supply related issues to inform human users, where these techniques are merely being applied/calculated in a computing environment. Simply applying these known concepts to a specific technical environment (e.g. the computers/Internet) does not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not solve a problem rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the functioning of the computer itself because it is merely making a determination based on rules and/or mathematical relationships to output to a user. The Applicant’s claimed limitations do not appear to bring about any improvement in the operation or functioning of a computer per se, or to improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer (see page 2 of the McRo-Bascom memo). The solution appears to be more of a business-driven solution rather than a technical one. In addition, McRO had no evidence that the process previously used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims. The Applicant’s claimed limitations and originally filed specification provide no evidence that the claimed process/functions are any different than what would be done without a computer, where there are no adjustments to the mental process to accommodate implementation by computers. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further asserts that the claimed “transforming the extracted first set of data values into a first set of structured feature data suitable for input into a trained classification model; transforming the extracted second set of data values into a second set of structured feature data suitable for input into a trained multi-class classification model” is really just receiving data to input into the model. The Examiner further asserts that the label is merely additional data for the data object (e.g. a label). The limitations are recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims amount to an inventive concept and are therefore eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner further points to MPEP 2106.05 which states “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter”, where a narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant states there is a non-generic arrangement of elements, but does not point out what the arrangement is. The Examiner points to the rejection below which shows how the elements are merely general purpose computer components (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 20 are directed toward a process, claims 14-19 are directed toward a product, and claims 1-10, 12-13 and 21 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention. Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a computing platform comprising: a network interface; at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: for each individual construction project in a pool of construction projects: obtain a set of data objects related to the individual construction project wherein each data object in the set comprises a plurality of data fields and corresponding data values; evaluate the obtained set of data objects and thereby identify a substitution-request- specific subset of the obtained set of data objects by, for each data object in the set: extracting a first set of data values from a respective set of data fields included in the data object, transforming the extracted first set of data values into a first set of structured feature data suitable for input into a trained classification model that is configured to generate a prediction score indicating whether the data object corresponds to a respective substitution request of a plurality of substitution requests, based on the first set of structured feature data, executing the trained classification model to generate the prediction score, and identifying the data object for inclusion in the substitution-request-specific subset if the prediction score satisfies a predefined threshold criterion; for each data object of the substitution-request-specific subset evaluate the data object and thereby identify one or more topics associated with the data object by: extracting a second set of data values from a respective set of data fields included in the data object, transforming the extracted second set of data values into a second set of structured feature data suitable for input into a trained multi-class classification model that is configured to generate a set of predictions, wherein each prediction indicates whether the data object corresponds to a respective topic that indicates a respective type of construction-related item that has been a subject of prior substitution requests, based on the second set of structured feature data, executing the trained multi-class classification model to generate the set of predictions, and identifying the one or more topics associated with the data object by evaluating, for each prediction in the set of predictions, whether the prediction satisfies a respective predefined threshold criterion; and modify the data object to include respective label data indicating the one or more topics associated with the data object; and store the modified data objects of the substitution-request-specific subset; based at least on the respective label data indicating the identified one or more topics associated with the modified data objects of the substitution-request-specific subset that were previously stored, determine a plurality of supply-related issues; receive, from a client station via the network interface, a request to determine whether a given construction project is subject to any supply-related issues, wherein the given construction project comprises an ordered sequence of construction-related tasks to be performed; and after receiving the request to determine whether the given construction project is subject to any supply-related issues: identify that the given construction project has a likelihood of being impacted by one or more of the plurality of supply-related issues; determine one or more insights for the given construction project by determining, based at least on the one or more of the plurality of supply-related issues, a first insight comprising a suggested adjustment to the ordered sequence of construction-related tasks to be performed for the given construction project; and transmit, to the client station via the network interface, data defining the one or more insights for the given construction project and thereby cause an indication of the one or more insights to be presented at a graphical user interface (GUI) of the client station, wherein the GUI presents an ordered list of construction-related tasks in accordance with the first insight (Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing data objects for construction projects to determine if supply issues are going to halt construction progress to notify a human of potential supply related issues and suggesting what should be done, which is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes. The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Mental Processes because the claimed limitations are analyzing data objects for construction projects to determine if supply issues are going to halt construction progress to notify a human of potential issues, which can be done in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the above “obtain a set of data objects; receive, from a client station via the network interface, a request; and transmit, to the client station via the network interface, data defining the one or more insights for the given construction project and thereby cause an indication of the one or more insights to be presented at a graphical user interface (GUI) of the client station” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a computing platform comprising: a network interface; at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: a client station; a graphical user interface; non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is provisioned with program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing platform to; a computing platform” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05).
The Examiner further asserts that the claimed “transforming the extracted first set of data values into a first set of structured feature data suitable for input into a trained classification model; transforming the extracted second set of data values into a second set of structured feature data suitable for input into a trained multi-class classification model” is really just receiving data to input into the model. The Examiner further asserts that the label is merely additional data for the data object (e.g. a label). The limitations are recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-10, 12-13, 15-19, and 21 further narrow the abstract idea and recite no additional elements (See MPEP 2106.05). The claims generically recite steps a human user would do on a general purpose computer.
The claimed “a computing platform comprising: a network interface; at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: a client station; a graphical user interface; non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is provisioned with program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing platform to; a computing platform” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) and at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See MPEP 2106.05).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05). Further, method; System; and Product claims 1-10 and 12-21 recite a computing platform comprising: a network interface; at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: a client station; a graphical user interface; non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is provisioned with program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing platform to; a computing platform; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0028-0036 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “obtain a set of data objects related to construction projects; and transmit, to a client station, data; presented at a user interface of the client station” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-10, 12-13, 15-19, and 21 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and present no additional elements that provide significantly more. The claims are recited at such a high level of generality that the determinations amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1-10 and 12-21 disclose a system, product, and method for analyzing data objects for construction projects to determine if supply issues are going to halt construction progress to notify a human of potential supply related issues and suggesting what should be done.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Scheer (US 2010/0205044 A1) – which discloses inventory management within an integrated supply chain.
Kleinikkink et al. (US 2023/0281651 A1) – which discloses predicting component manufacturing costs.
Au Li (US 2014/0379387 A1) – which discloses lifecycle operation of supply chain business transactions.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1-10 and 12-21, such as analyzing data objects for construction projects to determine if supply issues are going to halt construction progress to notify a human of potential supply related issues and suggesting what should be done (outlined below). While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a computing platform comprising: a network interface; at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: for each individual construction project in a pool of construction projects: obtain a set of data objects related to the individual construction project wherein each data object in the set comprises a plurality of data fields and corresponding data values; evaluate the obtained set of data objects and thereby identify a substitution-request- specific subset of the obtained set of data objects by, for each data object in the set: extracting a first set of data values from a respective set of data fields included in the data object, transforming the extracted first set of data values into a first set of structured feature data suitable for input into a trained classification model that is configured to generate a prediction score indicating whether the data object corresponds to a respective substitution request of a plurality of substitution requests, based on the first set of structured feature data, executing the trained classification model to generate the prediction score, and identifying the data object for inclusion in the substitution-request-specific subset if the prediction score satisfies a predefined threshold criterion; for each data object of the substitution-request-specific subset evaluate the data object and thereby identify one or more topics associated with the data object by: extracting a second set of data values from a respective set of data fields included in the data object, transforming the extracted second set of data values into a second set of structured feature data suitable for input into a trained multi-class classification model that is configured to generate a set of predictions, wherein each prediction indicates whether the data object corresponds to a respective topic that indicates a respective type of construction-related item that has been a subject of prior substitution requests, based on the second set of structured feature data, executing the trained multi-class classification model to generate the set of predictions, and identifying the one or more topics associated with the data object by evaluating, for each prediction in the set of predictions, whether the prediction satisfies a respective predefined threshold criterion; and modify the data object to include respective label data indicating the one or more topics associated with the data object; and store the modified data objects of the substitution-request-specific subset; based at least on the respective label data indicating the identified one or more topics associated with the modified data objects of the substitution-request-specific subset that were previously stored, determine a plurality of supply-related issues; receive, from a client station via the network interface, a request to determine whether a given construction project is subject to any supply-related issues, wherein the given construction project comprises an ordered sequence of construction-related tasks to be performed; and after receiving the request to determine whether the given construction project is subject to any supply-related issues: identify that the given construction project has a likelihood of being impacted by one or more of the plurality of supply-related issues; determine one or more insights for the given construction project by determining, based at least on the one or more of the plurality of supply-related issues, a first insight comprising a suggested adjustment to the ordered sequence of construction-related tasks to be performed for the given construction project; and transmit, to the client station via the network interface, data defining the one or more insights for the given construction project and thereby cause an indication of the one or more insights to be presented at a graphical user interface (GUI) of the client station, wherein the GUI presents an ordered list of construction-related tasks in accordance with the first insight (as required by independent claims 1-10 and 12-21)”, thus rendering claims 1-10 and 12-21 as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625