DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 10 September 2025.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16, and 20-21 have been amended.
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined.
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 Arguments
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that in order to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims must be directed towards a patent eligible concept, which, the instant claims are not directed. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion that the claims are not a certain method of organizing human activity, the Examiner notes that contract management/hiring is a function that employers, hiring firms, freelance workers etc. traditionally performed/provided for jobseekers or users seeking to hire someone for a job. Next, the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., contract generation) to a particular technological environment (i.e., with the use of computers or generic computing components). Here, again as noted in the previous rejection, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept - MPEP 2016.05(f). The claims recitation of the “networked computer method,” ” the online system work platform” “online work platform,” “electronic computing device,” “one or more subcontractor electronic computing devices,” in claim 1 or “A networked computer system for forming a real-time consortium of freelancers for an online work platform, comprising: a remote system server (170) connected via a network (112) to a plurality of user computers, comprising: one or more remote subcontractor computers (102, 104); a general contractor computer (106); and a client computer (108); the remote system server (170) comprising: at least one central processing unit (processor 176); a memory storing a contract generator application program interface (API) (177); a network connection (178); a database of user files (175) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:” in claim 8, or “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising:” in claim 15 are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO). As such, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection not overcome.
This argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency is a practical application; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)).
Applicant next argues that the claims amount to significantly more; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. To determine whether an invention claims ineligible subject matter, we engage in a two-step process. First, “we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of [the] patent ineligible concepts”—laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Id. at 2355. “The ‘abstract ideas’ category embodies ‘the longstanding rule’ that ‘[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.’” Id. (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). An abstract idea does not become non abstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as a computer, does not confer patent eligibility); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010) (“[L]imiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . d[oes] not make the concept patentable.”). If it is determined that the patent is drawn to an abstract idea or otherwise ineligible subject matter, at a second step we ask whether the remaining elements, either in isolation or combination with the non-patent ineligible elements, are sufficient to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012)). Put another way, there must be an “inventive concept” to take the claim into the realm of patent eligibility. Id. at 2355. A simple instruction to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (“[M]ere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible idea into a patent eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply it’’ is not enough for patent eligibility.’” (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294)). Applicants’ claims use a remote system and processor pertaining to the abstract idea of “organizing human activities’ involving contract generation. Here, the claimed solution is directed to the abstract idea of “organizing human activities’ involving contract generation by at least one processor is/are only used generically; a simple instruction to apply an abstract idea is not enough, regardless of traditional business analog. This argument also appears to be that the claims are patent eligible due to the arguments regarding the §103 rejections; however, the Examiner asserts that subject matter eligibility and novelty/non-obviousness are two separate inquires, neither being a benchmark for the other. See Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Novelty is the question of whether the claimed invention is new. Inventiveness is the question of whether the claimed matter is invention at all, new or otherwise. The inventiveness inquiry of § 101 should therefore not be confused with the separate novelty inquiry of § 102 or the obviousness inquiry of § 103.”). As such, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection not overcome.
In response to Applicants’ arguments that the claims inventive concept similar to those found in Bascom; the Examiner respectfully disagrees and this case is unlike Bascom, where, “[o]n [a] limited record” and when viewed in favor of the patentee, the claims alleged a “technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering [Internet] content.” 827 F.3d at 1350. The patent in Bascom did not merely move existing content filtering technology from local computers to the Internet, which “would not contain an inventive concept,” but “overc[a]me[] existing problems with other Internet filtering systems”—i.e., it solved the problem of “inflexible one-size-fits-all” remote filtering schemes (caused by simply moving filtering technology to the Internet) by enabling individualized filtering at the ISP server. Id at 1350–51. In other words, the patent in Bascom did not purport to improve the Internet itself by introducing prior art filtering technology to the Internet. Rather, the Bascom patent fixed a problem presented by combining the two. The key fact in Bascom was the presence of a structural change in “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. The instant claims have no analogous structural benefit. In particular, the specification does not indicate that invention recites any improvement to conventional contract generation, nor do the claims solve any problem associated with situating such contracts across the Internet, nor is there any structural benefit which would make the instant claims analogous. The Examiner also notes that this was considered an improvement to computing technology at the time of Bascom’s relatively early filing date/date of invention The present claims different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools (i.e. with a processor situated over a network and an online work platform). In the case of the instant invention, the Examiner asserts that the specification lacks any disclosure of evidence to demonstrate that the invention is seeking to improve upon the existing technology or, more specifically, that the claimed invention is directed towards addressing and improving upon an issue that arose from the technology, but merely demonstrating that the claimed invention is directed towards the abstract idea and merely applying or utilizing generic computing devices performing their generic functions to carry out the well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the technical field of contract generation due to the benefits that computing devices provided, i.e. faster, more efficient, and etc. The courts further stated "The Supreme Court has not established a definitive rule to determine what constitutes an "abstract idea" sufficient to satisfy the first step of the Mayo/Alice inquiry. See id. at 2357. Rather, both this court and the Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases. "[The Court] need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the 'abstract ideas' category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement at issue here." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357; see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362. For instance, fundamental economic and conventional business practices are often found to be abstract ideas, even if performed on a computer. See, e.g., OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63."The claims, considered individually or as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) as the claimed structures and components are all only used generically to apply the abstract idea(s). At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea. As such, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection not overcome.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the prior art have been fully considered but are moot on grounds of new rejection, as necessitated by amendments. The Examiner also notes the arguments appear to be regarding the intended use/field of use, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural (or methodical) difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7 and 14 have indented steps listed as “a)” “a)” “b)” which appears to be the grammatical error of “a)” “b)” “c).” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) drafting and unsigned contract and generating a signed contract upon acceptance of the drafted contract which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “dividing the project into one or more milestones, and transmitting from a general contractor, an electronic message with an offer from the general contractor for a project task, wherein the one or more milestones comprises at least one task per milestone assigned to a subcontractor; upon each subcontractor transmitting acceptance of the general contractor offer, generating and transmitting to the client electronic computing device, a draft unsigned client contract with a consortium, wherein all of the general contractor and the one or more subcontractors on the project form the consortium; and upon the client computer transmitting acceptance of the consortium offer, generating a signed client’s contract between a client and the consortium, and a signed subcontractor’s contract between the general contractor and each of the one or more subcontractors,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “A networked computer method for forming a real-time consortium comprising a general contractor and one or more subcontractors for an online work platform, comprising a remote system server comprising a memory and at least one processor:...a system processor automatedly,” (or “A networked computer system for forming a real-time consortium of freelancers for an online work platform, comprising: a remote system server (170) connected via a network (112) to a plurality of user computers, comprising: one or more remote subcontractor computers (102, 104); a general contractor computer (106); and a client computer (108); the remote system server (170) comprising: at least one central processing unit; a memory storing a contract generator application program interface (API); a network connection; a database of user files; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:” in claim 8, or “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising:” in claim 15) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “the system processor,” “processor,” or “cause the computing device to” language, “dividing,” “generating,” and “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing contracts which is literally a legal interaction including agreements in the form of contracts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the methods of organizing human activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The ” receiving input by the processor from a client electronic computing device over a network, to hire a general contractor via an online system work platform for a project, and posting by the processor a project briefing on the online system work platform comprising a plurality of work requirements for the project on the system work platform,” “receiving by the processor an acceptance electronic message from each subcontractor electronic computing device,” and “receiving by the processor an electronic message from a client electronic computing device with acceptance of the consortium offer” steps are simply insignificant data gathering/data output activities. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a system processor automatedly, processor, or computing device to perform the steps. The a system processor automatedly, processor, or computing device in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by 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 - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “networked computer method,” ” the online system work platform” “online work platform,” “electronic computing device,” “one or more subcontractor electronic computing devices,” in claim 1 or “A networked computer system for forming a real-time consortium of freelancers for an online work platform, comprising: a remote system server (170) connected via a network (112) to a plurality of user computers, comprising: one or more remote subcontractor computers (102, 104); a general contractor computer (106); and a client computer (108); the remote system server (170) comprising: at least one central processing unit (processor 176); a memory storing a contract generator application program interface (API) (177); a network connection (178); a database of user files (175) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:” in claim 8, or “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising:” in claim 15 are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using a system processor automatedly, processor, or computing device to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in Step 2B, the receiving and posting step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the same abstract idea of “drafting and unsigned contract and generating a signed contract upon acceptance of the drafted contract.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting how the final contracts are stored which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 recite the same abstract idea of “drafting and unsigned contract and generating a signed contract upon acceptance of the drafted contract.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the members/roles of the consortium which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-21 are dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-21 recite the same abstract idea of “drafting and unsigned contract and generating a signed contract upon acceptance of the drafted contract.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including making changes or addendums to the contracts which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-21 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunn (US PG Pub. 2018/0005186) and further in view of Peterson et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0018889).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Hunn discloses networked computer method for forming a real-time consortium comprising a general contractor and one or more subcontractors for an online work platform, comprising a remote system server comprising a memory and at least one processor:, networked computer system for forming a real-time consortium of freelancers for an online work platform, comprising: a remote system server (170) connected via a network (112) to a plurality of user computers, comprising: one or more remote subcontractor computers (102, 104); a general contractor computer (106); and a client computer (108); the remote system server (170) comprising: at least one central processing unit (processor 176); a memory storing a contract generator application program interface (API) (177); a network connection (178); a database of user files (175); and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:, and a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising (systems, methods, mobile device, computer readable medium, processor, Hunn ¶332):
receiving input by the processor from a client electronic computing device over a network, to hire a general contractor via an online system work platform for a project, and (contract terms and conditions, Hunn ¶52; Example fields of computable and data-driven contracts may include (but are not limited to): sale of goods/services, supply chain and logistics agreements, supply chain finance, warranties, contract farming and agriculture, procurement, asset financing/collateral management, employment and freelancer/consultant agreements, software licensing, insurance contracts and policies, performance/outcome contracts, service-level agreements, loan agreements, mortgages, marketing and advertising agreements, trade finance (e.g., letters of credit and related documentation), and/or numerous other fields, ¶61; As shown in FIG. 4, a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure of a preferred embodiment can include managing formation of a contract object graph (COG) from a contract document S100 and executing the COG in an execution environment during a post formation stage S200, ¶64; Managing formation of the COG from the contract document S100 functions to form a graph representation of a contract to facilitate execution. The formation stage is preferably executed in part by a contract management system that is accessible by the involved parties. The involved parties will generally include the contracting parties which will generally be at least two parties involved in forming and agreeing to the contract. The parties participating in the formation stage can additionally include representatives of a contracting party, collaborators, observers, and/or other entities. Managing the formation stage will preferably include obtaining object components of the contract document Silo, assembling a COG from the object components S120, and committing the COG to post-formation execution S130, ¶65);
dividing the project by the processor into one or more milestones, and transmitting by the processor to one or more subcontractor electronic computing devices, an electronic message with an offer from the general contractor for a project task, wherein the one or more milestones comprise at least one task per milestone assigned to a subcontractor (This results in a need, often in commercial enterprises, to intensively manage legal contracts using Contract Lifecycle Management (‘CLM’) software. CLM software typically operates by creating a centralized repository of documents that captures and/or extracts data, often from paper-based documents or PDFs, relevant to the user's obligations under each contract. That data is stored and tracked to monitor the performance of obligations, manage business milestones, and provide the basis for basic business analytics. CLM software creates a system and layer of software and data separate from the actual contracts the CLM system assists in managing. CLM software cannot provide real-time state or visibility of contracts and contractual performance, and no aspect of CLM software, by itself, has the ability to constitute or amend legally enforceable contract rights, obligations, or parameters, distinct from the underlying contracts that are managed. Management of contracts and associated administrative actions/operations are largely performed manually by users of the CLM software, Hunn ¶4; accessing and managing milestones and obligations, ¶101) (Examiner notes the terms and conditions which outline milestones and obligations to be the equivalent to milestones and tasks);
receiving by the processor an acceptance electronic message from each subcontractor electronic computing device and automatedly generating and transmitting by the processor to the client electronic computing device, a draft unsigned client contract with a consortium offer, wherein all of the general contractor and the one or more subcontractors on the project form the consortium (Block S130, which includes committing the graph to post-formation execution, functions to finalize and terminate the formation stage so that the contract can be ready for execution. Committing the graph to post-formation preferably involves executing electronic signature of the COG by the contracting parties. As a contract document, the contracting parties may be requested to sign the contract document to legally put the contract in force. Where applicable, both may be performed by a single signature or multiple signatures. A signature may be an e-signature, cryptographic signature, or a combination (e.g., an e-signature combined or backed with public key cryptography). In some variations, committing the graph to post-formation execution can transition the COG to a separate execution versioning system, but a single versioning system may alternatively be used. In some implementations, the COG during formation can be a different COG version used in post-formation. In some variations, the post-formation can initialize as a copy of the formation COG, but the post-formation COG may alternatively use an alternative format or variation of the COG data structure and usage. For example, the COG during formation may provide versioning of content of the contract, and the post-formation COG may be used for representation of contract state. The COG from formation may be used in producing a post-formation/execution COG where two or more graph data structures are used, Hunn ¶69; contract draft maintained, ¶91; sub-contracts and sub-contractors, ¶108); and
receiving by the processor an electronic message from a client electronic computing device with acceptance of the consortium offer and automatedly generating and transmitting by the processor a signed client’s contract between a client and the consortium, and a signed subcontractor’s contract between the general contractor and each of the one or more subcontractors (Upon completion of required signatures, the COG can be committed, transferred, or otherwise activated for post-formation execution, Hunn ¶181).
Hunn does not expressly disclose posting by the processor a project briefing on the online system work platform comprising a plurality of work requirements for the project on the system work platform.
However, Peterson teaches posting by the processor a project briefing on the online system work platform comprising a plurality of work requirements for the project on the system work platform (Another aspect of the present invention provides a method for administering performance of a project over a data network. The method includes creating a general contract schedule of values relating to the project, the general contract schedule of values having multiple general contract line items, each of which identifies an associated number of units, a cost per unit and a scheduled value based on the number of unit multiplied by the cost per unit. The method further includes receiving at least one subcontract schedule of values via the data network, the subcontract schedule of values having multiple of subcontract line items, and associating the subcontract line items of each subcontract schedule of values and the general contract line items of the general contract schedule of values. At least one subcontract application for payment is received via the data network, the subcontract application for payment including the subcontract line items. The general contract line items, including the associated number of units, are updated based on information in the associated subcontract line items received in the subcontract application for payment. A general contract application for payment is created based on the updated contract line items, Petersen ¶15).
Both the Hunn and Peterson references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with contract management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Peterson’s ability to post details of an employment contract in Hunn’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a contract management system that is able to solicit employment.
The motivation being that there currently is no efficient way in which the various contracting parties can efficiently communicate and exchange data relating to the status of contract performance, submission and approval of payment requests, submission and approval of change orders, and the like (Peterson ¶11).
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Hunn and Peterson disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. Peterson further teaches further comprising in step (d) the processor converting the one or more client’s and each of the subcontractor’s signed final contracts into a non-editable PDF file and storing on a system database, or on a remote or cloud-based storage device (Further, documentation used by the general contractor may be stored in association with the general contractor information. For example, the general contractor may have a standard lien waiver form or other documentation that it requires its subcontractors to use. The documentation may be logically attached to schedules of value and/or applications for payment. Also, the documentation may be in electronic form, such as a word processing formatted document having fields which may be completed electronically, and which may include an electronic signature or other electronic indication of agreement with the contents. Alternatively the documentation may be in scanned form, such as a PDF file of a scanned document that has been completed and/or signed, Petersen ¶58).
Both the Hunn and Peterson references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with contract management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Peterson’s ability to provide a copy of the contract in Hunn’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a contract management system that is able to provide copies of the contract in different formats.
The motivation being that there currently is no efficient way in which the various contracting parties can efficiently communicate and exchange data relating to the status of contract performance, submission and approval of payment requests, submission and approval of change orders, and the like (Peterson ¶11).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Hunn and Peterson disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. Hunn further discloses further comprising the general contractor signing the client’s contract and the subcontractors’ contracts as a representative for the consortium (legal entities, representative names, Hunn ¶134; master contract with sub-contractors, ¶108).
As per claims 4, 11, and 18, Hunn and Peterson disclose as shown above with respect to claims 3, 10, and 15. Hunn further discloses wherein the consortium is a single legal entity with liability protection for a work performance for the one or more subcontractors and the general contractor (legal entities, representative names, Hunn ¶134; master contract with sub-contractors, ¶108; liability, insurance, ¶187).
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Hunn and Peterson disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. Hunn further discloses further comprising transmitting an amendment to the project by the client or general contractor electronic computing device, wherein the amendment comprises altering an existing milestone or task, or adding a new milestone or task (amendments, Hunn ¶198; sign off on amendments, ¶199).
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Hunn and Peterson disclose as shown above with respect to claims 5, 12, and 19. Hunn further discloses further comprising the processor receiving an electronic message for acceptance of the amendment by the one or more subcontractors and/or the general contractor, and the processor automatedly generating and transmitting to the client electronic computing device an unsigned addendum to the client’s contract (amendments, Hunn ¶198; sign off on amendments, ¶199).
As per claims 7, 14, and 21, Hunn and Peterson disclose as shown above with respect to claims 6, 13, and 20. Hunn further discloses further comprising the processor receiving an electronic message for acceptance of the unsigned addendum to the client’s contract from the client electronic computing device, and the processor automatedly generating: a) an electronically signed addendum to the client’s contract between the client and the consortium; a) wherein the subcontractor is already in the consortium, and generating an addendum to the signed subcontractor’s contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor assigned to the new task; or b) wherein the subcontractor is a new hire, and generating a new signed subcontractor’s contract between the subcontractor and the general contractor while adding the subcontractor to the consortium (amendments, Hunn ¶198; sign off on amendments, ¶199).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629