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
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13 – 14 and 16 – 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 6, 15 and 20 were cancelled, while claims 21 - 23 were added.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-19 and 21 - 23 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 28, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant's arguments for Double-Patenting Rejection in page 24: Applicant did not take any action and/or did not file an Electronic-Terminal Disclosure or e-td to obviate the Obviousness-type Double Patenting (ODP) rejection, Thus, upon re-evaluation of the claims the ODP have been updated and will therefore be maintained.
Regarding the applicant's arguments against the 101 rejection of pending claims on pages 14-20: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 analysis were considered. However, these arguments are not persuasive and the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
For Step 2A-Prong 1 starting in p. 15: The Applicant argues in its first reason that the amended claims are not directed to any of the abstract ideas identified is because the claims recite “computer-implemented functionality for SaaS applications employing a multi-tenant system and enabling different accounts to be mirrored such that certain specified data records can be copied across accounts and thus shared”. Thus, this functionality “cannot be practically performed in the human, and it is also an inherently technological process that is plainly not [an] activity falling within commercial or legal interactions or managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people”. However, the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees. Because based on the MPEP 2106 for the 101 analysis in step 2A Prong 1, the Examiner must analyze and determine what the “applicant has invented by reviewing the entire application disclosure and construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)” for Step 2A-Prong 1 and 2 (See MPEP § 2106, subsection II, for more information about the importance of understanding what the applicant has invented, and MPEP § 2111 for more information about the BRI). Moreover, the claim language in each claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim (see MPEP 2106.04, subsection II). Thus, the Examiner closely examined all claim limitations individually and as a whole, and found that the steps fell under a certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes as abstract ideas identified. Specifically, there are certain steps that recite the abstract idea when “establishing” a connection between a first account and a second account to “determine” origin data records to be mirrored across first and second accounts, thus, at least encompassing commercial interactions related to business relations and agreements in the form of contracts. Similarly, reciting “mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account…” falls under “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” since such connection establishment between accounts to mirror specific data is directed to managing people interactions in the form of social activities.
As for the argument related to the claims not being directed to a mental process, this is unpersuasive. Because at least the steps directed in part to “determining” a portion of an origin data record to be mirrored (e.g. copied partially) requires evaluation and judgement and the step of “creating a target data record” which is a “first subset of information from the origin data” can be performed by pen and paper while encompassing at least observation, evaluation and judgement. Thus, these particular claims still recite the abstract idea of a mental process even if they require at least one of: (B) physical aid (e.g. pen and paper) and/or (C) a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)). Also, these steps can be done with the help of physical aid which does not negate the mental nature of the limitation(s), even when using other generic computer components to provide “SaaS applications employing a multi-tenant system and enabling different accounts to be mirrored”, as the Applicant asserts.
For Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B starting in p. 16: The Applicant alleges in the second and third reasons in pp. 16 and 19 from Remarks that the claims integrate, the judicial exception identified, into a practical application. The Applicant further alleges that the claims are reciting “an improvement to the existing technology employing multi-tenant architecture” as the specification explains and “provides sufficient details” of the various problems of the existing technology and the need for technology that “enables different accounts to be mirrored such that certain specified data records can be copied across accounts” and improves existing technology for multi-tenant architecture by providing “new software technology” such as tools for “connections”, “collaboration”, “RFI” for management of “internal workflows”. However, the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees. Because the identified limitations in the claims did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application since the steps were merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(I)). Specifically, the claims’ limitations are reciting the use of a generic computer and with a SaaS application technology that is generally/broadly recited, that further establish a connection between accounts to determine “origin data record”, generate derived data or “create a target data record” and to achieve the intended result of mirroring “the at least the portion of the origin data record” across the first account and the second accounts. Lastly, these limitations and their additional elements, individually and in combination, are not “significantly more” as these are recited in a high level of generality that cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B, and are not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. (see MPEP 2106.05).
Also, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer and limiting such function to a multi-tenant system (i.e. cloud-based systems) technology connected to SaaS applications, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Further, the recited additional elements, individually and/or in combination that are enabling “different accounts to be mirrored such that certain specified data records can be copied across accounts”, allegedly, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” at Step 2B. Because these are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and obtain the intended result of mirroring data records between accounts by using cloud-based technology to attempts to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments connected to cloud platform (i.e. multi-tenant system) via a software application services (see MPEP 2106.05(h) for examples (iv), (viii), (ix) and (x)).
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 101 rejection for these pending claims.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments for rejections under 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 of the pending claims on pages 20 – 24: Applicant’s arguments regarding these amended limitation steps in the pending claims are not persuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because upon re-evaluation of the prior art previously referenced for Kim, Ostanik and Wells, their combination still reasonably teaches the new amended steps that the Applicant alleges not being taught. Thus, the claims are no longer rejected under 35 USC §102 rejection and any allegations are considered moot. As for the arguments directed to 35 USC §103 rejection, Applicant is focusing on each prior art teaching, rather than focusing on the actual language claimed in each claim limitation and how their corresponding limitation steps are different from the prior art teachings. Rather, the steps disclose a broader language that the prior art combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, still reasonably satisfies and teaches in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language. Also, upon re-evaluation, Kim reference also teaches that the prevention of mirroring electronic data records as “disabling the synchronization of the first user data between the relay server 1000 and another cloud storage” (¶0407; Fig. 42B; Kim) and the continuation of updates/storage to origin data and target data separately, as the synchronization of “selected data only by the owner” or the “unidirectional synchronization mode” as shown in Fig. 42A (see ¶0401; Fig. 42A; Kim), in contrast to Applicant’s general and unfounded allegations. Please, refer to the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section for further details. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 103 rejection for these pending claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
At least claims 1, 14 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11842413 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the claims are considered to be anticipated as set forth below:
Instant claims
Co-pending or reference claims
(US Patent No. 11842413 B2)
Claim 1 (representative of claims 14 and 19): A computing platform comprising:
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:
provide a software as a service (SaaS) application for construction management that employs a multi-tenant system that stores electronic data records for a plurality of parties, wherein each party has a respective account and respective electronic data records, and wherein the respective electronic data records of each respective party are stored under the respective party’s respective account and are inaccessible by another one of the plurality of parties;
establish a connection between (i) a first account associated with a first party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project and (ii) a second account associated with a second party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project, such that at least portions of electronic data records associated with a construction project can be mirrored across the accounts of the first and second parties;
determine that at least a portion of an origin data record created under the first account is to be mirrored across the first account and the second account, wherein the origin data record is an electronic data record of a collaboration software tool of the SaaS application for construction management;
create a target data record under the second account that corresponds to the origin data record created under the first account,
store the target data record under the second account, wherein the target data record is accessible by the second party but not the first party, and wherein the origin data record is accessible by the first party but not the second party;
see next row
see last row
Claims 1, 13 and 18: A computing platform comprising: (claim 1)
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:
provide a multi-tenant system that stores data records for a plurality of parties, wherein each party has a respective account and respective data records, and wherein the respective data records of each respective party are only stored under the respective party's respective account and are inaccessible by another one of the plurality of parties;
cause a first client station associated with a first party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project to display a first view of a user interface for establishing connections between accounts of different parties for a given software application such that data records can be mirrored across the accounts of the different parties while maintaining that data records of each respective party are only stored under the respective party's respective account and are inaccessible by another one of the plurality of parties;
receive, from the first client station, data indicating a request to establish a connection between a first account associated with the first party and a second account associated with a second party of the plurality of parties that is associated with the construction project, wherein the data indicating the request includes connection data defining a relationship between the first account and the second account and including an indication of (i) a first subset of information from an origin data record created under the first account and related to the construction project that is to be mirrored to the second account and (ii) a second subset of information from the origin data record that is to be prevented from being mirrored to the second account;
after receiving the data indicating the request, cause a second client station associated with the second party to display a second view of the user interface for establishing connections between accounts of different parties that enables the second party to provide user input for approving or declining the request;
receive, from the second client station, data indicating that the second party has approved the request;
after receiving the data indicating that the second party has approved the request, establish the connection between the first account and the second account;
create a target data record under the second account that corresponds to the origin data record created under the first account, wherein the target data record created under the second account comprises the first subset of information from the origin data record but not the second subset of information from the origin data record; and
store the target data record under the second account, wherein the target data record is accessible by the second party but not the first party, and wherein the origin data record is accessible by the first party but not the second party.
(Claim 1 cont.): mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account by one or more of (i) updating the target data record to include one or more updates to the at least the portion of the origin data record and (ii) updating the origin data record to include one or more updates to a portion of the target data record corresponding to the at least the portion of the origin data record;
Claims 4 and 16 (claim 4): store the connection data defining the relationship between the first account and the second account; and
cause a plurality of data records to be mirrored across the first and second accounts.
(Claim 1 cont.): receive, from a client station, a request to disestablish the connection between the first account and the second account;
in response to receiving the request to disestablish the connection, update stored connection data to indicate that the first account and the second account are no longer connected and to prevent mirroring of electronic data records associated with the construction project across the first account and the second account; and
after updating the stored connection data, (i) continue to store the target data record under the second account, thereby allowing access and updates to the target data record by the second party (ii) continue to store the origin data record under the first account, thereby allowing access and updates to the origin data record by the first party, and (iii) refrain from mirroring the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account.
Claim 10: receive, from a third client station, a request to disestablish the connection between the first account and the second account;
update stored connection data to indicate that the first account and the second account are no longer connected; and
continue to store the target data record under the second account but discontinue mirroring data records across the first and second accounts.
Consequently, at least instant claim 1 is covered by reference 1, 4, 10, 13, 16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11842413 B2. Thus, these instant claims are anticipated by the patent refence claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 16 and 18 because both applicant’s pending application and the reference patent cover every feature claim in which the instant claims are broadly recited and encompass the same disclosed technology. Moreover, both the instant claims and the reference patent claims share the same invention title which is directed to a method and a system for connecting different accounts from contractors and their corresponding parties and record data in order to access to synchronized (e.g. "mirrored") data and collaborate in construction projects together. Thus, this invention scope is further defined by the dependent claims 4, 10 and 16 as well as being covered by the independent reference claims 1, 13 and 18 from the reference patent (see MPEP 804 (II)(B)(2) for more details).
At least claims 1, 14 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 – 4, 11 – 14, and 18 - 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11373255 B2 in view of Kim (EP Pub No. 2980726 B1) in further view of Ostanik (U.S. Pub No. 20070112860 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the claims are considered to be obvious as set forth below:
Instant claims
Co-pending or reference claims
(US Patent No. 11373255 B2)
Claim 1: A computing platform comprising:
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:
provide a software as a service (SaaS) application for construction management that employs a multi-tenant system that stores electronic data records for a plurality of parties, wherein each party has a respective account and respective electronic data records, and wherein the respective electronic data records of each respective party are stored under the respective party’s respective account and are inaccessible by another one of the plurality of parties;
see next row
determine that at least a portion of an origin data record created under the first account is to be mirrored across the first account and the second account, wherein the origin data record is an electronic data record of a collaboration software tool of the SaaS application for construction management;
create a target data record under the second account that corresponds to the origin data record created under the first account,
store the target data record under the second account, wherein the target data record is accessible by the second party but not the first party, and wherein the origin data record is accessible by the first party but not the second party;
mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account by one or more of (i) updating the target data record to include one or more updates to the at least the portion of the origin data record and (ii) updating the origin data record to include one or more updates to a portion of the target data record corresponding to the at least the portion of the origin data record;
see last row
Claims 1, 11 and 18: A computing system comprising: (claim 1)
a network interface;
at least one processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the computing system to perform functions including:
determining that an origin data record created under a first account of a first party associated with a construction project is to be mirrored to a second account of a second party associated with the construction project that has an established connection with the first account of the first party, wherein the origin data record created under the first account of the first party comprises a given set of data related to the construction project;
generating a thread identification that is mapped to the origin data record created under the first account of the first party; and
generating a first message that comprises (1) data from the origin data record created under the first account of the first party and (2) the thread identification that is mapped to the origin data record created under the first account of the first party, wherein the data from the origin data record comprises at least a subset of the given set of information related to the construction project;
based on the first message, creating a target data record under the second account of the second party that corresponds to the origin data record created under the first account of the first party, wherein the target data record created under the second account of the second party comprises the subset of the given set of information related to the construction project; and
storing the target data record under the second account of the second party.
(Claim 1 cont.): establish a connection between (i) a first account associated with a first party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project and (ii) a second account associated with a second party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project, such that at least portions of electronic data records associated with a construction project can be mirrored across the accounts of the first and second parties;
Claims 3 and 13 (claim 3): before determining that the origin data record created under a first account of a first party is to be mirrored to the second account of the second party, establishing the connection between the first account of the first party and the second account of the second party.
Claims 4 and 14 (claim 4): receiving, from a first client station associated with the first party, a request to establish the connection with the second party;
receiving, from a second client station associated with the second party, a request to approve the connection between the first party and the second party; and
storing connection data that defines the connection between the first account of the first party and the second account of the second party.
(Claim 1 cont.): receive, from a client station, a request to disestablish the connection between the first account and the second account;
in response to receiving the request to disestablish the connection, update stored connection data to indicate that the first account and the second account are no longer connected and to prevent mirroring of electronic data records associated with the construction project across the first account and the second account; and
after updating the stored connection data, (i) continue to store the target data record under the second account, thereby allowing access and updates to the target data record by the second party (ii) continue to store the origin data record under the first account, thereby allowing access and updates to the origin data record by the first party, and (iii) refrain from mirroring the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account.
Claims 2, 12 and 19 (claim 2): disconnecting the first account of the first party and the second account of the second party;
and continuing to store the target data record under the second account of the second party.
Consequently, for pending claims 1, 8 and 14 in view of U.S. Patent No. 11373255 B2 and its claims 1 – 4, 11 – 14, and 18 - 19, the differences between the claims are the recitation of the following limitations:
provide a software as a service (SaaS) application for construction management that employs a multi-tenant system that stores electronic data records for a plurality of parties…;
mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account by one or more of (i) updating the target data record to include one or more updates to the at least the portion of the origin data record and (ii) updating the origin data record to include one or more updates to a portion of the target data record corresponding to the at least the portion of the origin data record;
The U.S. Patent No. 11373255 B2 and its claims 1 – 4, 11 – 14, and 18 – 19 did not taught the steps indicated above. However, these instant application’s limitations were further evaluated by Kim which taught the step of employing a multi-tenant system via a SaaS application which was interpreted as the connection between the “relay server” and the “cloud storage” operated by service providers to relay “data of the users registered respectively in a plurality of cloud storages” (see ¶0040, ¶0055 and Figs. 1 and 19; Kim).
Further, the step of mirroring portions of origin data records between accounts by (i) updating the target data record, and (ii) updating the origin data record was interpreted as the “synchronization” of “data shared between the first user and the second user” from Kim (see ¶0393; Kim) as well as the example given in ¶0394 of Kim reference, the storage and modification of a “Dropbox_user1_FILE1 file” is synchronized and updated in both the “first cloud storage 2000” and “second cloud storage 3000” from their corresponding users as shown in Fig. 41. Finally, another example is provided by Kim for “synchronizing the selected data by both the owner and the sharer may refer to a bidirectional synchronization mode in which the modified file is updated in the file of the owner or another sharer not only when the owner has modified the shared data but also when the sharer has modified the shared data.” (see ¶0402 – 403; Kim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because would have provided to the reference U.S. Patent No. 10467632 B1 with the ability of employing a multi-tenant system via a SaaS application and mirroring portions of origin data records between accounts by (i) updating the target data record, and (ii) updating the origin data record, as taught by Kim in order to share “data or transmitting messages between users, which use different cloud servers, by using relay servers.” (¶0008; Kim).
Finally, the element feature of providing a SaaS application, specifically for construction management was neither taught by the U.S. Patent No. 10467632 B1 or Kim references. Thus, the second reference of Ostanik teaches it as “an online computer program that facilitates the exchange and review of construction submittals electronically, along with providing a comprehensive system for the management of all submittals (both electronic and paper) on a construction project” (see ¶0051 and Figs. 1A – 1B; Ostanik). Also, the system provides a “central hub for management and tracking of all construction project submittals” (see ¶0053; Ostanik).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because would have provided to the reference U.S. Patent No. 10467632 B1 and Kim with the ability of providing a SaaS application, specifically for construction management, as taught by Ostanik in order to allow “for transfer, review, and tracking of construction submittals, thereby providing an opportunity for saving paper, time, and money” and to reduce “the time associated with information flow between contractors 12, an architect 14, and consultants 16” (¶0053; Ostanik). This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-5, 7-14, 16-19 and 21 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claim 1, the most representative claim of the independent claims set 1, 14 and 19, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 1 – 13 and 21 – 23 falls under statutory category of an article of manufacture, claims 14 and 16 – 18 are directed to a machine, while claim 19 is directed to method considered a process.
At Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 (representative of claims 14 and 19) recites an abstract idea in the following limitations:
…provide…that stores data records for a plurality of parties, wherein each party has a respective account and respective electronic data records, and wherein the respective electronic data records of each respective party are stored under the respective party’s respective account and are inaccessible by another one of the plurality of parties;
establish a connection between (i) a first account associated with a first party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project and (ii) a second account associated with a second party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project, such that at least portions of electronic data records associated with a construction project can be mirrored across the accounts of the first and second parties;
determine that at least a portion of an origin data record created under the first account is to be mirrored to the second account, wherein the origin data record is an electronic data record…;
create a target data record under the second account that corresponds to the origin data record created under the first account, wherein the target data record created under the second account comprises a first subset of information from the origin data record but not a second subset of information from the origin data record; and
store the target data record under the second account, wherein the target data record is accessible by the second party but not the first party, and wherein the origin data record is accessible by the first party but not the second party.
mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account by one or more of (i) updating the target data record to include one or more updates to the at least the portion of the origin data record and (ii) updating the origin data record to include one or more updates to a portion of the target data record corresponding to the at least the portion of the origin data record;
receive…a request to disestablish the connection between the first account and the second account;
in response to receiving the request to disestablish the connection, update stored connection data to indicate that the first account and the second account are no longer connected and to prevent mirroring of electronic data records associated with the construction project across the first account and the second account; and
after updating the stored connection data, (i) continue to store the target data record under the second account, thereby allowing access and updates to the target data record by the second party (ii) continue to store the origin data record under the first account, thereby allowing access and updates to the origin data record by the first party, and (iii) refrain from mirroring the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account.
Generally, and as disclosed in the specification in ¶0013, this claimed invention “enables different parties to both collaborate with another via a construction management SaaS application and also to share certain data records stored in connection with the collaboration.” However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) are/is recited in claim 1 in the form of “commercial or legal interactions”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in at least the step of “establish a connection between (i) a first account associated with a first party of the plurality of parties and (ii) a second account associated with a second party of the plurality of parties…” and “determine that at least a portion of an origin data record created under the first account is to be mirrored across the first account and the second account…”. Because establishing a connection between a first account and a second account to determine origin data records to be mirrored across first and second accounts at least encompasses commercial interactions related to business relations and agreements in the form of contracts. Similarly, these steps along with the step of “mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account…” also fall under the abstract idea sub-group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” since such connection establishment between accounts to mirror specific data is directed to managing people interactions in the form of social activities.
The steps of “determine that at least a portion of an origin data record created under the first account is to be mirrored across the first account and the second account…” and “create a target data record under the second account that corresponds to the origin data record created under the first account” fall under the abstract idea of mental processes that can be practically be performed in the human mind or in pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Because determining a portion of an origin data record to be mirrored (e.g. copied partially) requires evaluation and judgement. As for the step directed to “creating a target data record” which is a “first subset of information from the origin data” can be performed by pen and paper while encompassing at least observation, evaluation and judgement.
At Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1, 14 and 19, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of at least one processor, at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (from claim 1); at least a non-transitory computer-readable medium (from claims 1 and 14) a computing platform, a multi-tenant system, a software as a service (SaaS) application, a collaboration software tool of the SaaS application, a client station (from claims 1, 14 and 19). These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, all the claim steps for establishing a connection between accounts to determine “origin data record”, generate derived data or “create a target data record” and “mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account…” are recited as being performed by the computer with a SaaS application. The computer is recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions for establishing the connection through the SaaS app while mirroring the original and targeted data. Thus, these steps mentioned above are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can perform.
The steps of “provide a software as a service (SaaS) application for construction management that employs a multi-tenant system that stores data records…” “establish a connection …”, “store the target data record…”, “receive…a request to disestablish the connection…”, “in response to receiving the request to disestablish the connection, update stored connection data to indicate that the first account and the second account are no longer connected…” and “after updating the stored connection data, (i) continue to store the target data record under the second account…(ii) continue to store the origin data record under the first account… and (iii) refrain from mirroring the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account” in the representative claim is really nothing more than links to computer for implementing the use of ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (refer to MPEP 2106.05 f (2)). Thus, in these limitation steps, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Finally, the step of “mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account…”, is also “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In this case, the use of cloud-based technology is used to mirror (i.e. synchronize) data records, but such function is broadly recited and lacks details on how the mirroring is specifically performed and attempts to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments connected to cloud platform (i.e. multi-tenant system) via a software application services (see MPEP 2106.05(h) for examples (iv), (viii), (ix) and (x)). Therefore, this is indicative of the fact that the claim set has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore, the claims are found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the Examiner.
Step 2B: For independent claims 1, 14 and 19, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: at least one processor, at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (from claim 1); at least a non-transitory computer-readable medium (from claims 1 and 14) a computing platform, a multi-tenant system, a software as a service (SaaS) application, a collaboration software tool of the SaaS application, a client station (from claims 1, 14 and 19). These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the recitation of a computer to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 16-18 and 21 - 23, the same analysis is incorporated. Due to their dependency to the independent claims analyzed, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea(s) of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 2-5, 7-13, 16-18 and 21 - 23: further describes the abstract idea of the method for mirroring data across different accounts and how the data record is maintained and stored without being access by the other accounts that are not their respective authors/creators, the types of predefined rules used by the system and what type of data/party role they are based of, and the type of requests/approvals made by the party accounts and the type of connection data needed to update data records and connect/disconnect accounts. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea groups of “commercial or legal interactions”, “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” and mental processes as these steps encompass interactions related to business relations and agreements in the form of contracts, social activities and requires at least one of observation, evaluation and judgement.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 7, 9, 10 and 23, these claims recite the additional elements of: a first client station and a user interface (from claim 7), a second client station (from claim 9) a client station (from claim 10), a request for information (RFI) tool, a budget tool, a documents tool, a schedule tool (from claim 23). These additional elements recited are invoking computers merely used as a tool to perform or “apply” the abstract idea(s) to the existing process of displaying and viewing data in an interface and disestablish any existing connections between accounts. Thus, amounting to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (f)(2)). Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, these additional element(s) claimed cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Finally, the additional elements previously mentioned above, are nothing more than descriptive language about the elements that define the abstract idea, and these claims remain rejected under 101 as well.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-19 and 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (EP Pub No. 2980726 B1) in view of Ostanik (U.S. Pub No. 20070112860 A1) in further view of Wells (CA Pub No. 2944218 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 19:
Kim teaches:
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: (see Figs. 87 – 89: illustrates a computer with a “controller (processor)” with a “storage” or “RAM” and “ROM’ and a “CPU”. Refer to ¶1073, ¶1085 and ¶1112 for more details.)
provide a software as a service (SaaS) application for construction management that employs a multi-tenant system that stores electronic data records for a plurality of parties, wherein each party has a respective account and respective electronic data records, and wherein the respective electronic data records of each respective party are stored under the respective party’s respective account and are inaccessible by another one of the plurality of parties; (In ¶0058; Figs. 1 - 2 (1000): teaches a “relay server 1000 may share first user data stored in a first cloud storage 2000 or second user data stored in a second cloud storage 3000 between the first user and the second user” and “access right information about the first cloud storage 2000 may be stored in the relay server 1000” which satisfies respective data records being stored by the respective party without being accessible by the other party. See ¶0064 for access right information about the “second cloud storage 3000” for the “right to store data in the second user storage space in the second cloud storage 3000”. Also, the provision of a SaaS that further employs the multi-tenant system was interpreted as the “service provider that provides a data storage service (i.e. a cloud storage service) to users” and operates the “cloud storage” (see ¶0040) which can subsequently utilize a “relay server” with the “cloud storage” to relay “data of the users registered respectively in a plurality of cloud storages” (see ¶0055) as shown in Figs. 1 and 19 (see ¶0208 for further details).)
establish a connection between (i) a first account associated with a first party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project and (ii) a second account associated with a second party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project, such that at least portions of electronic data records associated with a construction project can be mirrored across the accounts of the first and second parties; (In ¶0100; Figs. 2 and 5 – 6: teaches that the “relay server 1000 may receive a share request for sharing the first user data stored in the first cloud storage 2000 with the second user from the first device 100” that once the “the access right to the first user data is set in the first cloud storage 2000 corresponding to the account of the relay server 1000, the first cloud storage 2000 may transmit the first user data requested by the relay server 1000 to the relay server 1000” directed to a connection being established between accounts (see ¶0103 – 104). For more connection details see Fig. 2 and ¶0069 – 70. Thus, the system can also receive “a read protection request for a portion of the file among the first user data together with the share request” and a “use restriction request for the first user data together with the share request” wherein such restriction includes “restrictions on the copy, print, and modification of the data” (see ¶107 and ¶0111) which is directed to mirroring data across accounts, in accordance to ¶0014 from Applicant’s disclosure. Refer to ¶0112 – 113 for more details about data synchronization by copying data from one account to another based on the user request and/or access right information)
determine that at least a portion of an origin data record created under the first account is to be mirrored across the first account and the second account, wherein the origin data record is an electronic data record of a collaboration software tool of the SaaS application for construction management; (In ¶0110; Figs. 4, 8, 11 and 12: teaches an example “when receiving the read protection request for a portion of the file among the first user data together with the share request for the first user data from the first device 100, the relay server 1000 may delete a read-protected portion among the first user data received from the first cloud storage 2000 and store a file with the portion deleted in the second user storage space.”)
create a target data record under the second account that corresponds to the origin data record created under the first account; (In ¶0196; Fig. 17 (S1740) and Fig. 18: teaches that upon receiving a first user data request for transmitting “list of the first user data” (see ¶0195), “the relay server 1000 stores the list of the first user data set to be shared between the first user and the second user” at S1740. Refer to ¶0166 – 167 for details about copying/modifying/viewing/reading restrictions on origin data that is shared as a target data to the second account or another user. See ¶0112 wherein “the relay server 1000 may synchronize the first user data stored in the first cloud storage 2000 and a copy of the first user data stored in the second user storage space in the second cloud storage 3000”.)
store the target data record under the second account, wherein the target data record is accessible by the second party but not the first party, and wherein the origin data record is accessible by the first party but not the second party; (In ¶0220; Fig. 20 (S2020); Figs. 24A, 25 and 27: teaches that “the second cloud storage 3000 grants the relay server 1000 the right to store data in the second user storage space in the second cloud storage 3000.” Refer to ¶0247 – 248 wherein the “the second device 200 may display a UI 2430 for selecting the range of the first user data to be stored in the second cloud storage 3000” wherein choosing to store “only the list of the data” and/or “the first user data” which is directed to target data being accessible be the second party only. See ¶0281 for more general details for storing data based on the first/second device. As for the descriptive matter holding no patentable weight of the origin data record being only accessible to the first party, this is satisfied when the system determines the “access right information” such as “restrictions” in the data sharing step disclosed in this prior art and as previously stated above.)
mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account by one or more of (i) updating the target data record to include one or more updates to the at least the portion of the origin data record and (ii) updating the origin data record to include one or more updates to a portion of the target data record corresponding to the at least the portion of the origin data record; (In ¶0393; Fig. 41: teaches in “FIG. 41, the first device 100 and the second device 200 may synchronize the data shared between the first user and the second user”. Further, as the example given in ¶0394, the storage and modification of a “Dropbox_user1_FILE1 file” is synchronized and updated in both the “first cloud storage 2000” and “second cloud storage 3000” from their corresponding users as shown in Fig. 41. Also, refer to ¶0402 – 403 for an example and for “synchronizing the selected data by both the owner and the sharer may refer to a bidirectional synchronization mode in which the modified file is updated in the file of the owner or another sharer not only when the owner has modified the shared data but also when the sharer has modified the shared data.”)
In addition to Kim teaching the multi-tenant system connected to SaaS applications as the connection between the “relay server” and the “cloud storage” operated by service providers (see ¶0040, ¶0055 and Figs. 1 and 19; Kim), Kim also teaches the use of APIs and software logic to connect with different service providers (e.g. and their software applications) (see ¶0208; Kim). However, Kim does not explicitly teach the abilities of providing a software as a service (SaaS) application specifically, for construction management, that employs a multi-tenant system as well as having electronic data records and first and second parties specifically associated with a construction project. Thus, Ostanik teaches:
provide a software as a service (SaaS) application for construction management… (In ¶0051; Fig. 1A – 1B: teaches “an online computer program that facilitates the exchange and review of construction submittals electronically, along with providing a comprehensive system for the management of all submittals (both electronic and paper) on a construction project”. Also, the system provides a “central hub for management and tracking of all construction project submittals” (see ¶0053).)
…(i) a first account associated with a first party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project and (ii) a second account associated with a second party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project… (In ¶0053; Figs. 1A – 1B: teaches a “central hub for management and tracking of all construction project submittals” wherein “contractors 12, an architect 14, and consultants 16 can all access a submittal exchange online system 10”.)
…wherein the origin data record is an electronic data record of a collaboration software tool of the SaaS application for construction management; (In ¶0056; Fig. 3 (118 and 120): teaches an example wherein “if available electronically, the Contractor adds the submittal to the system under the appropriate specification section in step 118” and the “system records the date and submittal information in the submittal log, and saves a copy of the electronic file in step 120”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to provide the abilities of providing a software as a service (SaaS) application specifically, for construction management, that employs a multi-tenant system as well as having electronic data records and first and second parties specifically associated with a construction project, as taught by Ostanik in order to allow “for transfer, review, and tracking of construction submittals, thereby providing an opportunity for saving paper, time, and money” and to reduce “the time associated with information flow between contractors 12, an architect 14, and consultants 16” (¶0053; Ostanik).
Kim at least teaches the prevention of mirroring electronic data records as “disabling the synchronization of the first user data between the relay server 1000 and another cloud storage” (¶0407; Fig. 42B; Kim) and the continuation of updates/storage to origin data and target data separately, as the synchronization of “selected data only by the owner” or the “unidirectional synchronization mode” as shown in Fig. 42A (see ¶0401; Fig. 42A; Kim). However, neither Kim or Ostanik explicitly teach the abilities of disestablishing a connection between the first account and second account via a receiving request, update the stored connection data to indicate the accounts disconnection, and continue the storage of target data record and origin data corresponding to each account, separately. Thus, Wells teaches:
receive, from a client station, a request to disestablish the connection between the first account and the second account; in response to receiving the request to disestablish the connection, (In ¶0099: this limitation is satisfied as the system allows “a user” to “have control to remove the communications and documents created by the user”.)
update stored connection data to indicate that the first account and the second account are no longer connected and to prevent mirroring of electronic data records associated with the construction project across the first account and the second account; and (In ¶0087: teaches that “synchronization components may be used to enforce the access rights of users, including real time server updates that issue instructions for changes in the current set of permissions” including “a client request may not be fulfilled if the server determines that the requested item of content is not accessible to the user”.)
after updating the stored connection data, (i) continue to store the target data record under the second account, thereby allowing access and updates to the target data record by the second party (ii) continue to store the origin data record under the first account, thereby allowing access and updates to the origin data record by the first party, and (iii) refrain from mirroring the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account. (In ¶0099: teaches that “control of lifetime, access, and viewing of the communications and documents may be maintained by the user that created them” as well as it “may be maintained by the subscriber, with guest access to a subset of controls by a user”. Also, “communications and documents may be stored in a persistent state in the cloud computing facility” and “the secure workflow environment includes maintaining access history” wherein the “access history may be maintained in a group traceability facility”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Ostanik to provide the abilities of disestablishing a connection between the first account and second account via a receiving request, update the stored connection data to indicate the accounts disconnection, and continue the storage of target data record and origin data corresponding to each account, separately, as taught by Wells in order to enable “traceability, control, and the establishment of a context for collaborative work, while allowing for active changes in the environment to accommodate the evolving needs of users” (¶0003; Wells).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to establish the connection between (i) the first account associated with the first party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project and (ii) the second account associated with the second party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project such that at least portions of electronic data records associated with a construction project can be mirrored across the accounts of the first and second parties comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: for each respective party of the first and second parties, maintain that the respective data records of the respective party of the first and second parties are stored under that party’s respective account and are inaccessible by the other respective party of the first and second parties. (In ¶0401; Fig. 42B: teaches that the system can synchronize selected data wherein “synchronizing the selected data only by the owner may refer to a unidirectional synchronization mode in which the modified file is updated in the file of the sharers only when the owner has modified the shared data, and the modified file is not updated in the file of the owner or another sharer when the sharer has modified the shared data”. Also, this synchronization can be bidirectional (see ¶0402).)
Regarding claims 3 and 16:
The combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the target data record created under the second account comprises a first subset of information from the origin data record but not a second subset of information from the origin data record, (In ¶0110: teaches an example “when receiving the read protection request for a portion of the file among the first user data together with the share request for the first user data from the first device 100, the relay server 1000 may delete a read-protected portion among the first user data received from the first cloud storage 2000 and store a file with the portion deleted in the second user storage space”. See ¶1071 also.)
and wherein the computing platform further comprises 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: use a predefined rule to determine (i) the first subset of information from the origin data record and (i) the second subset of information from the origin data record. (In ¶0268 – 269; Figs. 30, 42A and 48: teaches that “when the copy of the first user data is a file or a folder, the second device 200 may receive only a list of files or folders from the second cloud storage 3000” which “include attribute information of the files and a hierarchical structure of the folders” (see ¶0190 and ¶0287 for more details) which is directed to the predefined rule used to determine the first/second subset information from origin data record, and in light of ¶0142 from Applicant’s disclosure. Refer to ¶0208 wherein the system may “provided with the software logic for granting other users the right to store data in the second user storage space, by using the open API provided by the service provider of the second cloud storage 3000” which is directed to using predefined rules to determine subset information derived from origin data records. See ¶0531 and Fig. 48 for another example wherein the system lets the user apply “read protection set for the contents to the second user” which is another example of information subsets being programmed by rules that the determine which second subset of information to share with the second user.)
Regarding claim 4:
Kim, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the predefined rule is defined based at least on a type of data record. (In ¶01043: teaches that the system can use “attribute information” including “file type” to determine whether to transmit the copy of “a list of files or folders” to a second account/user (see ¶0268 – 269). Refer to ¶0082 – 83 and ¶0197 for more details.)
Regarding claim 5:
Kim, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3.
Kim does not explicitly teach the ability of having a predefined rule, specifically based on party roles. However, Ostanik further teaches:
wherein the predefined rule is defined based at least on a role of a party holding a connected account. (In ¶0070; Fig. 9: teaches this descriptive matter as the ability that the system has, wherein “additional user types or user sub types may be created where appropriate” as illustrated in Fig. 9. Thus, “the application provides a first level of access to a contractor to submit construction submittals, a second level of access to an architect to review and manage construction submittals, a third level of access to consultants to review construction submittals, and a fourth level of access to facilities owners, construction managers, and other parties to monitor the submittal process”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to provide the ability of having a predefined rule based on party roles, as taught by Ostanik in order to allow “an architect to view, define or create users or project team member profiles who have access to projects and the role of each member” (¶0064; Ostanik).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
further comprising 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: cause a first client station associated with the first party of the plurality of parties to display a view of a user interface for establishing connections between accounts of different parties for a given software application such that at least portions of data records can be mirrored across the accounts of the different parties while maintaining that data records of each respective party are stored under the respective party’s respective account and are inaccessible by another one of the plurality of parties; and (see Figs. 7 – 8, 11 – 12, 13, 19, 24A 32, 42A – 42B and 46: At least in Fig. 46 shows an interface wherein the user can view and share a specific documents with another user account while assigning restrictions. Also, in Fig. 32 the user can see more details per each file within the document folder. Refer to ¶0112 – 113 and Figs. 42A – 42B for more details of synchronization data features.)
receive, from the first client station, data indicating a request to establish the connection between (i) the first account associated with the first party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project and (ii) the second account associated with the second party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project, wherein the data indicating the request includes connection data defining a relationship between the first account and the second account. (In ¶0100; Figs. 11 – 13 and 32: teaches the “relay server 1000 may receive a share request for sharing the first user data stored in the first cloud storage 2000 with the second user from the first device 100”. Also, Fig. 11 – 13 shows connection data indicating details about the second user identification information and its relationship with the first account (see also Fig. 32 and ¶0322), based on the example given in ¶0098 from Applicant’s disclosure. See ¶0155 – 167 for more details.)
Regarding claim 8:
Kim, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the target data record created under the second account comprises a first subset of information from the origin data record but not a second subset of information from the origin data record, (In ¶0110: teaches an example “when receiving the read protection request for a portion of the file among the first user data together with the share request for the first user data from the first device 100, the relay server 1000 may delete a read-protected portion among the first user data received from the first cloud storage 2000 and store a file with the portion deleted in the second user storage space”. See ¶1071 also.)
and wherein the connection data includes an indication of (i) the first subset of information and (ii) the second subset of information (see Figs. 32, 46 and 48: shows connection data and indications of first and second subset of information such as folders and subfolders from the user’s first account or second account. Another example of an indication of subset of information being connected is shown in Fig. 46 wherein the user can choose a file to be “read-only” and Fig. 48 shows the user can select the portion of information in a file to include “read protection” and share it with a target party.)
Regarding claim 9:
Kim, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Kim further teaches:
further comprising 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: after receiving the data indicating the request, cause a second client station associated with the second party to display a second view of the user interface for establishing connections between accounts of different parties that enables the second party to provide user input for approving or declining the request; and (See Figs. 24A: shows a second user clicking in “store” to accept the folder shared by the first user account. See ¶0234 – 235 for details about connection indications between accounts.)
receive, from the second client station, data indicating that the second party has approved the request, and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to establish the connection between (i) the first account associated with the first party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project and (ii) the second account associated with the second party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project, such that at least portions of electronic data records can be mirrored across the accounts of the first and second parties comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: (In ¶0249 - 250; Figs. 24A and 24B (2430): teaches that “the second device 200 may transmit information about whether to store the first user data received from the second device 200 in the second cloud storage 3000 and information about the first user data storage range to the relay server 1000” and “based on the information about whether to store the first user data received from the second device 200 in the second cloud storage 3000 and the information about the first user data storage range, the relay server 1000 may store some or all of the first user data in the second cloud storage 3000.” Refer to ¶0258 – 260 for more details.)
after receiving the data indicating that the second party has approved the request, establish the connection between (i) the first account associated with the first party of the plurality of parties that is associated with a construction project and (ii) the second account associated with the second party of the plurality of parties such that at least portions of electronic data records can be mirrored across the accounts of the first and second parties. (In ¶0266; Fig. 25: in Fig. 25 the connection establishment between accounts is reflected as it illustrates that “a method for the second device 200 to receive the data of the first user, which is stored in the second cloud storage 3000 when a share is set between the first user and the second user, from the second cloud storage 3000 and display the received data of the first user, according to an exemplary embodiment”.)
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
further comprising 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: generate a thread identification that maps the origin data record created under the first account to the target data record. (In ¶0184 – 185; Fig. 16; Fig. 17 (S1730 – S1740); and Fig. 18: teaches in Fig. 16 that “the relay server 1000 may store information 1610 about the original data and information 1620 about the sharing corresponding to identification information 1611 of the data requested to be shared between the first user and the second user” wherein “information 1610 about the original data requested to be shared may include a data name 1612, an owner ID 1614, identification information 1616 of the cloud storage in which the data is stored, and position information 1618 representing the position of the data” (including link or URL information; see ¶0045 – 46). Also, in ¶0194 – 196, upon “the first cloud storage 2000 transmits the list of the first user data requested by the relay server 1000 to the relay server 1000”, then “the relay server 1000 stores the list of the first user data set to be shared between the first user and the second user” that further includes “identification information” that has “position information” (see ¶0200).)
Regarding claims 11 and 17:
The combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account by one or more of (i) updating the target data record to include one or more updates to the at least the portion of the origin data record and (ii) updating the origin data record to include one or more updates to a portion of the target data record corresponding to the at least the portion of the origin data record comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: detect an update to the portion of the target data record; (In ¶0481; Fig. 45A (S4515 – S4520): teaches that upon receiving “a user input for modifying the file A stored in the second device 200” (see ¶0477), “the second cloud storage 3000 updates the prestored file A into the modified file A” based on the second device request since file A was modified by the first user (see ¶0478 – 479).)
generate a message that comprises (1) data reflecting the update to the portion of the target data record and (2) the thread identification that maps the origin data record created under the first account to the target data record; (In ¶0483 – 484; Fig.45 (4525): teaches “the second cloud storage 3000 notifies the relay server 1000 that the file A has been modified. The second cloud storage 3000 may transmit event information indicating that the file A of the second user has been modified to the relay server 1000” wherein the event information includes “identification information of the file A” which “may be position information representing the storage position of the file A” directed to thread identification.)
based on the message, update the origin data record to correspond to the updated target data record; and (In ¶0492; Fig. 45A (S4525 – S4540): teaches that “the relay server 1000 requests the first cloud storage 2000 to update the file A” (see ¶0489), and “by requesting the first cloud storage 2000 to update the file A, the relay server 1000 may update information about the file A shared between the first user and the second user”.)
store the updated origin data record under the first account. (In ¶0494; Fig. 45A (S4545 – S4555): teaches that “the first cloud storage 2000 updates the prestored file A into the modified file A” and “the first device 100 updates the prestored file A into the modified file A received from the first cloud storage 2000” (see ¶0498).)
Regarding claim 12:
Kim, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the target data record comprises one or more internal data fields that are prevented from being mirrored. (In ¶0503; Fig. 45B and 46: teaches that the user can set a “write protection for the file A” at Step S4562 which can include for a certain or “partial region” of the “file A” (see ¶0442 also). Refer to ¶0107 for general details.)
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account by one or more of (i) updating the target data record to include one or more updates to the at least the portion of the origin data record and (ii) updating the origin data record to include one or more updates to a portion of the target data record corresponding to the at least the portion of the origin data record comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: detect an update to the portion of the origin data record; (In ¶0418; Fig. 44A (S4415 – S4425): teaches that upon receiving “a user input for modifying the file A stored in the first device 100” (see ¶0414), “the first cloud storage 2000 updates the prestored file A into the modified file A” based on the first device request since file A was modified by the first user (see ¶0414 – 415.)
generate a message that comprises (1) data reflecting the update to the portion of the origin data record and (2) the thread identification that maps the origin data record created under the first account to the target data record; (In ¶0420 – 421; Fig. 44A (4425): teaches “the first cloud storage 2000 notifies the relay server 1000 of the modification of file A. The first cloud storage 2000 may transmit event information indicating that the file A of the first user has been modified to the relay server 1000” wherein the event information includes “identification information of the file A” which “may be position information representing the storage position of the file A” directed to thread identification.)
based on the message, update the target data record to correspond to the updated origin data record; and (In ¶0429; Fig. 44A (S4425 – S4440): teaches that “the relay server 1000 requests the second cloud storage 3000 to update the file A” (see ¶0426) and by “requesting the second cloud storage 3000 to update the file A, the relay server 1000 may update information about the file A shared between the first user and the second user”.)
store the updated target data record under the second account. (In ¶0431; Fig. 44A (S4445 – S4455): teaches “the second cloud storage 3000 updates the prestored file A into the modified file A” and “the second device 200 updates the prestored file A into the modified file A received from the second cloud storage 3000.” (see ¶0435).)
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 14.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to mirror the at least the portion of the origin data record across the first account and the second account by one or more of (i) updating the target data record to include one or more updates to the at least the portion of the origin data record and (ii) updating the origin data record to include one or more updates to a portion of the target data record corresponding to the at least the portion of the origin data record comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to: detect an update to the target data record; based on data indicating the update to the target data record, update the origin data record to correspond to the updated target data record; and (In ¶0481; Fig. 45A (S4515 – S4520): teaches that upon receiving “a user input for modifying the file A stored in the second device 200” (see ¶0477), “the second cloud storage 3000 updates the prestored file A into the modified file A” based on the second device request since file A was modified by the first user (see ¶0478 – 479).)
store the updated origin data record under the first account. (In ¶0494; Fig. 45A (S4545 – S4555): teaches that “the first cloud storage 2000 updates the prestored file A into the modified file A” and “the first device 100 updates the prestored file A into the modified file A received from the first cloud storage 2000” (see ¶0498).)
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the target data record created under the second account comprises a first subset of information from the origin data record but not a second subset of information from the origin data record, (In ¶0110: teaches an example “when receiving the read protection request for a portion of the file among the first user data together with the share request for the first user data from the first device 100, the relay server 1000 may delete a read-protected portion among the first user data received from the first cloud storage 2000 and store a file with the portion deleted in the second user storage space”. See ¶1071 also.)
and wherein the second subset of information comprises data from one or more internal data fields that are prevented from being mirrored. (In ¶0503; Fig. 45B and 46: teaches that the user can set a “write protection for the file A” at Step S4562 which can include for a certain or “partial region” of the “file A” (see ¶0442 also). Refer to ¶0107 for general details.)
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
further comprising 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: generate a first message that comprises (1) data from the at least the portion of the origin data record created under the first account and (2) a thread identification that maps the origin data record created under the first account to the target data record, (In ¶0358 – 359; Fig. 37 (3710); Fig. 44A (4425): teaches that “he first device 100 requests the relay server 1000 to set the share between the first user and the second user with respect to the first user data in the first cloud storage 2000” wherein the share setting request includes “identification information the first user data to be shared” which “may include position information representing the position of the first user data” directed to thread identification. See also Fig. 44A in “step 4425” wherein “the first cloud storage 2000 notifies the relay server 1000 of the modification of file A. The first cloud storage 2000 may transmit event information indicating that the file A of the first user has been modified to the relay server 1000” (see ¶0420 – 421))
and wherein the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to create the target data record under the second account that corresponds to the origin data record created under the first account comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: based on the first message, create the target data record under the second account that corresponds to the origin data record. (In ¶0367; Fig. 37 (3770); Fig. 45A (S4525 – S4540): teaches that “when the relay server 1000 has the right to store data in the second user storage space in the second cloud storage 3000 (in operation S3760), the second cloud storage 3000 stores the first user data set to be shared between the first user and the second user in the second user storage space”. See Fig. 45A, ¶0489 and ¶0492 in “step 4425 – 4540” wherein “by requesting the first cloud storage 2000 to update the file A, the relay server 1000 may update information about the file A shared between the first user and the second user”)
Regarding claim 23:
The combination of Kim, Ostanik and Wells, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim teaches the use of APIs and software logic to connect with different service providers (e.g. and their software applications) (see ¶0208; Kim). However, neither Kim or Ostanik explicitly teach the ability of providing at least one of the specific types (RFI, budget, document or schedule) of collaboration software tool of the SaaS application. Thus, Wells further teaches:
wherein the collaboration software tool of the SaaS application for construction management comprises one of: a request for information (RFI) tool that enables parties to create and manage RFIs for a construction project, a budget tool that enables parties to build and manage a budget for a construction project, a documents tool that enables parties to manage and save project documentation, and a schedule tool that enables parties to manage a project's schedule. (In ¶0084 – 85; Fig. 17 (1702): teaches a system that provides “a secure workflow environment through a cloud computing facility, wherein the secure workflow environment may be adapted to (1) provide a plurality of users with a workspace that may be adapted to provide secure document management and secure communications management” (see ¶0089). Further, the system “can be operated as a collection of virtual servers” wherein such “server architecture may include an application server 1702”. This “application server 1702 may run an operating system, such as the Linux operating system and Java Virtual Machine. The essential functionalities may be embodied in a number of modules that process the system functions, such as application services, transfer objects model, scheduler, security, document converter, metrics, user system access, billing platforms client, remote access workstation client, data access objects model, and the like”, in accordance to the examples of tools given in ¶0009 and ¶0014 from Applicant’s disclosure.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to provide the abilities of providing at least one of the specific types (RFI, budget, document or schedule) of collaboration software tool of the SaaS application, as taught by Wells in order to enable “traceability, control, and the establishment of a context for collaborative work, while allowing for active changes in the environment to accommodate the evolving needs of users” (¶0003; Wells).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brandl (U.S. Pub No. 20080178093 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to a method and system for resource orientated multi-project management, based on functionalities from plan-orientated multi-project management systems and enterprise project management systems.”
Khalil (U.S. Pub No. 20190220796 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to improvements in a computer program. More particularly, the present computer program addresses management knowledge areas and its relation with the management process groups.”
Allin (U.S. Pub No. 20130054485 A1) is pertinent because it “provide[s] a computer-based method of managing documents”
Yu (U.S. Pub No. 20210019705 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to the field of terminal device technologies, and in particular, to methods and apparatuses for sharing data across groups.”
Espinosa (U.S. Pub No. 20150350221 A1) is pertinent because it “pertains to calendars, and more specifically pertains to a shared calendar assigned to a group of linked user accounts.”
Avi-Dan (U.S. Pub No. 20170046529 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to an apparatus, system and method for enabling access to an item on a data store.”
Tian (U.S. Pub No. 20180075246 A1) is pertinent because it “describes securely and efficiently sharing data exchange records.”
Hockings (U.S. Pub No. 20110277016 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to identity management in a distributed computing environment.”
Roy (U.S. Pub No. 20200401458 A1) is pertinent because it “relates adaptive distribution/re-distribution of data processing tasks among distributed system nodes.”
McNally (U.S. Patent No. 6823513 B1) is pertinent because it is “relates to workflow management and distribution processes systems and particularly to the protection of the computer resources used in executing and carrying out the various workflow activities assigned to the participants or operators in the overall process.”
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 Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626