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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 12/08/2025.
Claims 1,4-6,8,10,13-15,17,19 have been amended.
Claims 21-29 have been added.
Claims 2-3, 7,9,11-12,16,18,20 have been canceled.
Claims 1,4-6,8,10,13-15,17,19 and 21-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 12/08/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1,4-6,8,10,13-15,17,19 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “independent claims 1, 10, and 19 both as originally written and as now amended are plainly limited to software functionality of a construction management software application for adding users associated with secondary collaborator to an electronic project workspace that has been created by a primary collaborator within the construction management software application. There is no element in independent claims 1, 10, and 19 that recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a commercial interaction or business relations - the recited functionality is exclusively focused on adding users to an electronic project workspace within a construction management software application, which is technological process rather than a commercial or business process (page 1/ 4)”.
Examiner disagrees. An application functionality of a construction management (commercial interactions) application for adding users associated with secondary collaborator ( commercial interaction of business relation that merely gather data , analyze data) to an electronic project workspace that has been created by a primary collaborator ( commercial interaction of business relation that merely gather data , analyze data) within the construction management (commercial interactions) application. the above recitation as drafted falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
The above recitation is also directed to concepts relating to managing relationships between people, which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
As thus, the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a commercial interaction or business relations, which is an abstract idea itself.
The mere recitation of using “software application” does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,10, and 19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not "merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content," as alleged in the office action. To the contrary, amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite user interfaces and corresponding functionality for facilitating interactions between multiple different collaborators in order to add users associated with secondary collaborator to an electronic project workspace that has been created by a primary collaborator within the construction management software application. For this reason alone, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong One of the Office's § 101 framework (page 6/10)”.
Examiner disagrees. corresponding functionality for facilitating interactions between multiple different collaborators in order to add users associated with secondary collaborator to an electronic project workspace that has been created by a primary collaborator within the construction management as drafted falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). The above recitation is also directed to concepts relating to managing relationships between people, which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. The mere recitation of using “software application” does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional element presented above is the user interface which is just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. user interfaces (Uls) for performing user input is old and well known as per Usability.gov. As per Affinity v. Direct TV such generic user interfaces are generic computer components. Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,10, and 19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the combination of additional elements recited by amended independent claims 1 , 10, and 19, when taken together, supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea that is recited in the claims under Step 2B of the Office's § 101 framework. Indeed, it is well established that "an inventive concept can be found in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces" that provides a technical improvement over prior art. Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding an "inventive concept" in claims that "recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content" that is "is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content"); see also, e.g., Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that "when all limitations are considered individually and as an ordered combination, they provide an inventive concept through the use of distributed architecture" that is a "technical improvement over prior art technologies"). In this respect, amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite a non-conventional, non-generic arrangement of elements that provide specific, technological improvement to prior art technology for construction management software applications. Thus, because amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea recited in the claims, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are also patent eligible under Step 2B of the Office's § 101 framework. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 10, and 19 as well as dependent claims 4-6, 8, 13-15, and 17 are patent eligible, and respectfully requests that the outstanding § 101 rejections be withdrawn (page 9/10)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claimed invention and Bascom have different claim sets and different fact patterns. in Bascom, the Courts concluded that the claim limitation takes as an “ordered combination” under step two are an inventive concept, sufficient for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. Because of the ordered combination elements, the claims in Bascom were considered to improve the functionality of the computer, and thus amounted to significantly more.
Unlike the arrangement in BASCOM Global Internet Services Inc. V. AT&T Mobility LLC, the instant claims do not constitute an arrangement of parts, but rather conventional servers, processors, etc. In the instant claims’ invocation of generic computers and components of computing platform comprising at least one processor, program instructions, user interface, templates and client device do not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. As evident by Applicant’s specification [129]. Using a generic computers and components recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to perform the abstract idea without improving computers, interfaces or other technologies. These additional elements do not improve computer functionality or another technology or a technical field. They do not implement the abstract idea on a machine that is integral to the claim. The do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do not transform tor reduce a particular articular to a different state or thing. Nor do they apply he abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.04 (d).
As thus, the recitation of generic computers and generic components fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Furthermore, the independent claims nor the dependent claims recite an improvement in another technology or technical field nor do they purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they are seen to be mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer using a processor and a tangible computer readable medium storing a computer program product configured to store instructions.
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,10, and 19 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1,4-6,8,10,13-15,17,19 rejection under 35 USC § 102 (a) (1):
Applicant argues that “Rohatgi fails to disclose each and every element of amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19. As such, amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are not anticipated by Rohatgi. Further, for at least the reason that each of dependent claims 4-6, 8, 13-15, and 17 is dependent on one of these amended independent claims, Applicant respectfully submits that dependent claims 4-6, 8, 13-15, and 17 are also not anticipated by Rohatgi. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of all rejections under § 102 (page 10/10)”.
Examiner disagrees. Applicant is respectively reminded that according to Rule 37 C.F.R.1.111 (under MPEP 714.02): "the reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references” and “A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirement of this section”. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,4-6,8,10,13-15,17,19 under 35 USC § 102 (a) (1) is maintained.
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 1,4-6,8,10,13-15,17,19, 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 21, 28, are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claim (s) 10, 13-15, 17, 22 are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non transitory computer medium), claim (s) 19, 23-25, 26-27, 29 are directed to a process (i.e. a method).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ receive, from a first client operated by a representative of a primary collaborator, a request to access a first user for inviting a secondary collaborator to join an electronic proi ect workspace for a construction proi ect that has been created by the primary collaborator within the construction management application: in response to receiving the request to access the first user , cause the first client device to present the first user, wherein the first user interface comprises at least a first input region for specifying the secondary collaborator and (ii) a second input region for specifying permission templates that are available for assignment to users associated with the secondary collaborator: receive, from a primary collaborator the first client that is presenting the first user interface, a request to create an invitation for the secondary collaborator to the first client device that is presenting the first user interface, a request to create an invitation for the secondary collaborator to join the electronic project workspace for the construction project that has been created by the primary collaborator within the construction management application,wherein the request to create the invitation includes a first set of collaboration information comprising at least (i) an identification of the secondary collaborator and (ii) an identification of permission templates that are available for assignment to users associated with the secondary collaborator, wherein each of the permission templates defines at least one of (a) types of electronic data obiects that are permitted to be accessed by a user within the electronic proj ect workspace for the construction proj ect, (b) types of features that are permitted to be utilized by a user within the electronic project workspace for the construction proj ect, or (c) a permitted extent of access granted to a userwith respect to one or both of electronic data objects or features within the electronic proj ect workspace for the construction proj ect;
cause a second client a representative of the secondary collaborator to present a second user for responding to the invitation, wherein the second user interface comprises at least (i) a first input region for specifying users associated with the secondary collaborator that are to be granted access to the electronic proj ect workspace for the construction proj ect and (ii) a second input region for indicating respective permission templates that are requested for the users;receive, from the second client that is presenting the second user , a response to the invitation, wherein the response to the invitation includes a second set of collaboration information comprising at least (j an identification of one or more users associated with the secondary collaborator that are to be granted access to the electronic project workspace for the construction project and (ii) an indication of a respective permission that is requested for each of the identified one or more users; and for each of the identified one or more users associated with the secondary collaborator:based on the first set of collaboration information and the second set of collaboration information, determine a respective one of the permission templates that is applicable to the identified user;assign, to the identified user, a respective set of permissions for accessing the electronic project workspace for the construction proj ect that is based on the respective one of the permission templates; andgrant the identified user access to the electronic project workspace for the construction project in accordance with the respective set of permissions and thereby enable the identified user to access one or more types of electronic data objects associated with the electronic project workspace for the construction proj ect and utilize one or more types of features associated with the electronic project workspace for the construction project in accordance with the respective set”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. The claims are also directed to concepts relating to managing relationships between people, which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “computing platform comprising at least one processor, at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; software application, templates, user interface”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “computing platform comprising at least one processor, at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; software application, templates, user interface ” to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraph 129-134); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receive, from a first client device operated by a representative of a primary collaborator, a request to access a first user interface for inviting a secondary collaborator to j oin an electronic proiect workspace for a construction proiect that has been created by the primary collaborator within the construction management software application
receive, from the first client device that is presenting the first user interface, a request to create an invitation for the secondary collaborator join the electronic project workspace for the construction project that has been created by the primary collaborator within [[a]] the construction management software application;
receive, from the second client device that is presenting the second user interface, a response to the invitation;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 10 and 19.
The dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent 1,10,19.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that theclaim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 28-29 recite the limitation of : maintain a first instance of the electronic project workspace for the construction project that is accessible by users associated with the primary collaborator; maintain a second instance of the electronic project workspace for the construction project that is accessible by users associated with the primary collaborator; and synchronize the first and second instances of the electronic project workspace for the construction proj ect.
The specification teaches “ As another possibility, an instance of the project workspace of construction project may be created and stored within the secondary collaborator’s account, and the individuals associated with the secondary collaborator that have been added as users to the project workspace of the given construction project may be able to access the instance of the project workspace of the given construction project as stored within the secondary collaborator’s account. And in such instances, the back-end computing platform 102 may perform functionality for synchronizing the instance of the project workspace of the given construction project stored within the primary collaborator’s account with the instance of the project workspace of the given construction project stored within the secondary collaborator’s account (e.g., by copying changes to data within one project workspace instance to the other project workspace instance). Other possibilities may also exist [ 124]”. The specification does not teach “ maintain a first instance of the electronic project workspace for the construction project that is accessible by users associated with the primary collaborator; maintain a second instance of the electronic project workspace for the construction project that is accessible by users associated with the primary collaborator; and synchronize the first and second instances of the electronic project workspace for the construction proj ect.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,4-6,8,10,13-15,17,19, 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rohatgi et al, US Pub No: 2022/0284399 A1.
As per claims 1, 10 and 19, Rohatgi 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:
receive, from a first client device operated by a representative of a primary collaborator, a reqluest to access a first user interface for inviting a secondary collaborator to j oin an electronic proi ect workspace for a construction proi ect that has been created by the primary collaborator within the construction management software application:in response to receiving the request to access the first user interface, cause the first client device to present the first user interface, wherein the first user interface comprises at least a first input region for specifying the secondary collaborator and (ii) a second input region for specifying permission templates that are available for assignment to users associated with the secondary collaborator (see at least paragraphs 38 and 124-133; paragraph 38 ( An invitation that is sent to a collaborator may include a description of the collaborator's default access permissions and retention settings for the project entity as configured by the project owner. Accepting the invitation to collaborate on the project entity may require the collaborator to agree to its respective default access permissions and retention settings); paragraph 132 (the computing platform may proceed to send to each identified collaborator an invitation to collaborate on the project entity) ; see at least paragraph 132 (the computing platform may proceed to send to each identified collaborator an invitation to collaborate on the project entity) ;
receive, from a primary collaborator the first client device that is presenting the first user interface, a request to create an invitation for the secondary collaborator to the first client device that is presenting the first user interface, a request to create an invitation for the secondary collaborator to join the electronic project workspace for the construction project that has been created by the primary collaborator within the construction management software application,wherein the request to create the invitation includes a first set of collaboration information comprising at least (i) an identification of the secondary collaborator and (ii) an identification of permission templates that are available for assignment to users associated with the secondary collaborator, wherein each of the permission templates defines at least one of (a) types of electronic data obiects that are permitted to be accessed by a user within the electronic proj ect workspace for the construction proj ect, (b) types of software features that are permitted to be utilized by a user within the electronic project workspace for the construction proj ect, or (c) a permitted extent of access granted to a userwith respect to one or both of electronic data objects or software features within the electronic proj ect workspace for the construction proj ect (see at least paragraphs 124-133; paragraph 132 ( The view 550 may prompt the party to input data identifying the one or more collaborators that will be invited to collaborate on the project entity. For example, as shown in view 550, the party may be prompted to input contact information for each of the one or more collaborators. After inputting the contact information for the one or more collaborators, the party may proceed to select an option to cause the computing platform to send a respective invitation to each collaborator. For example, as shown in view 550, the party may select a GUI button “Invite.” In turn, the computing platform may proceed to send to each identified collaborator an invitation to collaborate on the project entity; the party may select an option to retrieve a link, or some other pointer, which the party may use to independently invite the one or more collaborators to collaborate on the project entity );
cause a second client device operated by a representative of the secondary collaborator to present a second user interface for responding to the invitation, wherein the second user interface comprises at least (i) a first input region for specifying users associated with the secondary collaborator that are to be granted access to the electronic proj ect workspace for the construction proj ect and (ii) a second input region for indicating respective permission templates that are requested for the users;receive, from the second client device that is presenting the second user interface, a response to the invitation, wherein the response to the invitation includes a second set of collaboration information comprising at least (j an identification of one or more users associated with the secondary collaborator that are to be granted access to the electronic project workspace for the construction project and (ii) an indication of a respective permission template that is reqiuested for each of the identified one or more users; and for each of the identified one or more users associated with the secondary collaborator: based on the first set of collaboration information and the second set of collaboration information, determine a respective one of the permission templates that is applicable to the identified user;assign, to the identified user, a respective set of permissions for accessing the electronic proj ect workspace for the construction proj ect that is based on the respective one of the permission templates (see at least paragraphs 110, 119-129; paragraph 110 (After determining that the requested project entity is unique, the computing platform may cause the project owner's client station to display a view prompting the project owner to confirm that it is, in fact, a project owner of the project represented by the project entity. In some instances, a party other than the project owner may initiate the project entity creation process. For example, an employee of a construction company who is responsible for creating new project entities for the construction company's construction projects may have initiated the project creation process using an individual account. In such instances, when the party creating the project entity is not the project owner, the party may input information indicating that the party is not a project owner and may instead identify a different party who should be designated as the project owner. The computing platform may then save the project details received thus far and send a notification to the identified project owner to complete setup of the project entity—that is, to configure access permissions and retention settings for one or more collaborators and invite the one or more collaborators to access the project entity); paragraphs 124-133; paragraph 132 ( The view 550 may prompt the party to input data identifying the one or more collaborators that will be invited to collaborate on the project entity. For example, as shown in view 550, the party may be prompted to input contact information for each of the one or more collaborators. After inputting the contact information for the one or more collaborators, the party may proceed to select an option to cause the computing platform to send a respective invitation to each collaborator. For example, as shown in view 550, the party may select a GUI button “Invite.” In turn, the computing platform may proceed to send to each identified collaborator an invitation to collaborate on the project entity; the party may select an option to retrieve a link, or some other pointer, which the party may use to independently invite the one or more collaborators to collaborate on the project entity;
assign each of the identified one or more users associated with the secondary collaborator a respective permission template from the one or more permission templates that is associated with respective project role of the identified user that is input by the secondary collaborator see at least paragraphs 110-133; paragraph 132 ( The view 550 may prompt the party to input data identifying the one or more collaborators that will be invited to collaborate on the project entity. For example, as shown in view 550, the party may be prompted to input contact information for each of the one or more collaborators. After inputting the contact information for the one or more collaborators, the party may proceed to select an option to cause the computing platform to send a respective invitation to each collaborator. For example, as shown in view 550, the party may select a GUI button “Invite.” In turn, the computing platform may proceed to send to each identified collaborator an invitation to collaborate on the project entity; the party may select an option to retrieve a link, or some other pointer, which the party may use to independently invite the one or more collaborators to collaborate on the project entity );
grant the identified user access to the electronic project workspace for the construction project in accordance with the respective set of permissions and thereby enable the identified user to access one or more types of electronic data objects associated with the electronic project workspace for the construction proj ect and utilize one or more types of software features associated with the electronic project workspace for the construction project in accordance with the respective set ( see at least paragraphs 124-133; paragraph 132 ( The view 550 may prompt the party to input data identifying the one or more collaborators that will be invited to collaborate on the project entity. For example, as shown in view 550, the party may be prompted to input contact information for each of the one or more collaborators. After inputting the contact information for the one or more collaborators, the party may proceed to select an option to cause the computing platform to send a respective invitation to each collaborator. For example, as shown in view 550, the party may select a GUI button “Invite.” In turn, the computing platform may proceed to send to each identified collaborator an invitation to collaborate on the project entity; the party may select an option to retrieve a link, or some other pointer, which the party may use to independently invite the one or more collaborators to collaborate on the project entity );
As per claims 4 and 13, Rohatgi teaches:
wherein the first set of collaboration information further comprises a universe of project roles that are available for assignment to users associated with the secondary collaborator (see at least paragraph 85 (a party that represents an individual may be associated with a given user role, which may reflect the individual's job function or job title. In that regard, a party's general access permissions and retention settings may be assigned or modified using role-based access permissions. Role-based access permissions may comprise a set of predetermined settings associated with a given party role or department (e.g., administrator, manager, contractor, finance, legal, etc.) that may be assigned to a party. Role-based access configuration may be particularly useful when defining access permissions settings for multiple parties in a similar way. For example, if a party representing a company wishes to configure access permissions and/or retention settings for multiple other parties representing individuals (e.g., employees of the company) with whom the party is linked, the party may configure access permissions and/or retention settings for one or more groups of the multiple other parties using role-based configuration. As another example, a party that represents a company may include contact information, location information, website/social media information, and/or other information pertaining to the company. Furthermore, a party that represents a company may be associated with a given company role, which may further be associated with a certain set of general access permissions and retention settings);
As per claims 5 and 14, Rohatgi teaches:
wherein the one or more permission templates are each associated with a respective project role (see at least paragraphs 105-124; paragraph105 (A project collaborator may be a party that is invited to access and collaborate on an existing project entity. As discussed above, a project collaborator may represent an individual or a company. In this regard, when a project owner invites a given collaborator that represents a company to collaborate on a given project entity, the project owner may configure the given collaborator's general access permissions in a way that allows the given collaborator to invite additional collaborators (e.g., one or more of the company's employees) to collaborate on the project entity. The project owner may further configure the given collaborator's permissions such that the given collaborator may configure, for each additional collaborator that the given collaborator invites to collaborate on the project entity, a respective set of default access permissions and retention settings);
As per claims 6 and 15, Rohatgi teaches:
wherein the second set of collaboration information further comprises, for each of the one or more identified users associated with the secondary collaborator that are to be granted access to the project workspace, an identification of a respective project role of the identified user that is input by the secondary collaborator (see at least paragraphs 110-133; paragraph 112 (A project owner may configure a given collaborator's default access permissions settings in various ways. In one aspect, the project owner may define whether the given collaborator may invite other collaborators to access the project entity. For example, as discussed above, a party may represent a company or an individual. In this regard, a project owner may invite a company-party and/or an individual-party to collaborate on a given project entity. In an instance where a given collaborator is a company-party, the project owner may configure the given collaborator's access permissions such that the given collaborator may invite additional collaborators that are affiliated with the given collaborator (e.g., the company may invite one or more of its employees to access the project). In this regard, when granting the given collaborator permission to invite additional collaborators, the project owner may further configure the given collaborator's settings such that the given collaborator's default access permissions and data retention settings may automatically propagate to any additional collaborator that the given collaborator invites to access the project entity. Alternatively, the project owner may configure the given collaborator's access settings such that the given collaborator may configure the access permissions and retention settings for each additional collaborator that the given collaborator invites to the project entity, to the extent that the additional collaborators' settings may not surpass (e.g., exceed the scope of) the given collaborator's setting);
As per claims 8 and 17, Rohatgi teaches:
receive, from the primary collaborator, a third set of collaboration information comprising an approval, rejection, or modification of the response to the invitation to collaborate on the construction project (see at least paragraph 123-133; paragraph 132 (The view 550 may prompt the party to input data identifying the one or more collaborators that will be invited to collaborate on the project entity. For example, as shown in view 550, the party may be prompted to input contact information for each of the one or more collaborators. After inputting the contact information for the one or more collaborators, the party may proceed to select an option to cause the computing platform to send a respective invitation to each collaborator. For example, as shown in view 550, the party may select a GUI button “Invite.” In turn, the computing platform may proceed to send to each identified collaborator an invitation to collaborate on the project entity. Additionally, or alternatively, the party may select an option, such as the GUI button “Not now,” which may cause the computing platform to save the collaborator details that have been provided by the party and send the collaborator invitations at a later time. Still additionally, or alternatively, the party may select an option to retrieve a link, or some other pointer, which the party may use to independently invite the one or more collaborators to collaborate on the project entity);
As per claims 21-25, 27 Rohatgi teaches:
wherein the third user interface comprises at least (i) a first input region for specifying respective project roles that are to be assigned to users associated with the secondary collaborator that are to be granted access to the electronic project workspace for the construction project and (ii) a second input region for specifying respective permission templates that are to be assigned to the users;
wherein the permission templates are each associated with a respective proj ect role;
wherein the indication of the respective permission template that is requested for each of the identified one or more users comprises an identification of a respective proj ect role of each of the identified one or more users;
see at least paragraphs 119-150; paragraph 124 (The series of GUI views may begin with view 510, where the party may be presented with a view prompting the party to input information regarding the given construction project. For example, the party may be prompted to enter a project name, project address, and project type for the given construction project. The party may also be prompted to enter a current project phase, examples of which may include phases such as “Negotiation,” “Planning & Design,” or “Construction.” The view 510 may prompt the party to input other information as well); paragraph 138 (The computing platform may cause the project owner's client station to display an initial view prompting the project owner to input information identifying an existing project entity under which the new data object should be created. For example, the project owner may identify an existing project entity by selecting the existing project entity from a displayed list or by inputting information identifying the existing project entity, among other possibilities. In an instance where a new data object is related to an existing data object (e.g., the new data object is a field entity related to a given object entity), the project owner may further identify the existing data object under which the new data object should be created. In some implementations, the project owner may be prompted to first create the new data object and then identify one or both of an existing project entity or an existing data object with which the newly created data object is related);
As per claim 26, Rohatgi teaches:
receiving, from the first client device that is presenting a third user interface, a third set of collaboration information comprising an approval, rejection, or modification of the response to the invitation to collaborate on the construction project ( see at least paragraph 34 (the project owner may define a scope of access for the given collaborator with respect to project data related to the project entity. The scope of access may include what project data (e.g., what types of data entities) the given collaborator may access and what actions the given collaborator may perform with respect to accessible project data. Permissible actions may include, among other examples, the ability to create, read, update, delete, or share data. The project owner may define the scope of access in various ways. As one possibility, the project owner may define the scope of access based on different levels of access. As one example, “full” access permissions may permit the given collaborator to access all project data related to the project entity and perform all permissible actions with respect to the project data. As another example, “limited” access permissions may permit the collaborator to access only project data that is specifically shared with the given collaborator and perform only certain permissible actions with respect to that project data. The project owner may further specify what type of project data the collaborator may access and what specific actions the collaborator may perform with respect to that project data);
As per claims 28-29, Rohatgi teaches:
maintain a first instance of the electronic project workspace for the construction project that is accessible by users associated with the primary collaborator;maintain a second instance of the electronic proj ect workspace for the construction project that is accessible by users associated with the primary collaborator; and synchronize the first and second instances of the electronic project workspace for the construction proj ect ( see at least paragprah 34 ( (the project owner may define a scope of access for the given collaborator with respect to project data related to the project entity. The scope of access may include what project data (e.g., what types of data entities) the given collaborator may access and what actions the given collaborator may perform with respect to accessible project data. Permissible actions may include, among other examples, the ability to create, read, update, delete, or share data. The project owner may define the scope of access in various ways. As one possibility, the project owner may define the scope of access based on different levels of access. As one example, “full” access permissions may permit the given collaborator to access all project data related to the project entity and perform all permissible actions with respect to the project data. As another example, “limited” access permissions may permit the collaborator to access only project data that is specifically shared with the given collaborator and perform only certain permissible actions with respect to that project data. The project owner may further specify what type of project data the collaborator may access and what specific actions the collaborator may perform with respect to that project data); paragraph 112 (A project owner may configure a given collaborator's default access permissions settings in various ways. In one aspect, the project owner may define whether the given collaborator may invite other collaborators to access the project entity. For example, as discussed above, a party may represent a company or an individual. In this regard, a project owner may invite a company-party and/or an individual-party to collaborate on a given project entity. In an instance where a given collaborator is a company-party, the project owner may configure the given collaborator's access permissions such that the given collaborator may invite additional collaborators that are affiliated with the given collaborator (e.g., the company may invite one or more of its employees to access the project). In this regard, when granting the given collaborator permission to invite additional collaborators, the project owner may further configure the given collaborator's settings such that the given collaborator's default access permissions and data retention settings may automatically propagate to any additional collaborator that the given collaborator invites to access the project entity);
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Winterstein et al, US Pub No: 2021/0240987 A1, teaches computer system and method for documenting items identified while at a construction site.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is files within TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX Months from the mailing date of this final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622