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 .
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 16 December 2025. Applicant’s amendment on 16 December 2025 amended Claims 1, 5, 7, and 12. Currently Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12-14 are pending and have been examined. Claims 6, 10, 11, 15, and 16 has been canceled. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection has been maintained. It is further noted that it does not appear that the Applicant did not respond to the 112 rejection and it is therefore maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 2-3 that “The new guidance regarding U.S.C. 101 was discussed by the Examiner, in particular MPEP 2106.05(a). Applicant notes that in the reference used in the U.S.C. 102 rejection below, the state of the art related to construction management applications is to scan a code in an area of the construction that results in accessing documents that are related to that location such as blueprints and designs of a specific room. As was discussed during the interview, applicant's system is different, in that there is a single scan code for the entire building that is scanned by the tradesperson upon entering the building. Scanning of this code provides the tradesperson with instructions or tasks that need to be performed by that tradesperson, for example, install a window. When the tradesperson finds something is wrong, possibly blocking them from completing their task, the tradesperson enters a note into the record for that building, for example, the window is 6' wide and the framed opening is only 5' wide. The record goes back to a server that sees this note and automatically notifies the tradesperson that is responsible for fixing the problem (e.g., the framer). This is a vast technical improvement over the prior technology in which a job site manager would, at some time, review all of the notes and send text messages to whoever needs to be involved in fixing the issue, typically happening after the day is over. With applicant's system, the responsible tradesperson is notified immediately and may be local to the job site to visit, assess the issue, and fix the issue, possibly while the window installer is still present. This is a clear improvement to the technology of construction management and therefore, applicant respectfully requests that the U.S.C. 101 rejection be withdrawn”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments in the Examiner notes that while the Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a "vast technical improvement" over prior art construction management systems by using a single scan code for the entire building that provides task instructions rather than accessing documents, and by automatically detecting issues in notes and immediately notifying the responsible tradesperson. Applicant contends this eliminates delays inherent in prior systems where managers manually review notes and send text messages after the workday ends, thereby constituting a "clear improvement to the technology of construction management. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant's argument but respectfully maintains the 101 rejections. While Applicant has articulated business advantages of the claimed system, the argument conflates improvements to a business process with improvements to technology a distinction that is critical under current subject matter eligibility jurisprudence. The improvements consideration under MPEP 2106.05(a) requires that claims "purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field." Alice Corp. As emphasized in MPEP 2106.05(a), "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." The advantages described by Applicant faster issue notification, reduced manual review overhead, and improved workflow coordination represent improvements to the construction management business process, not improvements to computer technology, network technology, database technology, or any other technical field.
Applicant's primary argument centers on the speed benefit of immediate automated notification compared to delayed manual review by a manager. However, the Federal Circuit has clearly held that "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA). The claimed improvement immediate notification versus delayed manager review is precisely the type of speed benefit that results from computerizing any manual process, which is insufficient to establish eligibility.
The described improvement is directly analogous to Trading Technologies Int'l v. IBG LLC, where the Federal Circuit held that a user interface that provided traders with more information to facilitate market trades more quickly "improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology" and was therefore ineligible. Similarly, Applicant's system provides tradespeople with faster notification of issues to facilitate construction management more efficiently, which improves the business process of construction management but does not improve computers, networks, databases, or any other technology.
Furthermore, even accepting Applicant's characterization of the system's advantages, the claims themselves do not reflect a technological improvement. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a), citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., after determining that the specification describes an improvement, "the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology." Claim 1 recites "thereby increasing a speed of fixing the issue," which captures a business outcome rather than explaining how the technology operates differently or what technical problem is solved. The claim does not recite how computer technology is improved, what specific technical implementation enables the improvement, or any technological details beyond generic components performing conventional functions.
The January 2025 Subject Matter Eligibility Memorandum (memo10120250804) provides guidance directly applicable to Applicant's argument. The memorandum instructs examiners to consider "whether the technological limitations are being used as a tool to improve the recited judicial exception (e.g., automating a manual business process) or whether the claim as a whole provides an improvement to technology or a technical field." Here, the technological limitations server, smartphone, database, and QR code scanning are being used as tools to automate the manual business process of construction workflow management, task assignment, and issue routing. The claim recites only the outcome ("increasing a speed of fixing the issue") without details of how a solution is technically accomplished, which the memorandum identifies as indicative of merely applying an abstract idea rather than improving technology.
Regarding Applicant's distinction that the system uses a single scan code for the entire building rather than multiple location-specific codes, this represents a design choice in the business process rather than a technological innovation. The choice between centralized versus distributed task assignment is a functional requirement of the business method, not a technical solution that improves how computers, databases, or networks operate. Similarly, the automatic routing of issues to responsible tradespeople constitutes conditional logic and automated workflow routing well-understood, routine, and conventional in workflow management systems without any claimed details on how the server determines responsibility or detects issues beyond standard data processing.
The Examiner acknowledges that Applicant's system may provide significant practical advantages in construction management operations. However, under controlling precedent including Alice, Trading Technologies, and Intellectual Ventures, improvements to business processes through automation using generic computer components are insufficient to establish patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims use generic technology (servers, smartphones, databases, QR codes) to automate conventional construction management activities (task assignment, status tracking, issue routing, workflow coordination), which is the type of implementation that the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have consistently held ineligible.
For the reasons stated above, the 101 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. The claims remain directed to an abstract idea (certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically construction workflow management) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself. The described advantages represent improvements to business processes and outcomes achieved through conventional automation, not improvements to technology or technical fields as required under MPEP 2106.05(a) and controlling case law.
The remaining Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 1, 7, and 12 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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, 7-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 12-14 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) recite the abstract idea of managing construction workflows through location-based task assignment, status tracking, issue detection and routing, and sequential activity management.
Step 1:
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, claim 7 is directed to a method/process, claims 12-14 are directed to program instructions tangibly embodied in a non-transitory storage medium (manufacture), and claims 1-5 are directed to a system (machine). Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
The claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 7, and 12 recite the following limitations that constitute abstract ideas:
Independent Claim 1 recites:
"scan the job site code upon the user visiting the construction site; send the job site code to the server computer and retrieve an activity to be performed by the user at the construction site from the server computer"
"upon completion of the activity, send a status and optional notes to the server computer"
"when the server computer receives the status of the activity and notes from the construction management application, when the notes include an issue, the server computer determines an individual that will be tasked with correcting the issue and the server computer sends the status of the activity and the notes to a second construction management application running on a second smartphone that is assigned to the individual for notification of the individual"
"responsive to receiving the status and the optional notes, the server computer updates the database with the status and the optional notes and the server computer determines a next activity for the user, the server computer sends the next activity to the smartphone"
Independent Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations in method form:
"software running on the server computer finding the job site code in the database of construction sites and activities"
"software running on the server computer sending an activity transaction to the user device, the activity transaction comprising an activity that is to be performed by a user of the user device"
"using the construction management application receiving a completion record from the means for inputting and the construction management application sending the completion record to the server computer"
"when receiving the completion record and when the completion record is indicating of an issue, the software running on the server computer determining who will be performing an action to correct the issue and the software running on the server computer sending a repair task to a second construction management application"
"software running on the server computer updating a status of the activity based upon the completion record, the server computer determining a next activity to be performed by the user of the user device"
Independent Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations in program instruction from claims 1 and 7.
Abstract Idea Grouping Analysis - Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
These limitations fall within the "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people," "commercial or legal interactions," and "following rules or instructions" sub-groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claims recite:
1. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims describe coordinating construction workers through task assignment based on location, routing issues to appropriate personnel based on responsibility determinations, and managing sequential workflow progression. This constitutes managing interactions between construction workers, supervisors, managers, and other tradespeople involved in construction projects.
2. Commercial or legal interactions
The claims recite business relations in construction project management, including tracking activity completion status, maintaining construction records, and coordinating work between different parties (e.g., window installer, framer, construction manager as referenced in the specification).
3. Following rules or instructions
The claims describe following predetermined workflows where activities are assigned in sequence, completion triggers the next activity assignment, and issues trigger routing to designated personnel according to pre-established responsibility assignments.
Fundamental Concept
The fundamental concept claimed is managing construction project workflows through: (1) location-based task retrieval, (2) status and issue reporting, (3) conditional routing of issues to responsible parties, and (4) sequential activity assignment. These are organizational and coordination activities that manage human interactions in the construction business process.
This is comparable to abstract ideas recognized by the courts in the construction management and workflow coordination context. The claims describe fundamental business practices in project management that have existed in various forms before computerization, such as:
Assigning tasks to workers based on their location and role
Reporting completion status and problems encountered
Routing problems to appropriate personnel for resolution
Determining the next task in a workflow sequence
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II (discussing certain methods of organizing human activity).
Step 2A Prong Two:
Identification of Additional Elements
The claims recite the following additional elements beyond the identified abstract idea (independent claims):
Server computer with storage and database populated with user data and activity data (Claim 1)
Smartphone having a processor, display, means for data entry, local storage, and means for communicating with the server computer (Claim 1)
Job site code encoded into a scannable medium installed at a construction site (Claim 1)
Construction management application installed in local storage and running on processor (Claim 1)
User validation/authentication via server computer and database (Claim 1)
Database of construction sites and activities (Claim 7)
User device having means for displaying and means for inputting (Claims 7, 12)
Non-transitory storage medium (Claim 12)
Network communication/transactions between devices and server
Analysis of Additional Elements
Improvement to Technology or Technical Field (MPEP 2106.05(a)):
The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Claim 1 includes the phrase "thereby increasing a speed of fixing the issue," which describes a result of the claimed process. However, this represents an improvement to the business process of construction management (faster issue resolution through automated routing and notification) rather than an improvement to computer technology, database technology, network technology, or any other technical field.
The courts have held that "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA). The increased speed of fixing issues results from automating the manual process of a manager reviewing notes and sending notifications, not from any improvement to how computers, databases, or networks operate.
This is analogous to Trading Technologies Int'l v. IBG LLC, where the Federal Circuit held that a user interface that provided traders with more information to facilitate market trades more quickly "improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology." Similarly, here the claimed system provides faster notification of construction issues to facilitate construction management more efficiently, which improves the business process of construction management but does not improve computers or technology.
The claims do not describe how the computer technology operates differently, what specific technical implementation enables the improvement, or how any technical problem is solved. The specification would need to demonstrate that the invention improves how computers function or solves a technical problem in a novel way, which is not present here. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Particular Machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)):
The claims do not recite use of a particular machine that imposes meaningful limits on the claim. The recited "server computer," "smartphone," "processor," "display," "means for data entry," "local storage," and "non-transitory storage medium" are generic computing components recited at a high level of generality. These components do not impose meaningful limits on the claim scope because they encompass any general-purpose server and any general-purpose mobile device with standard features. The claims do not recite any specialized hardware, particular structural configuration, or unconventional arrangement of components. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Mere Instructions to Apply the Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)):
The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computers. The claims recite generic computing components (server computer, smartphone, processor, database, storage, display, communication means) performing generic computing functions (authenticating users via database queries, scanning codes, transmitting data over networks, storing data in databases, retrieving data from databases based on identifiers, displaying data on screens, receiving user input, performing conditional logic to route notifications).
This is tantamount to adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. The claims simply instruct the practitioner to use a generic server, generic smartphone, and generic database to implement the construction workflow management process. This does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea or integrate it into a practical application. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
The claims are comparable to TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, where the court found that invoking a telephone unit and server to classify and store digital images merely used these components "as tools to execute the abstract idea" without reciting details of how to carry out the abstract idea, and thus did not add significantly more.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)):
The additional elements of "scan the job site code," "send the job site code to the server computer," "retrieve an activity," "send a status and optional notes to the server computer," and "send the status of the activity and the notes to a second construction management application" constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. The scanning step is mere data gathering acquiring the location identifier before performing the core abstract idea of task assignment and workflow management. The sending and retrieving steps are mere data transmission incidental to the primary process of managing construction workflows. The display steps ("the construction management application running on the smartphone displays the next activity") constitute mere output of results. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
These data gathering, transmission, and output activities are necessary to the abstract idea but do not impose meaningful limits that integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong Two Conclusion
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements do not:
Improve the functioning of a computer or other technology
Apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (only generic computers)
Effect a particular transformation (only routine data manipulation)
Add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment
Instead, the additional elements merely use generic computer components as tools to perform the abstract idea of construction workflow management. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity Analysis
The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field. Specifically:
Server computer with database:
The courts have recognized servers and databases for storing and retrieving information as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (holding that data structures and databases were well-known); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (holding that sending messages over a network and storing information in a database were well-understood, routine, conventional functions).
Smartphone components (processor, display, data entry, storage, communication):
The courts have recognized generic mobile computing devices and their standard components as well-understood, routine, conventional. See Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, (cellular telephone performing generic functions); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (telephone unit with standard features used in ordinary capacity).
User authentication via database:
The courts have recognized user authentication and validation using databases as well-understood, routine, conventional. This is standard computer security practice involving database queries to verify credentials. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., (holding that authentication steps were conventional).
Scanning codes (QR codes/job site codes):
QR code technology has been widely used since the 1990s for location identification, product tracking, and data retrieval. Scanning a code to retrieve associated data from a database is a well-understood, routine application of barcode/QR code technology. Courts have recognized that scanning and transmitting data are conventional activities. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., (scanning documents and transmitting data held conventional).
Data transmission over networks:
The courts have consistently recognized receiving and transmitting data over networks as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp; TLI Communications; OIP Techs.
Conditional logic and automated routing:
The claims recite that "when the notes include an issue, the server computer determines an individual that will be tasked with correcting the issue and the server computer sends the status...to a second construction management application." This represents conditional if-then logic and automated message routing based on data content, which are fundamental programming concepts and well-understood database and workflow automation functions. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., (holding that automated decision-making based on data was conventional).
Sequential task assignment:
The claims recite that the "server computer determines a next activity for the user" and sends it to the smartphone. Sequential task assignment based on workflow state is a standard feature of project management and workflow automation systems, representing conventional state machine logic and database operations.
Combination Analysis
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The combination represents a conventional automation approach: scan location identifier - retrieve assigned task from database - display task - receive completion status and notes - parse notes for issues - conditionally route to responsible party - determine next task in sequence - display next task. This is a straightforward implementation of the abstract idea using generic components in their ordinary capacities performing well-known functions.
Unlike BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, there is no "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." The components interact in entirely conventional ways: mobile devices communicate with servers via standard network protocols, servers query databases using standard database operations, applications display data on screens using standard UI functions, and workflow logic determines task sequences using standard conditional processing. There is no unexpected or unconventional interaction between components.
Step 2B Conclusion
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
The dependent claims do not add limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept:
Claim 2:
This claim recites "whereas the user represents a team." This merely broadens the abstract idea to encompass groups of users rather than individual users, but does not add any technological implementation or meaningful limitation. This is a further specification of the organizational aspect of the abstract idea.
Claim 3:
This claim recites "wherein the job site code is a quick response code." QR codes are a well-known type of two-dimensional barcode that have been widely used since the 1990s. Specifying that the scannable code is a QR code rather than another type of code does not add an inventive concept or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application it merely specifies a well-understood, routine, conventional implementation detail.
Claim 4:
This claim recites "wherein the job site code is displayed on a plaque at a job site." This specifies the physical medium on which the code is displayed (a plaque) but does not change the eligibility analysis. The physical substrate for displaying a code is a routine implementation choice and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim.
Claim 5:
This claim recites additional routing when "the status indicates the issue" sending to a construction manager's smartphone. This adds another conditional notification path but represents the same type of automated routing based on data content discussed above, which is well-understood, routine, conventional workflow automation. Adding another recipient to the notification routing does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 8-9:
These claims depend from claim 7 and recite the same QR code and plaque limitations as claims 3-4. The same analysis applies these specify well-understood, routine, conventional implementation details.
Claims 13-14:
These claims depend from claim 12 and recite the same QR code and plaque limitations as claims 3-4. The same analysis applies these specify well-understood, routine, conventional implementation details.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of managing construction workflows through location-based task assignment, status tracking, issue detection and routing, and sequential activity management, which falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. The claims do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements merely use generic computer technology as a tool to implement the abstract idea and do not improve the functioning of computers or any other technology. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that do not provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 12-14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gustafson et al. (U.S. Patent 11,386,364 B1) (hereafter Gustafson).
Referring to Claim 1, Gustafson teaches a system for managing construction of a plurality of buildings, said system comprising:
a server computer, the server computer having a storage and a database installed within the storage, the database populated with user data and activity data related to the construction of the plurality of buildings (see; col. 9, lines (41-67) of Gustafson teaches a database store construction data for multiple projects, col. 10, lines (46-59) regarding a construction management system for over a centralized server or in a cloud server).
a smartphone, the smartphone having a processor, a display, means for data entry, local storage, and means for communicating with the server computer (see; col. 11, line (58) – col. 12, line (12) of Gustafson teaches mobile device to access construction project data, col. 10, lines (46-59) in a construction management system run over a centralized server or in the cloud).
a job site code encoded into a scannable medium, the scannable medium installed at a construction site (see; Abstract of Gustafson teaches a scannable indicia (i.e. medium) at the construction site to provide documents and information regarding project tasks).
a construction management application is installed in the local storage of the smartphone, the construction management application runs on the processor of the smartphone causing the smartphone to (see; Abstract of Gustafson teaches a smart phone to access via GUI to gather data, col. 10, lines (46-59) in a construction management system run over a centralized server or in the cloud).
validate a user of the smartphone communicating with the server computer and using the database for authentication (see; col. 11, lines (48-57) of Gustafson teaches the managing of security protection).
scan the job site code upon the user visiting the construction site (see; Abstract of Gustafson teaches scan the indicia at the project site).
send the job site code to the server computer and retrieve an activity to be performed by the user at the construction site from the server computer (see; col. 12, lines (45-62) of Gustafson teaches retrieval of data to a mobile device, Abstract – utilizing a scannable code at a construction site).
upon completion of the activity, send a status and optional notes to the server (see; col. 6, line (60) – col. 7, line (11) of Gustafson teaches when activities and tasks are the completed, the information can be sent to the central hub (i.e. server)).
responsive to receiving the status and the optional notes, the server computer updates the database with the status and the optional notes and the server computer determines a next activity for the user, the server computer sends the next activity to the smartphone (see; col. 6, line (60) – col. 7, line (11) and col. 15, lines (46-64) of Gustafson teaches based on submitted information the server can automatically follow up on required actions (i.e. update and prompt next accurate).
Gustafson does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Samuels teaches when the server computer receives the status of the activity and notes from the construction management application, when the notes include an issue, the server computer determines an individual that will be tasked with correcting the issue and the server computer sends the status of the activity and the notes to a second construction management application running on second smartphone that is assigned to the individual for notification of the individual thereby increasing a speed of fixing the issue (see; par. [0063] and par. [0065] of Samuels teaches the identification by a barcode that is scanned and used by a journeyman to identify measures used to authorize workers to perform tasks, par. [0098] and Figure 12 that provides an example of tasks to be completed by an authorized worker, par. [0048] where information is transmitted to a mobile device (i.e. smartphone) of the worker, par. [0047] and par. [0055] including status updates of the site, and par. [0048] where a second worker with a mobile device is assigned after a different worker finished their job), and
the construction management application running on the smartphone displays the next activity on the display of the smartphone (see; par. [0006] of Samuels teaches a mobile device connected to a network, par. [0020] running an application, par. [0098] which shows the next tasks to be performed).
The Examiner notes that Gustafson teaches similar to the instant application teaches construction project information and document access system. Specifically, Gustafson discloses the construction management system for enabling the performance of work tasks conducted at a remote project site such as a construction site and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Samuels teaches a method for predicting data about a construction site and as it is comparable in certain respects to Gustafson which construction project information and document access system as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Gustafson discloses the construction management system for enabling the performance of work tasks conducted at a remote project site such as a construction site. However, Gustafson fails to disclose when the server computer receives the status of the activity and notes from the construction management application, when the notes include an issue, the server computer determines an individual that will be tasked with correcting the issue and the server computer sends the status of the activity and the notes to a second construction management application running on second smartphone that is assigned to the individual for notification of the individual thereby increasing a speed of fixing the issue and the construction management application running on the smartphone displays the next activity on the display of the smartphone.
Samuels discloses when the server computer receives the status of the activity and notes from the construction management application, when the notes include an issue, the server computer determines an individual that will be tasked with correcting the issue and the server computer sends the status of the activity and the notes to a second construction management application running on second smartphone that is assigned to the individual for notification of the individual thereby increasing a speed of fixing the issue and the construction management application running on the smartphone displays the next activity on the display of the smartphone.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Gustafson the when the server computer receives the status of the activity and notes from the construction management application, when the notes include an issue, the server computer determines an individual that will be tasked with correcting the issue and the server computer sends the status of the activity and the notes to a second construction management application running on second smartphone that is assigned to the individual for notification of the individual thereby increasing a speed of fixing the issue and the construction management application running on the smartphone displays the next activity on the display of the smartphone as taught by Samuels since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Gustafson, and Samuels teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage construction work sites and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches the system above, system further disclose a system having the limitations of:
the user represents a team (see; col. 16, lines (10-26) of Gustafson teaches multiple team members).
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches the system above, system further disclose a system having the limitations of:
the job site code is a quick response code (see; col. 13, lines (3-23) of Gustafson teaches quick response code).
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches the system above, system further disclose a system having the limitations of:
the job site code is displayed on a plaque at a job site (see; Abstract of Gustafson teaches a scannable indicia (i.e. medium) at the construction site to provide documents and information regarding project tasks).
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches the system above, Gustafson does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Samuels teaches responsive to receiving the status and the optional notes, when the status indicates issue, the server computer sends the status of the activity and the optional notes to a third construction management application running on a third smartphone that is assigned to a construction manager (see; par. [0006] of Samuels teaches multiple mobile devices connected to a network, par. [0020] running an application, par. [0098] which shows the next steps to perform to one of many, par. [0098] authorized worker (i.e. third worker), and par. [0045] where a site manager is provided information (i.e. construction manager)).
The Examiner notes that Gustafson teaches similar to the instant application teaches construction project information and document access system. Specifically, Gustafson discloses the construction management system for enabling the performance of work tasks conducted at a remote project site such as a construction site and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Samuels teaches a method for predicting data about a construction site and as it is comparable in certain respects to Gustafson which construction project information and document access system as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Gustafson discloses the construction management system for enabling the performance of work tasks conducted at a remote project site such as a construction site. However, Gustafson fails to disclose responsive to receiving the status and the optional notes, when the status indicates issue, the server computer sends the status of the activity and the optional notes to a third construction management application running on a third smartphone that is assigned to a construction manager.
Samuels discloses responsive to receiving the status and the optional notes, when the status indicates issue, the server computer sends the status of the activity and the optional notes to a third construction management application running on a third smartphone that is assigned to a construction manager.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Gustafson responsive to receiving the status and the optional notes, when the status indicates issue, the server computer sends the status of the activity and the optional notes to a third construction management application running on a third smartphone that is assigned to a construction manager as taught by Samuels since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Gustafson, and Samuels teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage construction work sites and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 5 above, while Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches the system above, system further disclose a system having the limitations of:
server computer determines an individual that will be tasked with correcting the issue and sends the status of the activity and the optional notes to another smartphone having a construction management application installed thereon for notification of the individual (see; col. 10, line (60) – col. 11, line (15) of Gustafson teaches construction management system used for construction tasks and documentation, col. 10, line (23-45) utilizing a GUI with statuses work tasks to the construction manager, Abstract - on a smart phone, col. 13, line (56) – col. 14, line (4) including a notification back to workers from the manager).
Referring to Claim 7, Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches a method for construction management. Claim 7 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 7 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exceptions:
a construction management application running on a processor of a user device scanning a job site code, the job site code associated with a construction location, the user device having means for displaying and means for inputting from a user (see; col. 10, lines (23-45) of Gustafson teaches a GUI for displaying status of the job site on a smart phone, Abstract – where the scannable indicia (i.e. code) is used to gather data regarding the site and take input data from the worker).
responsive to the construction management application receiving the job site code, the construction management application sending a transaction to a server computer, the transaction comprising the job site code, the server computer having access to a database of construction sites and activities (see; 13, lines (3-23) of Gustafson teaches a jobsite code, col. 9, lines (41-67) and utilizes a data base to store construction data for access, Abstract – used with the construction management system).
responsive to receiving the transaction, software running on the server computer finding the job site code in the database of construction sites and activities (see; col. 11, line (58) – col. 12, line (14) of Gustafson teaches look up information in the database for construction activities, col. 13, lines (24-55) that are provided by job specific scannable code).
responsive to finding the job site code in the database of the construction sites and the activities, software running on the server computer sending an activity transaction to the user device, the activity transaction comprising an activity that is to be performed by a user of the user device (see; col. 10, lines (46-59) of Gustafson teaches utilizing a server, col. 11, lines (36-47) a database, Abstract – utilizing a scan code to access construction document).
responsive to the construction management application receiving the activity transaction, the construction management application displaying the activity (see; col. 10, lines (23-45) of Gustafson teaches data interface to allow for the receiving and sending of data related to activity of a construction site including completed or pending (i.e. in process or partially completed task) using a GUI).
Gustafson does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Samuels teaches when the activity is completed, the construction management application receiving a completion record from the means for inputting and the construction management application sending the completion record to the server computer (see; par. [0047] of Samuels teaches receiving completion data that then affects the status of the completing of the task and is entered into a tablet and then the results are pushed over a network, par. [0022] to a cloud server), and
responsive to receiving the completion record at the server computer, software running on the server computer updating a status of the activity based upon the completion record, the server computer determining a next activity to be performed by the user of the user device, and the server computer sending a next-activity transaction to the construction management application on the user device, the next activity transaction including the next activity (see; par. [0098] and Figure 12 of Samuels teaches providing an example of tasks to be completed by an authorized worker, par. [0048] where information is transmitted to a mobile device (i.e. smartphone) of the worker, par. [0047] and par. [0055] including status updates of the site, and par. [0048] where a second worker with a mobile device is assigned after a different worker finished their job), and
when receiving the completion record and when the completion record is indicating of an issue, the software running on the server computer determining who will be performing an action to correct the issue and the software running on the server computer sending a repair task to a second construction management application running on a second processor of a second user device requesting the action (see; par. [0006] of Samuels teaches as part of the construction site productivity using a cloud network to identify completion of tasks (i.e. corrected issues regarding a repair), par. [0048] a second worker with a different mobile device is then assigned to a task needing to be completed, par. [0098] provides an example of tasks to be completed by authorized workers (i.e. completion record indicating another task)).
The Examiner notes that Gustafson teaches similar to the instant application teaches construction project information and document access system. Specifically, Gustafson discloses the construction management system for enabling the performance of work tasks conducted at a remote project site such as a construction site and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Samuels teaches a method for predicting data about a construction site and as it is comparable in certain respects to Gustafson which construction project information and document access system as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Gustafson discloses the construction management system for enabling the performance of work tasks conducted at a remote project site such as a construction site. However, Gustafson fails to disclose when the activity is completed, the construction management application receiving a completion record from the means for inputting and the construction management application sending the completion record to the server computer, responsive to receiving the completion record at the server computer, software running on the server computer updating a status of the activity based upon the completion record, the server computer determining a next activity to be performed by the user of the user device, and the server computer sending a next-activity transaction to the construction management application on the user device, the next activity transaction including the next activity, and when receiving the completion record and when the completion record is indicating of an issue, the software running on the server computer determining who will be performing an action to correct the issue and the software running on the server computer sending a repair task to a second construction management application running on a second processor of a second user device requesting the action.
Samuels discloses when the activity is completed, the construction management application receiving a completion record from the means for inputting and the construction management application sending the completion record to the server computer, responsive to receiving the completion record at the server computer, software running on the server computer updating a status of the activity based upon the completion record, the server computer determining a next activity to be performed by the user of the user device, and the server computer sending a next-activity transaction to the construction management application on the user device, the next activity transaction including the next activity, and when receiving the completion record and when the completion record is indicating of an issue, the software running on the server computer determining who will be performing an action to correct the issue and the software running on the server computer sending a repair task to a second construction management application running on a second processor of a second user device requesting the action.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Gustafson when the activity is completed, the construction management application receiving a completion record from the means for inputting and the construction management application sending the completion record to the server computer, responsive to receiving the completion record at the server computer, software running on the server computer updating a status of the activity based upon the completion record, the server computer determining a next activity to be performed by the user of the user device, and the server computer sending a next-activity transaction to the construction management application on the user device, the next activity transaction including the next activity, and when receiving the completion record and when the completion record is indicating of an issue, the software running on the server computer determining who will be performing an action to correct the issue and the software running on the server computer sending a repair task to a second construction management application running on a second processor of a second user device requesting the action as taught by Samuels since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Gustafson, and Samuels teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage construction work sites and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 7 above, while Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches the method above Claim 8 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3.
Referring to Claim 9, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches the method above Claim 9 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4, Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 4.
Referring to Claim 12, Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches a program instructions tangibly embodied in a non-transitory storage medium for construction management. Claim 12 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and 7, Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1 and 7, except for the following noted exceptions:
responsive to the computer readable instructions executed by the first processor of the user device receiving the job site code, the computer readable instructions executed by the first processor of the user device causing the user device to send a transaction to a server computer, the server computer having a second processor and access to a database of construction sites and activities, the transaction comprising the job site code (see; Abstract of Gustafson teaches scanning a scannable indicia (i.e. code) at the job site, col. 10, lines (46-59) linked to a server, col. 11, lines (36-47) that has a databases).
responsive to the computer readable instructions executed by the second processor of the server computer receiving the transaction, the computer readable instructions executed by the second processor finds the job site code in the database of the construction sites and the activities and sends an activity transaction to the user device, the activity transaction comprising an activity that is to be performed by the user of the user device (see; Abstract of Gustafson teaches scanning a scannable indicia (i.e. code) at the job site, col. 10, lines (46-59) linked to a server, col. 11, lines (36-47) that has a databases, col. 10, lines (23-45) where a data interface is available to allow for the receiving and sending of data related to activity of a construction site including completed or pending (i.e. in process or partial completed task using a GUI).
Gustafson does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Samuels teaches when the activity is completed and when there is an issue, using the means for inputting to describe the issue, the computer readable instructions executed by the first processor of the user device causes the user device to send the issue to the server computer (see; par. [0006] of Samuels teaches on the construction site, par. [0048] where the information is inputted and transmitted regarding, par. [0044] and par. [0055] the status at the job site (i.e. issue) and par. [0049] and the information is sent over the network, par. [0022] including synchronized cloud servers), and
Responsive to receiving the issue, the computer readable instructions executed by the second processor of the server computer determines a person who will resolve the issue and sends a repair transaction to a second user device having a third processor, the second user device associated with the person (see; par. [0098] and Figure 12 of Samuels teaches providing an example of tasks to be completed by an authorized worker, par. [0048] where information is transmitted to a mobile device (i.e. smartphone) of the worker, par. [0047] and par. [0055] including status updates of the site, and par. [0048] where a second worker with a mobile device is assigned after a different worker finished their job, par. [0022] where a worker may have one of many different types of devices, including a PC, a tablet and a mobile phone (i.e. third processor)), and
responsive to receiving the repair transaction at the second user device, the computer readable instructions executed by the third processor of the second user device displays the repair transaction on the means for displaying for instructing the person what needs to be done (see; par. [0063] and par. [0065] of Samuels teaches the identification by a barcode that is scanned and used by a journeyman to identify measures used to authorize workers to perform tasks, par. [0098] and Figure 12 that provides an example of tasks to be completed by an authorized worker, par. [0048] where information is transmitted to a mobile device (i.e. smartphone) of the worker, par. [0047] and par. [0055] including status updates of the site, and par. [0048] where a second worker with a mobile device is assigned after a different worker finished their job, par. [0022] where a worker may have one of many different types of devices, including a PC, a tablet and a mobile phone (i.e. third processor)).
The Examiner notes that Gustafson teaches similar to the instant application teaches construction project information and document access system. Specifically, Gustafson discloses the construction management system for enabling the performance of work tasks conducted at a remote project site such as a construction site and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Samuels teaches a method for predicting data about a construction site and as it is comparable in certain respects to Gustafson which construction project information and document access system as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Gustafson discloses the construction management system for enabling the performance of work tasks conducted at a remote project site such as a construction site. However, Gustafson fails to disclose when the activity is completed and when there is an issue, using the means for inputting to describe the issue, the computer readable instructions executed by the first processor of the user device causes the user device to send the issue to the server computer, responsive to receiving the issue, the computer readable instructions executed by the second processor of the server computer determines a person who will resolve the issue and sends a repair transaction to a second user device having a third processor, the second user device associated with the person, and responsive to receiving the repair transaction at the second user device, the computer readable instructions executed by the third processor of the second user device displays the repair transaction on the means for displaying for instructing the person what needs to be done.
Samuels discloses when the activity is completed and when there is an issue, using the means for inputting to describe the issue, the computer readable instructions executed by the first processor of the user device causes the user device to send the issue to the server computer, responsive to receiving the issue, the computer readable instructions executed by the second processor of the server computer determines a person who will resolve the issue and sends a repair transaction to a second user device having a third processor, the second user device associated with the person, and responsive to receiving the repair transaction at the second user device, the computer readable instructions executed by the third processor of the second user device displays the repair transaction on the means for displaying for instructing the person what needs to be done.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Gustafson when the activity is completed and when there is an issue, using the means for inputting to describe the issue, the computer readable instructions executed by the first processor of the user device causes the user device to send the issue to the server computer, responsive to receiving the issue, the computer readable instructions executed by the second processor of the server computer determines a person who will resolve the issue and sends a repair transaction to a second user device having a third processor, the second user device associated with the person, and responsive to receiving the repair transaction at the second user device, the computer readable instructions executed by the third processor of the second user device displays the repair transaction on the means for displaying for instructing the person what needs to be done as taught by Samuels since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Gustafson, and Samuels teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage construction work sites and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 12 above, while Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches a program instructions tangibly embodied in a non-transitory storage medium for construction management above Claim 13 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3.
Referring to Claim 14, see discussion of claim 12 above, while Gustafson in view of Samuels teaches a program instructions tangibly embodied in a non-transitory storage medium for construction management above Claim 14 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4, Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 4.
Conclusion
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 STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625