DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s communication of 10/24/25, Applicant, on 1/26/26, amended claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20. Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been rejected as indicated below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 in regard to abstract ideas has been maintained in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for determining usage of software related to providing information for training and applying a machine learning algorithm for determining a party’s performance. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP, as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 17-20) and "system" (claims 1-16).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
i) receive, for a set of metrics that provide insight regarding usage of a software tool of a construction management software application (a) a first set of metric-level input values for a construction project of interest (b) a respective set of metric-level input values for each of a universe of reference construction projects (ii) based on an evaluation of the first and respective sets of metric-level input values, output a prediction of a party's performance on the construction project of interest
obtaining project data for (i) the given construction project of interest and (ii) a given universe of reference construction projects
based on the obtained project data, determining (i) a given first set of metric level input values of the set of metrics for the given construction project of interest (ii) a given respective set of metric-level input values of the set of metrics for each of the given universe of reference construction projects;
…
(i) evaluate the first and respective sets of metric-level input values (ii) based on the evaluation of the first and respective sets of metric-level input values, output the prediction of the given party's performance on the given construction project of interest
based on the prediction of the given party's performance on the given construction project of interest, generate a recommendation for changing how the construction management software application is utilized by the given party:
Independent claims 9 and 17 recites substantially similar claim language.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1, 9, and 17 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 1-20 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to determining usage of software related to providing information for training and applying a machine learning algorithm for determining a party’s performance and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior; and/or
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
" A computing platform comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to / A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing platform to…and cause a client device to present the recommendation to a user associated with the given party." (claims 1, 9, and 17), “apply a machine-learning process to a training dataset to train a machine--learning model that is configured to… after training the machine-learning model, utilize the machine-learning model to produce a prediction of a given party's performance on a given construction project of interest that is based on the given party's usage of the software tool of the construction management software application by… inputting the given first and respective sets of metric-level input values into the machine-learning model and thereby causing the machine-learning model to…t” (claims 1, 9, and 17), “wherein the computing platform further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to,” (claims 5 and 13), “wherein the computing platform further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to,” (claims 6 and 14) “wherein the computing platform further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to,” (claims 7 and 15), however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving data from a generic "building system" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
Step 2B: Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use of KPI analysis of a user’s interactions via a “machine-learning process", as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining usage of software related to providing information for training and applying a machine learning algorithm for determining a party’s performance.
Claims 1-20 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are found to be provisionally allowable over the currently known prior art. The claims would be found to be allowable if they overcame the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
It appears that the instant invention is beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly the invention would NOT have been obvious because one of ordinary skill could not have been expected to achieve it, NOR would they have been able to predict the results, and as such, they would have had no capability of expecting success.
The following is an examiner's statement of features not found in the prior art of record:
Claims 1-20 overcome the prior art of record and are found to be provisionally allowable. The following limitations of claim 1,
…
apply a machine-learning process to a training dataset to train a machine-learning model that is configured to (i) receive, for a set of metrics that provide insight regarding usage of a software tool of a construction management software application, (a) a first set of metric-level input values for a construction project of interest and (b) a respective set of metric-level input values for each of a universe of reference construction projects, and (ii) based on an evaluation of the first and respective sets of metric-level input values, output a prediction of a party's performance on the construction project of interest;
after training the machine-learning model, utilize the machine-learning model to produce a prediction of a given party's performance on a given construction project of interest that is based on the given party's usage of the software tool of the construction management software application by:
obtaining project data for (i) the given construction project of interest and (ii) a given universe of reference construction projects;
based on the obtained project data, determining (i) a given first set of metric-level input values of the set of metrics for the given construction project of interest and (ii) a given respective set of metric-level input values of the set of metrics for each of the given universe of reference construction projects; and
inputting the given first and respective sets of metric-level input values into the machine-learning model and thereby causing the machine-learning model to (i) evaluate the given first and respective sets of metric-level input values, and (ii) based on the evaluation of the given first and respective sets of metric-level input values, output the prediction of the given party's performance on the given construction project of interest
based on the prediction of the given party's performance on the given construction project of interest, generate a recommendation for changing how the construction management software application is utilized by the given party; and
cause a client device to present the recommendation to a user associated with the given party
in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. Independent claims 11 and 12, and dependent claims 2-10 and 13-20 are likewise provisionally allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Mariano et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0034822) - The abstract provides for the following: A user interface analysis system and method can provide aggregate information across a population of users of the user interface. The system includes an activity logging module, an analysis module, and a reporting module. The analysis module is configured to generate an analysis model descriptive of the user interface usage of the plurality of users. The analysis model can take the form of a beta-phase Hidden Markov Model (“BP-HMM”). The reporting module processes the generated analysis model and outputs data indicative of an aggregate of the plurality of users' usage of the user interface.
Singh et al. (U.S. Patent Number 11507908) - The abstract provides for the following: A system for value prediction for dynamic performance optimization includes a project value predictor that receives a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) and an initiative relating to an active project having a closure date. The KPI is associated with a KPI period including multiple intervals. The project value predictor operates to identify a relevant cluster of KPIs for the KPI based on historical data, forecast a future value of the KPI based on attributes/features of the KPI relative to the closure date, predict a possibility of failure of the KPI using a trained data model to pre-classify the KPI, categorize the KPI based on the future value or the pre-classification, where the KPI is categorized as failure based on the future value being less than a target KPI value after the KPI period and added to list for retraining the model based on the categorization. The system also leads to the identification and subsequent validation of Initiatives that impact the KPIs with quantification of the level of impact.
Hitchcock et al. (U.S. Patent Number 5823781) - The abstract provides for the following: A system and method for training a user on any number of computer software applications. The computer is directed by at least one computer program within a distribution engine 15 to perform a diagnosis of the skill level of a user on a computer software application, prescribe a training plan that will allow the user to achieve a minimum skill level on the computer software application, and provide the user access to a plurality of training software programs to enable a user to complete the training plan.
GINA GUILLAUME-JOSEPH et al. “Improving Software Project Outcomes Through Predictive Analytics, Part 2.” The abstract provides for the following: This paper deals with the systems mindset in addressing failure to introduce a software-specific predictive analytics model that accurately predicts software project outcomes of failure or success and identifies opportunities for incorporation in the federal and commercial space. The results of the model would be used during acquisition, prior to project initiation, and throughout the software development lifecycle. It is a decision analysis tool to assist decision makers in making the crucial decisions early in the lifecycle to cancel a project predicted of failure or to identify and implement mitigation strategies to improve project outcome.
Guheen et al. (WO Patent Application Publication Number WO 00/73958 A2) - The abstract provides for the following: The present invention relates to comparison shopping through the use of a consumer profile to prioritize the characteristics of a group of competing similar products. First we develop a consumer profile. This profile can be developed from multiple sources, including consumer data entry, consumer buying habits, consumer income, consumer research habits, consumer profession, education level of the consumer, the expectations of the consumer for the sale in progress, the purchasing habits of the consumer, etc. Next, the consumer selects several similar items, i.e. products or services to compare them. Finally, a product comparison table establishes priority characteristics according to the profile of the consumer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 1/26/2026, pgs. 20-28). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented above, the claims recite an abstract concept that is encapsulated by decision making analogous to a method of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that each of the limitations that encapsulate the abstract concepts are recited in the above 35 USC 101. Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations and provide for direction for either a person or machine to follow at some future time. The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations and directions that improve upon the underlying computer technology (in this instance the computer software, processor, and memory). Instead, Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claim language are only used as implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology. The concepts described in the limitations when taken both as a whole and individually are not meaningfully different than those found by the courts to be abstract ideas and are similarly considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The steps are then encapsulated into a particular technological environment by executing these steps upon a computer processor and utilizing features such as a computer interface or sending and receiving data over a network or displaying information via a computerized graphical user interface. However, sending and receiving of information over a network and execution of algorithms on a computer are utilized only to facilitate the abstract concepts (i.e. selecting data on an interface, publishing/displaying information, etc.). As such, Examiner asserts that the implementation of the abstract concepts recited by the claims utilize computer technology in a way that is considered to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M. H. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624