Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-16 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. Regarding independent claims 1,9 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of managing a project which is a mental process. Other than reciting a processor nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the processor the limitations on generating a proposal, sending a proposal to be reviewed, receiving client input, indicating client approval, initiating work scheduling is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to managing a project stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. (a fundamental economic practice) Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element a processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).] The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the project management steps. The subject matter of claims 2/10 ( incrementing a counter up to a termination threshold), 3/11 (for iteration less than the threshold, sending updated proposal for approval), 4/12 (terminating proposal drafting at threshold, updating proposal for less than threshold), 5/13 (receive status update after client approval and task initiation), 6/14 (receive competition status and issue invoice), 7/15 (receive project information), 8/16 (generate proposal with AI) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. To the extent that AI is claimed, this appears to be done at a very high level and is not significantly more than applying the abstract idea with a generic computer. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,2,5,7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
“Buildertrend workflow Leads to Jobs checklist”, 2022,
https://web.archive.org/web/20220517102529/https://buildertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Better-communication-workflow.pdf
in view of
“Offer to Buyers”, 12/2021,
https://web.archive.org/web/20211207041321/https://export.ebay.com/en/marketing/promote-listings/offer-buyers/
Regarding Claim 1,
generating, by a processor, a draft proposal of a project;
Buildertrend is directed to workflow for the Buildertrend project management software. (Buildertrend, p.1, “Quote and sign Proposals
Within the lead, estimate the project and create a
professional-looking contract at the same time”)
sending, by the processor, the draft proposal to a client device to be reviewed by a client;
and for the client input indicating client approval of the draft proposal,
(Buildertrend, p.1, “Win lead Convert to job
When your client signs the proposal, convert the entire
lead to a job. This allows you to move all information
over to start your job, saving time and effort.”)
initiating, by the processor, work scheduling with the client.
(Buildertrend, p.1, “Did the schedule change? Update Schedule
The schedule is made to be changed as well as keep things moving
for you. Record those changes and keep everyone up to date”)
Buildertrend does not explicitly disclose
receiving, by the processor, a client input on the draft proposal from the client device;
Ebay is an article describing Ebay’s offer counteroffer feature. (Ebay, p.1). Ebay discloses a offer counteroffer negotiation process and maximum cutoff. (Ebay, p.2, “Your interested buyer now has 48 hours to respond. They can accept or decline your offer or make a counter offer. In turn, you can also accept or decline the buyer's counter offer, or make another one. Both the buyer and the seller can make a maximum of 5 counter offers each.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Buildertrend with the negotiation of Ebay with the motivation of making sales. Id.
Regarding Claim 2, Buildertrend and Ebay disclose the method of claim 1.
for the client input indicating client rejection or modification of the draft proposal:
incrementing, by the processor, an iteration counter by a value of one;
determining, by the processor, whether a value of the iteration counter is equal to
an iteration threshold; and
for the value of the iteration counter being determined as equal to the iteration
threshold, terminating, by the processor, proposal drafting of the project.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Ebay.
Regarding Claim 3, Buildertrend and Ebay disclose the method of claim 2.
for the second client input indicating client approval of the updated draft proposal, initiating, by the processor, work scheduling with the client.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Buildertrend
for the value of the iteration counter being determined as less than the iteration threshold,
updating, by the processor, the draft proposal to generate an updated draft proposal of the
project;
sending, by the processor, the updated draft proposal to the client device to be reviewed
by the client;
receiving, by the processor, a second client input on the updated draft proposal from the
client device; and
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Ebay.
Regarding Claim 4, Buildertrend and Ebay disclose the method of claim 3.
for the second client input indicating client rejection or modification of the updated draft
proposal:
incrementing, by the processor, the iteration counter by a value of one;
determining, by the processor, whether the value of the iteration counter is equal
to the iteration threshold;
for the value of the iteration counter being determined as equal to the iteration
threshold, terminating, by the processor, proposal drafting of the project; and
for the value of the iteration counter being determined as less than the iteration
threshold, reinitiating update on the updated draft proposal for the client to review.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Ebay.
Regarding Claim 5, Buildertrend and Ebay disclose the method of claim 1.
receiving, by the processor, status update on at least one task associated with the draft proposal after (i) receiving the client input indicating approval of the draft proposal; and (ii) the at least one task has been initiated.
(Buildertrend, p.3, “Are job tasks being completed? To-Do’s
Use To-Do’s to assign upcoming tasks and mark complete tasks
that are due. Review past due To-Do’s and comment on tasks to
remind assigned users to complete”)
Regarding Claim 7, Buildertrend and Ebay disclose the method of claim 1.
receiving, by the processor, project information comprising one or more of location information, project type, or image data.
(Buildertrend, p.1, “New information Lead files
If your lead sends documents, you take pictures or
have other information, store them all together on
the lead opportunity.”)
Regarding Claim 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
See prior art rejection of claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7
Claims 6,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
“Buildertrend workflow Leads to Jobs checklist”, 2022,
https://web.archive.org/web/20220517102529/https://buildertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Better-communication-workflow.pdf
in view of
“Offer to Buyers”, 12/2021,
https://web.archive.org/web/20211207041321/https://export.ebay.com/en/marketing/promote-listings/offer-buyers/
in view of
“Top 9 tips for construction invoicing in 2023”, 1/24,
https://web.archive.org/web/20240116210619/https://buildertrend.com/blog/construction-invoices-made-painless/ , hereinafter “Buildertrend2”
Regarding Claim 6, Buildertrend and Ebay disclose the method of claim 5.
Buildertrend does not explicitly disclose
for a completion status being received for the at least one task, issuing, by the processor,
an invoice associated with the at least one task to the client.
Buildertrend2 discloses that a client may be invoiced as work is done on project. (p.1, “Determine how the project will be billed. Some invoicing processes are progress payments, schedules, construction estimates, or even a bill from the selections sheet or construction change orders. However the costs are calculated, make sure both you and your client are aware of the payment terms.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Buildertrend and Ebay with the invoicing of Buildertrend2 with the motivation of generating project revenue. Id.
Regarding Claim 14
See prior art rejection of claim 6
Claims 8,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
“Buildertrend workflow Leads to Jobs checklist”, 2022,
https://web.archive.org/web/20220517102529/https://buildertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Better-communication-workflow.pdf
in view of
“Offer to Buyers”, 12/2021,
https://web.archive.org/web/20211207041321/https://export.ebay.com/en/marketing/promote-listings/offer-buyers/
in view of
Togal, “Maximizing Profitability: How AI Transforms Construction Estimation”, 2/2024,
https://web.archive.org/web/20240214011814/https://www.togal.ai/blog/maximizing-profitability-how-ai-transforms-construction-estimation
Regarding Claim 8, Buildertrend and Ebay disclose the method of claim 7.
Buildertrend does not explicitly disclose
wherein the generating the draft proposal is performed using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model, wherein the Al model receives project information as input and generates the draft proposal as output.
Togal is an article discussing AI estimation in construction projects. (Togal, p.1). Togal discloses that AI may be used to generate construction proposals quickly. (Togal ,p.2, “AI-enabled estimation reduces bid preparation time by up to 50%.
Intelligent algorithms sift through masses of data, analyzing costs, resources, and timelines with remarkable dexterity. Accurate, quickened computations mean more bids within the same timeframe, amplifying your firm's ability to seize new opportunities while optimizing profitability.”; p.4, “Data-Rich Proposals: AI-powered estimation tools generate data-rich proposals that are backed by accurate cost analysis. These proposals showcase a construction company's attention to detail, financial soundness, and data-driven decision-making. By submitting comprehensive and well-supported proposals, firms stand out in the competitive bidding arena and increase their chances of success.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Buildertrend and Ebay with the AI of Togal with the motivation of winning bids. Id.
Regarding Claim 16
See prior art rejection of claim 8
Conclusion
Relevant art not relied on but made of record include
Raghu 20210081895 is directed to a system for connecting customers with service providers. (para 0012, “[0012] After registration as a customer within the system and after filling the details of service required, the system creates a workspace within the platform with all the details of required work and details of customer; compares the required experience, expertise and location for the work with the experience, expertise and location of registered service providers within the system; and notifies one or more best suited service providers for the work. Further, the platform allows selected service providers to access the created workspace, bid for the work, send proposal to the customer in the workspace, communicate and negotiate with customer, update status report of the work and generate invoice for the work after completion of work. The system produces strong network effects designed to establish industry credibility and position of supply chain compliance service providers including factory auditors, inspectors, consultants or service providers.”)
“Spend 50% less time building proposals with construction proposal software”, 12/2023,
https://web.archive.org/web/20231204041602/https://buildertrend.com/sales-process/construction-proposals/
“Direct from the Field: How Our Team Utilizes BuilderTrend from Proposal to Completion”, 2021, https://globalconstructionco.com/2021/01/09/direct-from-the-field-how-our-team-utilizes-buildertrend-from-proposal-to-completion/
“Once a proposal has been approved, we create a new job in BuilderTrend. There are plenty of field options to customize the information you want to log. We utilize the fields for job type, location, status, permit number, price, start, and completion dates, workdays, and project managers associated with the job.”
"AI powered Concrete & Rebar Takeoffs in Beam AI!”, 6/2024,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3tzHF1IctQ
“Concrete Estimators, you don't have to spend hours clicking and pointing quantities on manual takeoff software. Beam AI is the only fully automated takeoff software that leverages artificial intelligence to do the accurate concrete & rebar takeoff for you.
Save 90% time spent on manual concrete takeoffs and send up to 30% more bids with Beam AI's takeoff software.
Visit www.ibeam.ai to check out how Beam AI can speed up your preconstruction process at 2X the speed.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights