DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 2/12/2026, Applicant, on 5/12/2026, amended Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20, cancelled Claims 7 and 16, and added Claims 21 and 22. Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-22 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant states the claims do not recite a mental process or a certain method of organizing human activity, but rather improve existing software technology within a construction management software application for creating and managing submittal and schedule-item data objects. Examiner disagrees as first this is a mere allegation of eligibility under 101. The claims recite two abstract limitations, that of a Mental Process and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and scheduling is inherently abstract. Further, the claims are not directed to an improvement in any additional element, combination, a technology, or technological field, but rather recites claims directed at an abstraction, that of scheduling construction tasks. The use of programming language such as data objects here does not make the claim eligible, and this is utilization of current technologies such as a computer and data objects to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims. Any purported improvement would be an improvement in the abstraction. The claims as a whole do not improve any claimed addition element, such as by generally linking the claim to an interface, computer, etc., and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they recite merely receiving, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and also can be designated as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as computer, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Applicant asserts that the claims recites the claims are integrated into a practical application by citing the specification in [0077-78], [0154], [0163], [0167], and [0169-175] and reciting the amended limitations of the claims, specifically use of the dynamic links with interdependency and stating that the claims are significantly more by citing BASCOM and the amended limitations, and stating that the claims are directed at a technical improvement and thus are eligible under 101. Examiner disagrees as Applicant has not stated what additional elements would be improved or combination thereof. Further, the claims as a whole, alone or in combination, do not improve any claimed addition element, such as by generally linking the claim to data objects with interdependencies, interfaces, etc., and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they recite merely receiving, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and also can be designated as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as computer, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC § 103 – The rejection is hereby removed for the reasons found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below
ction of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to “automatic generation of one or both of dynamic notifications or dynamic updates …” and “… wherein a given dynamic link has been generated that encodes interdependency …” These “dynamic notifications”, “dynamic updates”, and ”given dynamic link” are not supported in the specification as there is no mention as to what makes these “dynamic”. For instance, the Specification states:
“[0153] Based on the selections of the one or more schedule-item data objects as generally shown in FIG. 4, the submittal and schedule linking agent 312 may generate dynamic links between the submittal data object and the selected schedule-item data objects in various ways. As one example, the submittal and schedule linking agent 312 may update (e.g., via an API of the submittals tool 314) the submittal data object to include a pointer or similar reference to each of the schedule-item data objects (e.g., by updating a data field of the submittal data object). The pointer may encode a specific relationship between data fields of the submittal data object and each schedule-item data object that defines the type of dynamic interdependency that exists between the two data objects. For example, a given pointer may encode a relationship between the due date of the submittal data object (e.g., the date the submittal is approved) and the start date of a given schedule-item data object. The relationship may dictate that the due date of the submittal data object can be no fewer than 7 days before the start date of the given schedule-item data object, among other possibilities. This, in turn, may allow for dynamic notifications and/or updates to be automatically generated based on changes to the given schedule-item data object (e.g., a change to the start date) that affect the relationship encoded by the pointer, as discussed in further detail below.”
Which shows that there are dynamic links, notifications, and updates, but not what would make these dynamic versus say a regular notification, update, or link. The Specification makes no mention of a dynamic value or what that would be. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a patent must describe the technology; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Therefore, the claims and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Alice - Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 recite limitations to receive a request to identify schedule-item data objects that are related to a given submittal data object for a construction project (Collecting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), based on the request, identify one or more schedule-item data objects related to the given submittal data object for the construction project, wherein the one or more schedule-item data objects that are identified each represent a respective task to be performed for the construction project (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), for each of the one or more schedule-item data objects that are identified, generate a respective dynamic link that encodes an interdependency between at least one data field of the given submittal data object and at least one data field of the schedule-item data object and thereby enables automatic generation of one or both of dynamic notifications or dynamic updates based on changes to the at least one data field of the given submittal data object (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), automatically evaluate changes to the given submittal data object (Analyzing Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), based on the automatic evaluating, detect a change to a due date of the given submittal data object, wherein a given dynamic link has been generated that encodes an interdependency between the due date of the given submittal data object and a start date of a given schedule-item data object (Analyzing Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determine a change to the start date of the given schedule-item data object based on (i) the given dynamic link that encodes the interdependency between the due date of the given submittal data object and the start date of the given schedule-item data object and (ii) the detected change to the due date of the given submittal data object (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), display, a visual representation of the given schedule-item data object, and a visual indication that the start date of the given schedule-item data object is impacted by the detected change to the given submittal data object (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and update the start date of the given schedule-item data object in accordance with the determined change (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting at least one processor, at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium, a client device, computing platform, and a construction management software application, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of a Commercial Interaction. If a claim limitation, under its 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, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The computing platform, processor, client device, construction software management software, second client device, graphical user interface, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0038]In turn, the client devices 104 may each be any computing device that is capable of running front-end software of the construction management software application, which may include program code for carrying out the client-side functions disclosed herein. In this respect, the client devices 104 may each include hardware components such as one or more processors, computer-readable mediums, communication interfaces, and input/output (I/O) components (or interfaces for connecting thereto), among others, as well as software components that facilitate the client device’s ability to run the front-end software (e.g., operating system software, web browser software, etc.). As representative examples, the client devices 104 may each take the form of a desktop computer, a spatial computer, a laptop, a netbook, a tablet, a smartphone, and/or a personal digital assistant (PDA), among other possibilities.”
Which shows that any generic computer can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the platform, processor, medium, etc., nor the receiving or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of use of tables and objects which are all highly generalized as per Applicant’s Specification when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
New Claims 21 and 22 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of use of a generative AI model and prompt which are all highly generalized as per Applicant’s Specification when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Williams (U.S. Publication No. 2024/028,1410), Karabin (U.S. Publication No. 2017/009,1685), Papaefstathiou (U.S. Publication No. 2009/010,0435). Williams, a multi-service business platform system having custom workflow actions systems and methods, teaches a computing platform, to receive, from a client device, a request to identify schedule-item data objects within a construction management software application, based on the request, identify one or more schedule-item data objects related to the other object, generate a respective dynamic link between the submittal data object and each of the one or more schedule-item data objects each schedule-item data object comprising a respective start date, receive an indication of a change to a due date of the data object, determine a respective change to the respective start date of each of the one or more schedule-item data objects based on (i) the respective dynamic link between the submittal data object and the schedule-item data object and (ii) the change to the due date of the submittal data object, update the respective start date of each of the one or more schedule-item data objects in accordance with the respective change, and roadblock potential, and changing of completion levels based on proposed changes, but It does not explicitly state this is related to a submittal data object, nor does it teach the detected change in due date of an object based on the given link which is generated. Karabin, a method and system for assigning features to a space in a project management system, teaches information which is related to a submittal data object and submittals and requests which include start and end dates, but does not teach a pointer for the objects, nor does it teach the detected change in due date of an object based on the given link which is generated as claimed. Papaefstathiou, a hierarchical reservation resource scheduling infrastructure, teaches pointers connected to and with relationships to scheduling objects, but does not teach the detected change in due date of an object based on the given link which is generated as claimed. None of the prior art explicitly teaches the detected change in due date of an object based on the given link which is generated as claimed, based on a given dynamic link which has been generated that encodes interdependency between the due date of the given submittal data object and a start date of a given schedule-item data object, along with the other limitations of the claims, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1, 10, and 19, and their dependents, are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240281410 A1
WILLIAMS; Jared et al.
MULTI-SERVICE BUSINESS PLATFORM SYSTEM HAVING CUSTOM WORKFLOW ACTIONS SYSTEMS AND METHODS
US 20170091685 A1
KARABIN; Walter
METHOD FOR ASSIGNING FEATURES TO A SPACE IN A PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
US 20090100435 A1
Papaefstathiou; Efstathios et al.
HIERARCHICAL RESERVATION RESOURCE SCHEDULING INFRASTRUCTURE
US 20250238739 A1
Wilson, JR.; Odell Gene et al.
SYSTEM FOR MAPPING MODEL, COST, AND SCHEDULE OF LARGE SCALE CAPITAL PROJECTS
US 20240364548 A1
Jorasch; James et al.
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUS FOR MEETING MANAGEMENT
US 20240362283 A1
Miller; Naomi Liora et al.
DETERMINING FEASIBLE ITINERARY SOLUTIONS
US 20240144130 A1
Blohm; Nicole et al.
PROVIDING STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS, LINKS TO ACTIONABLE TASKS, PERFORMANCE PLANNING, AND MEASUREMENTS IN A WORKFLOW
US 20230342723 A1
PARIKH; Mayuri
DATA STRUCTURES, GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES, AND COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED PROCESSES FOR AUTOMATION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
US 20210035069 A1
Parikh; Mayuri
DATA STRUCTURES, GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES, AND COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED PROCESSES FOR AUTOMATION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
US 20170243142 A1
OLSEN; GREG et al.
ASSET DATA MODEL FOR RECURRING REVENUE ASSET MANAGEMENT
US 20070174101 A1
Li; Yang et al.
Workflow scheduler
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 8/11/2026
