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
This is a non-final, first office action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 04/09/2025 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Continuation
This application is a continuation of U.S. application 17/835, 575 (filed 06/08/2022). See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
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 non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-11 are directed to a computing platform (machine), claims 12-19 are directed to a non-transitory (machine) and claim 20 is directed to a method (process). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 12 and 20 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1,
Regarding independent claims 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A computing platform comprising:
a network interface; at least one processor;
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to:
for each individual construction project in a pool of construction projects:
obtain a project-specific set of data objects related to the individual construction project;
divide the project-specific set of data objects into theme-based clusters that are each associated with a given construction-related theme from a plurality of construction-related themes, wherein each respective theme-based cluster comprises a respective group of data objects from the project-specific set of data objects;
for each respective theme-based cluster, further divide the respective group of data objects in the respective theme-based cluster into corresponding problem-based clusters that are each associated with a given construction-related problem from a plurality of construction-related problems, wherein each respective corresponding problem-based cluster comprises a respective sub-group of data objects from the respective group of data objects;
update the project-specific set of data objects in accordance with the theme- based clusters and corresponding problem-based clusters by inserting, into each respective data object of at least a subset of the project-specific set of data objects, additional metadata that comprises (i) a theme indicator that indicates one particular construction-related theme with which the respective data object is associated, and (ii) a problem indicator that indicates one particular construction-related problem with which the respective data object is associated;
based on the updated project-specific set of data objects, generate a project- specific themes dataset for the individual construction project by determining, for each given construction-related problem from the plurality of construction-related problems, (i) one or more construction-related themes that correspond to the given construction- related problem, and (ii) for each of the corresponding one or more construction-related themes that correspond to the given construction-related problem, at least one theme-specific reason that indicates why the corresponding construction-related theme is impactful to the given construction-related problem;
store the project-specific themes dataset for the individual construction project; and
after generating and storing the project-specific themes datasets for the pool of construction projects:
receive information about a given construction project;
based at least on the received information about the given construction project, identify, from the pool of construction projects, a plurality of construction projects having a threshold level of similarity to the given construction project;
for each respective construction project having the threshold level of similarity to the given construction project, obtain a respective project-specific themes dataset that was previously generated and stored for the respective construction project;
generate a given project-specific themes dataset for the given construction project by aggregating the respective project-specific themes datasets that were previously generated and stored for the respective construction project, wherein the given project-specific themes dataset comprises, for each given construction-related problem from an aggregated set of construction-related problems, (i) an aggregated subset of one or more construction-related themes that correspond to the given construction-related problem, and (ii) for each of the one or more corresponding construction-related themes in the aggregated subset, at least one theme-specific reason that indicates why the corresponding construction-related theme is impactful to the given construction-related problem;
determine a plurality of insights for the given construction project that comprises, for at least a first construction-related problem from the aggregated set of construction-related problems, determining, for each respective one of the one or more corresponding construction-related themes in the aggregated subset that correspond to the first construction-related problem, a first respective number of data objects associated with the respective one of the one or more corresponding construction- related themes in the aggregated subset that correspond to the first construction-related problem; and
cause a client station to present a first subset of the plurality of insights via a graphical user interface (GUI) of the client station that comprises a first indicator that indicates the first respective number of data objects for each of the one or more corresponding construction-related themes in the aggregated subset that correspond to the first construction-related problem.
The Applicant's Specification titled "DETERMINATION OF INSIGHTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining one or more insights related to a given construction project and presenting it to a user " (Spec. figure 3).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 12 and 20 are recites the abstract idea of determining one or more insights related to a given construction project and presenting it to a user. In example aspects, based on different data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining one or more insights related to a given construction project and presenting it to a user based on different data. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite determining one or more insights related to a given construction project and presenting it to a user based on different data. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-11, and 13-19 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claim 13) before determining the plurality of insights for the given construction project, receive a request to generate the plurality of insights for the first construction-related problem from the aggregated set of construction-related problems.
claim 3 (Similarly claim 14) before dividing the project-specific set of data objects into the theme-based clusters, for each data object of the project-specific set of data objects, use one or more machine-learning models for predicting construction-related themes to which data objects correspond to output, for each respective construction-related theme from the plurality of construction-related themes, a predicted likelihood that the data object corresponds to the respective construction- related theme,
wherein the project-specific set of data objects are divided into the theme-based clusters based on the predicted likelihoods for the project-specific set of data objects.
claim 4 (Similarly claim 15) wherein the plurality of construction- related themes comprises (i) one or more of the following labor and materials-related themes: a Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)-related theme, a concrete-related theme, an electrical-related theme, a duct work-related theme, a ceiling fixtures-related theme, an insulation-related theme, a walls-related theme, a demolition-related theme, a fire protection- related theme, a hazardous materials-related theme, an interior-related theme, a landscape- related theme, a lighting-related theme, a plumbing-related theme, or a telecommunications- related theme, (ii) one or more of the following conflict-related themes: a utility conflict-related theme, a personnel conflict-related theme, or a supply chain-related conflict theme, or (iii) one or more construction professional-related themes.
claim 5 (Similarly claim 16) before further dividing the respective group of data objects in the respective theme- based cluster into the corresponding problem-based clusters, use one or more machine-learning models for predicting construction-related problems to which data objects correspond to output, for each respective construction-related problem from the plurality of construction- related problems, a predicted likelihood that the data object corresponds to the respective construction-related problem,
wherein the respective group of data objects in the respective theme-based cluster are further divided into the corresponding problem-based clusters based on the predicted likelihoods for the respective group of data objects in the respective theme-based cluster.
claim 6 (Similarly claim 17) wherein the plurality of construction- related problems comprises one or more of a cost problem, a scheduling problem, a quality problem, or a safety problem.
claim 7 wherein the obtained project-specific set of data objects related to the individual construction project comprises a plurality of types of data objects, wherein each type of data object comprise a given set of data fields that differs from respective sets of data fields of other types of data objects.
claim 8 wherein the plurality of types of data objects comprises a Request For Information (RFI) data object.
claim 9 wherein determining the plurality of insights for the given construction project further comprises determining, for each respective one of the at least one theme-specific reason that indicates why the corresponding construction- related theme is impactful to the given construction-related problem, a second respective number of data objects associated with the respective one of the at least one theme-specific reason, and wherein the computing platform further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to:
cause the client station to present a second subset of the plurality of insights via the GUI of the client station that comprises a second indicator that indicates the second respective number of data objects for each of the at least one theme-specific reason that indicates why the corresponding construction-related theme is impactful to the given construction-related problem.
Claim 10 (Similarly claim 18) wherein the first construction-related problem is a cost problem, wherein determining the plurality of insights for the given construction project further comprises, determining, for each respective one of the one or more corresponding construction-related themes in the aggregated subset that correspond to the cost problem, a respective cost impact amount associated with the respective one of the one or more corresponding construction-related themes, and wherein the computing platform further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to:
cause the client station to present a second subset of plurality of insights via the GUI of the client station that comprises a second indicator that indicates the respective cost impact amount for each of the one or more corresponding construction-related themes in the aggregated subset that correspond to the cost problem.
Claim 11 (Similarly claim 19) wherein the first construction-related problem is a scheduling problem, wherein determining the plurality of insights for the given construction project further comprises, determining, for each respective one of the one or more corresponding construction-related themes in the aggregated subset that correspond to the scheduling problem, a respective schedule delay amount associated with the respective one of the one or more corresponding construction-related themes, and
wherein the computing platform further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to:
cause the client station to present a second subset of plurality of insights via the GUI of the client station that comprises a second indicator that indicates the respective schedule delay amount for each of the one or more corresponding construction-related themes in the aggregated subset that correspond to the scheduling problem.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 12 and 20.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 12 and 20 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A computing platform comprising:
a network interface; at least one processor;
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: a client station and a graphical interface (GUI) of the client station
Claim 12. A non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer- readable medium is provisioned with program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing platform to: a client station and a graphical interface (GUI) of the client station
Claim 20.
cause a computing platform to: a client station and a graphical interface (GUI) of the client station
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 12 and 20 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a computing platform comprising: a network interface; at least one processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: a client station and a graphical interface (GUI) of the client station which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1 and fig. 2). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 12 and 20 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for determining one or more insights related to a given construction project and presenting it to a user based on different data. In example aspects, based on different data and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention determine one or more insights related to a given construction project and presenting it to a user based on different data. In example aspects, based on different data. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-11, and 13-19 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 12, and 20 for example claims 3 (similarly claim 14), claim 5 (similarly claim 16), but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 12 and 20,
The additional elements of a “a machine-learning models”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “a machine-learning models” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding 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 element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 12, and 20 include a computing platform comprising: a network interface; at least one processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: a client station and a graphical interface (GUI) of the client station. Further, claims 3 (similarly claim 14), claim 5 (similarly claim 16) one or more machine learning models,. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(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 one or more insights related to a given construction project and presenting it to a user based on different data.
Claims 1-20 is 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
Closest prior art to the invention include Goel et al. US 2018/0349817: Architecture engineering and construction (AEC) risk analysis system and method, Prieto et al. US 2014/0108086: Project categorization and assessment through multivariate analysis. Wei, Yihui, and Stefano Miraglia. "Organizational culture and knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: Theoretical insights from a Chinese construction firm." International journal of project management 35.4 (2017): 571-585.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “divide the project-specific set of data objects into theme-based clusters that are each associated with a given construction-related theme from a plurality of construction-related themes, wherein each respective theme-based cluster comprises a respective group of data objects from the project-specific set of data objects; for each respective theme-based cluster, further divide the respective group of data objects in the respective theme-based cluster into corresponding problem-based clusters that are each associated with a given construction-related problem from a plurality of construction-related problems, wherein each respective corresponding problem-based cluster comprises a respective sub-group of data objects from the respective group of data objects; … based at least on the received information about the given construction project, identify, from the pool of construction projects, a plurality of construction projects having a threshold level of similarity to the given construction project; for each respective construction project having the threshold level of similarity to the given construction project, obtain a respective project-specific themes dataset that was previously generated and stored for the respective construction project; generate a given project-specific themes dataset for the given construction project by aggregating the respective project-specific themes datasets that were previously generated and stored for the respective construction project, wherein the given project-specific themes dataset comprises, for each given construction-related problem from an aggregated set of construction-related problems, (i) an aggregated subset of one or more construction-related themes that correspond to the given construction-related problem, and (ii) for each of the one or more corresponding construction-related themes in the aggregated subset, at least one theme-specific reason that indicates why the corresponding construction-related theme is impactful to the given construction-related problem”. The reason for not applying any rejection under 35 USC 102/103 claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wei, Yihui, and Stefano Miraglia. "Organizational culture and knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: Theoretical insights from a Chinese construction firm." International journal of project management 35.4 (2017): 571-585.
Bresnen, Mike. "Insights on site: research into construction project organizations." Doing Research in Organizations (RLE: Organizations). Routledge, 2013. 34-52.
Khanna et al. US 2022/0083941: Systems and methods for generating construction models for construction projects.
Goel et al. US 2020/0177903: Architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) construction safety risk analysis system and method for interactive visualization and capture.
Stolte et al. US 10,587,644: Montioring and managing credential and application threat mitigations in a computer system.
Przechocki et al. US 2019/0188797: Closed-loop system incorporating risk analytic algorithm.
Waslander et al. US 2019/0108603: Property enhancement services.
Chan et al. US 2017/0046799: Systems and methods for monitoring construction projects.
Cameron US 2016/0239766: Systems, methods, and user interfaces for evaluating quality, health, safety and environment data.
Lavrov et al. US 2015/0193711: Project management system providing interactive issue creation and management.
Nolan US 2010/0174656: System and method for coordinating building and construction activities.
Luhr US 2005/0209897: Builder risk assessment system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624