DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-22 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-22 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 11 as representative, claim 11 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of generating a cost estimate for a job:
a pricing system;
a contractor support system;
wherein the contractor support system is configured to assist a contractor in determining a list of materials required for a job described in a job solicitation based on selections by the contractor;
wherein the pricing system is configured to determine contractor-specific pricing data for the list of materials from a plurality of suppliers by communicating with respective systems of the plurality of suppliers;
wherein the contractor support is configured to create a material cost estimate for the list of materials based on the contractor-specific pricing data retrieved from the pricing system.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for generating a cost estimate for a job. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to determining a list of materials for a job, determine pricing for the materials, and create a material cost estimate (see specification page 2 disclosing the problem of contractors having to seek to get material prices from multiple suppliers to determine lowest available pricing), which is a marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 11 recites additional elements, such as:
a front end system;
a backend system;
the backend system communicatively coupled with the front end system;
the front end system configured to provide a user interface for a contractor to access the backend system;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 11 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a front end and backend system, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality. Paragraph [0113] of the Applicant’s specification defines the front end system as being formed of any suitable size, shape, or design. The backend system is defined the same in paragraph [0064]. Specification paragraph [0120] further describes the front and backend system as comprising any logic circuit, control circuit, processing circuit, server, module, etc. for implementing the steps of the claims. As such, the front end and backend system are any generic computing devices that can perform the steps of the abstract idea. The communicative coupling between the systems is also merely disclosed as any variation of information exchange and routing between electronic devices (specification: [0059]). The graphical user interface is also described in paragraph [0118] as formed of any suitable size, shape, and design, and/or technology and is configured to permit end users to interact with backend system 14 to facilitate input, access to, and processing of relevant data to facilitate setup and/or management of an event. As such, it is evident that the additional elements are any generic computing elements that merely serve to provide the abstract idea of generating a materials cost estimate a general link to a network environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 11 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 11, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 11 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 11 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 11 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 11 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 1 (system): Claim 1 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 11 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 11.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-22 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 11, such as by further defining the algorithm of generating a cost estimate for a job, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 2-10 and 12-22 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-22 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-22 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 11. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g., an API (claim 20)); however, the additional elements of claims 2-10 and 12-22 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-22 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-10 and 12-22 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 11. Thus, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-22 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 1-3, 5-7, 11-12, 15-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Miller (US 20210183128 A1) in view of Sandholm (US 20100106652 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Miller discloses a system comprising:
a front end system; (Miller: [0036] – “The Application 105 executes on the mobile device, while the remote system servers (130, 155, 190) function as a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform”).
a backend system; (Miller: [0036] – “The PIM-P Application 105, local to the Computing Device 100, is now able to access and integrate with the various system servers (130,155, 190) and the functional software capabilities. The Application 105 executes on the mobile device, while the remote system servers (130, 155, 190) function as a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform”).
the backend system communicatively connected with the front end system; (Miller: [0036] – “The PIM-P Application 105, local to the Computing Device 100, is now able to access and integrate with the various system servers (130,155, 190) and the functional software capabilities. The Application 105 executes on the mobile device, while the remote system servers (130, 155, 190) function as a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform. Once the system status is online, any previously collected and stored calibration data, images, measurements etc. local to the Computing Device 100 will be automatically processed by the appropriate server and joined in the corresponding RDB”).
the front end system configured to provide a user interface for a contractor to access the backend system; (Miller: [0049] – “the Application 105 proceeds to step 247. In step 247, Photo Image Dimensions are inputted by selecting a dimension to be measured from a User Interface”; Miller: [0055] – “the user is prompted to access a Design View based on the Project Category and Project Template selected. Design View may include the user interacting with a touch-enabled user interface of Mobile Computing Device 100 by performing one or more touch events (e.g., click, drag, drop, etc.) on one or more design components (e.g., decor, finishing, furnishings, etc.). Design View may include one or more design components selected from the Project Template, a retail vendor digital catalogues, websites, or other source that includes image data associated with a respective design component”).
the pricing system communicatively connected with a plurality of supplier systems corresponding to a plurality of suppliers; (Miller: [0056] – “The total project estimate may include calculating the cost of each design component from a plurality of vendors and comparing the cost of each design component from each vendor”; Miller: Fig. 1, #115,120 displaying connection to retail vendor web servers).
wherein in response to the contractor selecting the list of materials, configured to determine contractor-specific pricing for the list of materials from the plurality of supplier systems. (Miller: [0056] – “prompts the System Processes Server 155 (FIG. 1) to calculate a total project estimate of the construction project. The calculated total project estimate may include the cost of one or more of the following: tools, materials, decor, finishing, furnishings, design components, time requirements, etc. The calculated total project estimate may include the cost of one or more design components utilized in Design View. The total project estimate may include calculating the cost of each design component utilized in Design View. The total project estimate may include calculating the cost of each design component from a plurality of vendors and comparing the cost of each design component from each vendor”).
Miller does not explicitly teach the backend system including a pricing system; Notably, however, Miller does disclose calculating an estimate for the project (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Sandholm does teach the backend system including a pricing system; (Sandholm: [0047] – “The CER system and method also collects additional relevant information, including for example current spot market or catalogue prices for items, as well as projections on the quantities of various goods and services that are expected to be required in the future”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Miller disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the pricing system as taught in Sandholm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to determine payments between parties for unit prices and external indices (Sandholm: [0006]).
Regarding Claim 2: Miller in view of Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Miller does not explicitly teach wherein the contractor-specific pricing is real-time pricing data. Notably, however, Miller does disclose accessing and comparing costs of multiple vendors (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Sandholm does teach wherein the contractor-specific pricing is real-time pricing data. (Sandholm: [0051] – “the CER system inter-operates with existing procurement systems by monitoring transactions on a procurement transaction network and performing real-time compliance, checking for maverick buying and validating payments against contracts. The system can be used to generate "issues" that may be informational, or require an action, these issues routed via a workflow system to appropriate users within a firm or organization. These issues can also be generated as and when transactions (typically, purchase orders) cannot be correctly identified, so that data is cleaned in real-time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Miller disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the pricing is real-time pricing data as taught by Sandholm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to perform real-time compliance and validate payments (Sandholm: [0051]).
Regarding Claim 3: Miller in view of Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Miller does not explicitly teach wherein the contractor-specific pricing includes discounts given specifically to the contractor.
To that accord, Sandholm does teach wherein the contractor-specific pricing includes discounts given specifically to the contractor. (Sandholm: [0064] – “The trigger condition and associated effect associated with the first contract can be one of the following: an across-order multi-item dollar-volume anticipated discount, an across-order multi-item dollar-volume state-based discount, an across-order multi-item dollar-volume rebate, an across-order multi-item quantity-volume anticipated discount, an across-order multi-item quantity-volume state-based discount, an across-order multi-item quantity-volume rebate, an across-order multi-item market share anticipated discount, an across-order multi-item market share state-based discount, an across-order multi-item market share rebate, an across-order multi-item growth-based anticipated discount, an across-order multi-item growth-based state-based discount, and an across-order multi-item growth-based rebate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Miller disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the discounts given to the contractor as taught by Sandholm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have associated effects with trigger conditions within the contract (Sandholm: [0057]).
Regarding Claim 5: Miller in view of Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Miller does not explicitly teach wherein contractor support system is configured to determine a set of purchase orders that minimizes cost for purchase of the list of materials from the plurality of suppliers. Notably, however, Miller does disclose comparing costs of multiple vendors (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Sandholm does teach wherein contractor support system is configured to determine a set of purchase orders that minimizes cost for purchase of the list of materials from the plurality of suppliers. (Sandholm: [0115] – “minimizing the estimated total payment made by the buyer for the forecast of a future purchase of goods or services to be purchased; and maximizing the estimated total value to the buyer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Miller disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the determining of a set of order to minimize cost for purchase of the materials as taught by Sandholm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the total payment consistent with the goods purchased (Sandholm: [0404]).
Regarding Claim 6: Miller in view of Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Miller further discloses to assist a contractor in selecting the list of materials required for a job described in a job solicitation based on selections by the contractor via the user interface; (Miller: [0040] – “Based on the Project Guide video selected, the System Processes Server 155 retrieves the project Dimensions 180 and the recommended Tools and Materials 187 from the Project Information RDB 160 to calculate required project Tools and Materials 187 quantity lists”).
Regarding Claim 7: Miller in view of Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Miller further discloses the contractor support system configured to create a material cost estimate for the list of materials based on pricing data retrieved from the pricing system. (Miller: [0056] - calculate a total project estimate of the construction project. The calculated total project estimate may include the cost of one or more of the following: tools, materials, decor, finishing, furnishings, design components, time requirements, etc. The calculated total project estimate may include the cost of one or more design components utilized in Design View. The total project estimate may include calculating the cost of each design component utilized in Design View. The total project estimate may include calculating the cost of each design component from a plurality of vendors and comparing the cost of each design component from each vendor”).
Regarding Claim 11: Miller discloses a system comprising:
a front end system; (Miller: [0036] – “The Application 105 executes on the mobile device, while the remote system servers (130, 155, 190) function as a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform”).
a backend system; (Miller: [0036] – “The PIM-P Application 105, local to the Computing Device 100, is now able to access and integrate with the various system servers (130,155, 190) and the functional software capabilities. The Application 105 executes on the mobile device, while the remote system servers (130, 155, 190) function as a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform”).
the backend system communicatively connected with the front end system; (Miller: [0036] – “The PIM-P Application 105, local to the Computing Device 100, is now able to access and integrate with the various system servers (130,155, 190) and the functional software capabilities. The Application 105 executes on the mobile device, while the remote system servers (130, 155, 190) function as a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform. Once the system status is online, any previously collected and stored calibration data, images, measurements etc. local to the Computing Device 100 will be automatically processed by the appropriate server and joined in the corresponding RDB”).
the front end system configured to provide a user interface for a contractor to access the backend system; (Miller: [0049] – “the Application 105 proceeds to step 247. In step 247, Photo Image Dimensions are inputted by selecting a dimension to be measured from a User Interface”; Miller: [0055] – “the user is prompted to access a Design View based on the Project Category and Project Template selected. Design View may include the user interacting with a touch-enabled user interface of Mobile Computing Device 100 by performing one or more touch events (e.g., click, drag, drop, etc.) on one or more design components (e.g., decor, finishing, furnishings, etc.). Design View may include one or more design components selected from the Project Template, a retail vendor digital catalogues, websites, or other source that includes image data associated with a respective design component”).
the backend system having a contractor support system; (Miller: [0038] – “when required data is collected on the Computing Device 100 and relayed to the System Processes Server 155 via the Main Web Server 110. Project Name 165, Photo Image 170 and Dimension measurements 180 are processed by the System Processes Server 155 and then stored along with Project Guide URLs 185 and Tools and Materials 187 in the Project Information RDB”).
wherein the system is configured to determine contractor-specific pricing for the list of materials from a plurality of suppliers by communicating with respective systems of the plurality of suppliers; (Miller: [0040] – “Based on the Project Guide video selected, the System Processes Server 155 retrieves the project Dimensions 180 and the recommended Tools and Materials 187 from the Project Information RDB 160 to calculate required project Tools and Materials 187 quantity lists”).
wherein the contractor support system is configured to create a material cost estimate for the list of materials based on the contractor-specific pricing data retrieved from the pricing. (Miller: [0056] – “prompts the System Processes Server 155 (FIG. 1) to calculate a total project estimate of the construction project. The calculated total project estimate may include the cost of one or more of the following: tools, materials, decor, finishing, furnishings, design components, time requirements, etc. The calculated total project estimate may include the cost of one or more design components utilized in Design View. The total project estimate may include calculating the cost of each design component utilized in Design View. The total project estimate may include calculating the cost of each design component from a plurality of vendors and comparing the cost of each design component from each vendor”).
Miller does not explicitly teach the backend system including a pricing system; Notably, however, Miller does disclose calculating an estimate for the project (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Sandholm does teach the backend system including a pricing system; (Sandholm: [0047] – “The CER system and method also collects additional relevant information, including for example current spot market or catalogue prices for items, as well as projections on the quantities of various goods and services that are expected to be required in the future”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Miller disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the pricing system as taught in Sandholm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to determine payments between parties for unit prices and external indices (Sandholm: [0006]).
Regarding Claim 15: Miller in view of Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
Miller further discloses wherein the pricing system is configured to retrieve contractor specific pricing for one or more of the plurality of suppliers; (Miller: [0056] – “calculating the cost of each design component from a plurality of vendors and comparing the cost of each design component from each vendor”).
Regarding Claim 16: Miller in view of Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
Miller does not explicitly teach wherein the contractor support system is configured to determine a set of purchase orders that minimizes cost for purchase of the list of materials form the plurality of suppliers; Notably, however, Miller does disclose comparing costs of multiple vendors (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Sandholm does teach wherein the contractor support system is configured to determine a set of purchase orders that minimizes cost for purchase of the list of materials form the plurality of suppliers; (Sandholm: [0115] – “minimizing the estimated total payment made by the buyer for the forecast of a future purchase of goods or services to be purchased; and maximizing the estimated total value to the buyer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Miller disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the determining of a set of order to minimize cost for purchase of the materials as taught by Sandholm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the total payment consistent with the goods purchased (Sandholm: [0404]).
Regarding Claim 17: Miller in view of Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
Miller further discloses wherein the contractor-specific pricing data is configured to submit a set of purchase orders to one or more of the plurality of suppliers. (Miller: [0013] – “generating a cost estimate and a set of materials to complete a project with the selected design component; and providing an online cart for purchasing the selected design component and set of materials”; Miller: [0057] – “Tools and materials are selected and added to the Shopping Cart 270 and Checked Out 273, on the Retail Vendor eCommerce site 120 (FIG. 1). The purchase is completed using an appropriately aligned Vendor Credit account or an independent Credit Card. The project is then saved on the Mobile Computing Device 100, and Project Information Server 160. In step 276, an electronic receipt is transmitted from the Vendor eCommerce site 120. The Application 105 main system process now ends”).
Regarding Claim 21: Miller in view of Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
Miller further discloses wherein the pricing system is configured to scrape the contractor-specific pricing data for the one or more of the plurality of suppliers from the internet. (Miller: [0055] – “Design View may include one or more design components selected from the Project Template, a retail vendor digital catalogues, websites, or other source that includes image data associated with a respective design component”; Miller: Fig. 1, #120 displaying the system connecting with retail vendor ecommerce sites).
Claims 4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Miller (US 20210183128 A1) and Sandholm (US 20100106652 A1), in view of Jalla (US 20210294299 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Miller and Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the pricing system is configured to determine inventories of the list of materials from the plurality of supplier systems. Notably, however, Miller does disclose comparing costs of multiple vendors (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Jalla does teach wherein the pricing system is configured to determine inventories of the list of materials from the plurality of supplier systems. (Jalla: [0103] – “the geographical limitations of the various vendors (qualifications, availability, delivery time, available stock, etc… The system also connects with filtered and qualified vendors who's stocks to determine if the vendor has the adequate supply of materials, the time (and delay) for the materials, shipping times, material costs, and the like to provide additional information for the modules to incorporate into the time and cost calculation. In some instances, multiple vendors may be used for materials and supplies, and each vendor times and prices are incorporated in”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Miller and Sandholm disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the determining inventories of the list of materials as taught by Jalla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure there is an adequate supply (Jalla: [0103]).
Regarding Claim 13: The combination of Miller and Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the contractor support system is configured to create the material cost estimate for the list of materials based on a combination of the contractor-specific pricing data and inventory data retrieved from the plurality of suppliers. Notably, however, Miller does disclose comparing costs of multiple vendors (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Jalla does teach wherein the contractor support system is configured to create the material cost estimate for the list of materials based on a combination of the contractor-specific pricing data and inventory data retrieved from the plurality of suppliers. (Jalla: [0103] – “the geographical limitations of the various vendors (qualifications, availability, delivery time, available stock, etc… The system also connects with filtered and qualified vendors who's stocks to determine if the vendor has the adequate supply of materials, the time (and delay) for the materials, shipping times, material costs, and the like to provide additional information for the modules to incorporate into the time and cost calculation. In some instances, multiple vendors may be used for materials and supplies, and each vendor times and prices are incorporated in”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Miller and Sandholm disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the create the cost estimate based on a combination of the pricing and inventory data as taught by Jalla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure there is an adequate supply (Jalla: [0103]).
Regarding Claim 14: The combination of Miller and Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the contractor support system is configured to create the material cost estimate for the list of materials based on a combination of the contractor-specific pricing data, inventory data, and logistics data retrieved from the plurality of suppliers. Notably, however, Miller does disclose comparing costs of multiple vendors (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Jalla does teach wherein the contractor support system is configured to create the material cost estimate for the list of materials based on a combination of the contractor-specific pricing data, inventory data, and logistics data retrieved from the plurality of suppliers. (Jalla: [0103] – “based on the geographical location of the building site, the size of the building site and the geographical limitations of the various vendors (qualifications, availability, delivery time, available stock, etc.), construction companies, and shipping companies which are within a predetermined range of the building site, the design module 110 may hid or remove templates which are not available to the client. The vendors may include various engineering professionals as well as construction teams and suppliers. The system also connects with filtered and qualified vendors who's stocks to determine if the vendor has the adequate supply of materials, the time (and delay) for the materials, shipping times, material costs, and the like to provide additional information for the modules to incorporate into the time and cost calculation. In some instances, multiple vendors may be used for materials and supplies, and each vendor times and prices are incorporated in. In some embodiments, this may include a catalog of the vendor to allow the viewing of the materials to access a description and comparison of comparable materials and supplies”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Miller and Sandholm disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the create the cost estimate based on a combination of the logistics, pricing, and inventory data as taught by Jalla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure there is an adequate supply (Jalla: [0103]).
Claims 8-10, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Miller (US 20210183128 A1) and Sandholm (US 20100106652 A1), in view of Bignold (US 20210319382 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: The combination of Miller and Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach the contractor support system configured to create bid proposal for a job based on the contractor specific pricing for the list of materials. Notably, however, Miller does disclose generating a cost estimate based on supplier prices (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Bignold does teach the contractor support system configured to create bid proposal for a job based on the contractor specific pricing for the list of materials. (Bignold: [0117] – “Cost estimator platform 172 utilizes a unit price type contract presentation in order to ensure that the proposal creator 160 includes all relevant costs 256, including any straightforward, obvious and non-obvious costs (e.g., hidden costs) into the final total costs 268 calculation. Under a unit price contract, such as proposal 202, a contractor (e.g., proposal creator 160) is paid for the actual quantity of each line item 210 performed as measured in the field during construction. Each unit price includes all costs associated with labor, material, equipment, overhead, and profit attributable to that scope of work”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Miller and Sandholm disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the creating a bid proposal based on the price of the materials as taught by Bignold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an accurate proposal (Bignold: [0117]).
Regarding Claim 9: The combination of Miller and Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach the system comprising:
the contractor support system configured to create a bid proposal for a job based on the contractor specific pricing for the list of materials;
the contractor support system configured to facilitate tracking status of a plurality of bid proposals.
Notably, however, Miller does disclose generating a cost estimate based on supplier prices (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Bignold does teach the system comprising:
the contractor support system configured to create a bid proposal for a job based on the contractor specific pricing for the list of materials; (Bignold: [0117] – “Cost estimator platform 172 utilizes a unit price type contract presentation in order to ensure that the proposal creator 160 includes all relevant costs 256, including any straightforward, obvious and non-obvious costs (e.g., hidden costs) into the final total costs 268 calculation. Under a unit price contract, such as proposal 202, a contractor (e.g., proposal creator 160) is paid for the actual quantity of each line item 210 performed as measured in the field during construction. Each unit price includes all costs associated with labor, material, equipment, overhead, and profit attributable to that scope of work”).
the contractor support system configured to facilitate tracking status of a plurality of bid proposals. (Bignold: [0251] – “As the bid is accepted, the subcontractor 278's project is accepted. As either party makes changes, and once those changes are approved by both parties, those changes are merged into each project with the general contractor 160's cost displayed as being the same as the subcontractor 278's price”; Bignold: [0143] – “Cost estimator platform 172 may include many other additional beneficial and useful features. In one non-limiting embodiment, cost estimator platform 172 includes a project management interface 274 that allows the user to easily track and monitor any proposal 202”). In summary, the bid is tracked to which bid was accepted and who won the bid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Miller and Sandholm disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the creating a bid proposal based on the price of the materials as taught by Bignold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an accurate proposal (Bignold: [0117]).
Regarding Claim 10: The combination of Miller and Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach the system comprising:
the contractor support system configured to create a bid proposal for a job based on the contractor specific pricing for the list of materials;
wherein in response to input indicating that the bid proposal was won, the contractor support system configured to facilitate tracking and management of the job.
Notably, however, Miller does disclose generating a cost estimate based on supplier prices (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Bignold does teach the system comprising:
the contractor support system configured to create a bid proposal for a job based on the contractor specific pricing for the list of materials; (Bignold: [0117] – “Cost estimator platform 172 utilizes a unit price type contract presentation in order to ensure that the proposal creator 160 includes all relevant costs 256, including any straightforward, obvious and non-obvious costs (e.g., hidden costs) into the final total costs 268 calculation. Under a unit price contract, such as proposal 202, a contractor (e.g., proposal creator 160) is paid for the actual quantity of each line item 210 performed as measured in the field during construction. Each unit price includes all costs associated with labor, material, equipment, overhead, and profit attributable to that scope of work”).
wherein in response to input indicating that the bid proposal was won, the contractor support system configured to facilitate tracking and management of the job. (Bignold: [0143] – “Cost estimator platform 172 may include many other additional beneficial and useful features. In one non-limiting embodiment, cost estimator platform 172 includes a project management interface 274 that allows the user to easily track and monitor any proposal 202 or project”; Bignold: [0228] – “The administrative entity 170 remains connected to and monitors the progress of any construction work related to proposal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Miller and Sandholm disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the creating a bid proposal based on the price of the materials as taught by Bignold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to check off any line items associated with the proposal being complete (Bignold: [0228]).
Regarding Claim 18: The combination of Miller and Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach the contractor support system is configured to create a bid proposal for the job solicitation. Notably, however, Miller does disclose generating a cost estimate based on supplier prices (Miller: [0056]).
To that accord, Bignold does teach the contractor support system is configured to create a bid proposal for the job solicitation. (Bignold: [0117] – “Cost estimator platform 172 utilizes a unit price type contract presentation in order to ensure that the proposal creator 160 includes all relevant costs 256, including any straightforward, obvious and non-obvious costs (e.g., hidden costs) into the final total costs 268 calculation. Under a unit price contract, such as proposal 202, a contractor (e.g., proposal creator 160) is paid for the actual quantity of each line item 210 performed as measured in the field during construction. Each unit price includes all costs associated with labor, material, equipment, overhead, and profit attributable to that scope of work”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Miller and Sandholm disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the creating a bid proposal based on the price of the materials as taught by Bignold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an accurate proposal (Bignold: [0117]).
Regarding Claim 19: The combination of Miller and Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the contractor support system is configured to submit the bid proposal to a solicitor of the job solicitation.
To that accord, Bignold does teach wherein the contractor support system is configured to submit the bid proposal to a solicitor of the job solicitation. (Bignold: [0258] – “the process may include providing the construction proposal 202 to the client 162 or another party 168 interested in viewing the proposal 202 on a computing device associated with either the client 162 or the other party”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Miller and Sandholm disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the submitting the bid proposal as taught by Bignold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to be selected and approved (Bignold: [0259]).
Regarding Claim 20: The combination of Miller and Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the pricing system is configured to retrieve the contractor-specific pricing data from the plurality of suppliers using respective application program interfaces (APIs) for one or more of the plurality of suppliers. Notably, however, Miller does disclose generating a cost estimate based on supplier prices (Miller: [0056]), and connecting to multiple databases (Miller: [0036]).
To that accord, Bignold does teach wherein the pricing system is configured to retrieve the contractor-specific pricing data from the plurality of suppliers using respective application program interfaces (APIs) for one or more of the plurality of suppliers. (Bignold: [0082] – “The hosting system 190 may be a service that can be implemented as a web service, in one or more non-limiting embodiments, with a corresponding set of Web Service Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). The Web Service APIs may be implemented, for example, as a Representational State Transfer (REST)-based Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) interface or a Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)-based interface. Any programming languages may be used to create or operate cost estimator platform 172 as a web service, including, but not limited to .Net, Java, and XML. Further, cost estimator platform 172 as a web service may use standardized industry protocol for the communication and may include well-defined protocols”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Miller and Sandholm disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the use of APIs to interface with the plurality of suppliers as taught by Bignold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide access tis tired data (Bignold: [0081]).
Regarding Claim 22: The combination of Miller and Sandholm discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the backend system includes an API configured to provide access to the pricing system to a third party software system. Notably, however, Miller does disclose generating a cost estimate based on supplier prices (Miller: [0056]), and connecting to multiple databases (Miller: [0036]).
To that accord, Bignold does teach wherein the backend system includes an API configured to provide access to the pricing system to a third party software system. (Bignold: [0082] – “The hosting system 190 may be a service that can be implemented as a web service, in one or more non-limiting embodiments, with a corresponding set of Web Service Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). The Web Service APIs may be implemented, for example, as a Representational State Transfer (REST)-based Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) interface or a Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)-based interface. Any programming languages may be used to create or operate cost estimator platform 172 as a web service, including, but not limited to .Net, Java, and XML. Further, cost estimator platform 172 as a web service may use standardized industry protocol for the communication and may include well-defined protocols”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Miller and Sandholm disclosing a system for determining project materials and cost estimates with the use of APIs to interface with the plurality of suppliers as taught by Bignold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide access tis tired data (Bignold: [0081]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pastore (US 20160292760 A1) discloses [0050] – “The Job Estimation Engine 220 can also use the data obtained by the Job Input Module 210, as described above, to generate a complete insulation bid as part of the job. The insulation bid can include specifications and costing for the installation of insulation as part of the job based on the input provided by the user and the product selections available from the product sources 150. The insulation bid information generated and displayed by the Job Estimation Engine 220 reveals the net cost of the insulation bid using the particular user-selected products and materials. The user can add a portion to the bid for contractor labor or services”.
Taylor (US 20060048070 A1) discloses [0047] – “The project overview button 126 links to project detail screen 134 that provides the user with details about the project, such as step-by-step instructions and figures. The project detail screen 134 may include the service button 124 and a print button (not shown). The related products button 78 links to the related products screen 80 described above. The project calculator button 128 links to a project calculator screen 136 such as the one shown in FIG. 7g. This example of the project calculator screen 136 helps the user determine the amount of key project materials required and provides a cost estimate for those materials”.
PTO-892 Reference U discloses method of writing proposals by analyzing requirements for the job, the functional analysis of the job, and design verification. The various aspects of the job are all determined to form an accurate cost estimate and proposal execution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm 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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights