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 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 07/27/2026
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 17-18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
- Response to Applicant’s amendments / arguments -
Applicant’s 07/27/2026 amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection in this action.
- Response to Applicant’s amendments / rebuttal argument on 112(f) -
Applicant’s argument at Remarks 07/27/2026 p.7-p.9 ¶5 against 112(f) interpretation is considered and persuasive in view of Applicant’s 07/27/2026 amendment which now has modified each of the generic placeholders by sufficient structure represented by memory and memory coupled hardware processor, each restively store and execute, and thus modify the generic placeholders. Thus, claims 1-8 no longer invoke 35 USC 112(f) by now failing the 3rd prong of the three prong test. Thus, the prior 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) rejections based on the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation as articulated at Non-Final Act 06/30/2026 p.7-p.10 ¶4 and rebutted by Applicant at Remarks 07/27/2026 p.10-p.11 ¶5 in view of the 07/27/2026 amendment, are now withdrawn.
- Response to Applicant amendments/rebuttal argument on separate 112(b) rejection -
Applicant’s rebuttal argument at Remarks 07/27/2026 p.11 last ¶, on the separate 35 USC 112(b) rejection at Non-Final Act 06/30/2026 at p.10 last ¶-p.11 ¶4 is considered and is persuasive because as amended the claim 1 antecedently recites “a rule”. Thus, 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
- Response to Applicant’s amendments / rebuttal argument on
the non-statutory double patenting rejection -
The Terminal disclaimer filled 07/27/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the US Patent 12169800 is reviewed and accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. As a result, the non-statutory double patenting rejections at Non-Final Act 06/30/2026 p.2 ¶ -p.4 is withdrawn.
- Response to Applicant’s amendments / rebuttal argument on 35 USC 101 -
Argument a. Step 2A prong one: Remarks 07/27/2026 p.15 ¶3 argues that the amended independent Claims 1,9,17 are not fundamental economic practice because match[ing] a code sequence against item codes by an exact match, a substring match, or a wildcard-modified match, and mapping items across separate model, schedule, and cost databases on that basis, is a specific technique for processing and linking electronic data, not a commercial or financial building block such as hedging, insurance, or intermediated settlement. Then, Remarks 07/27/2026 p.15 ¶3, 3rd sentence, criticizes the characterization in the prior Non-Final Act 06/30/2026 of the claims as the practice of mapping capital projects as reading the specific claimed matching operation out of the claims. Then, Remarks 07/27/2026 p.15 ¶4, argues that managing a capital project is, at most, the field of use in which the claimed mechanism operates, and a field of use is not itself a method of organizing human activity. Finally, Remarks 07/27/2026 p. 16 ¶1-¶3 argues that the claims also do not recite a mathematical relationship of a mental process.
Examiner fully considered the Argument a but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive.
Examiner first notes that the Remarks 07/27/2026 p.15 ¶5 overly narrows the definition of the fundamental economic practice subgrouping, to only three examples, namely: hedging, insurance and intermediated settlement. Thus, the Argument a. is flawed right from onset, based on improper, overly narrow claim interpretation inconsistent with the much broader definition of the fundamental economic practice at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A and/or the business interactions or relationships at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B. Examiner rebuts the Applicant’s interpretation by
pointing to Non-Final Act 06/30/2026 p.11 ¶7, p.12 ¶4 to resubmit that, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A,B, the argued independent claims 1,9,17 still recite, or at minimum describe or set forth abstract fundamental economic practices of mapping capital projects as summarized at the preamble of each of independent claims 1,9,17, the Application’s own Title, and further detailed throughout said claims by consideration of fundamental principles and/or business relations, namely: “schedule items representing a portion of a capital project construction schedule, each of the schedule items having at least one schedule item code”; “cost items representing a budget for the portion of the capital project construction schedule and/or the capital project components, each of the cost items having at least one cost item code” (independent Claims 1,9,17). Also, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C, the Examiner finds that such fundamental economic practices and business interactions or relations refer to equally abstract managing of such interactions according to rules or instructions, which are recited, described or set forth here in the claim language of: “providing a rule for mapping one or more model items, one or more schedule items, or one or more cost items” ; “mapping one or more of the model items, one or more of the schedule items or one or more of the cost items based on the rule”, and “performing real-time monitoring” “of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” as recited at each of independent Claims 9,17 and similarly recited at sister independent Claim 1. Thus here, far from just being a field of use, as alleged by Applicant at Remarks 07/27/2026 p.15 ¶4, the mapping of capital projects, as summarized at the preamble of each of independent claims 1,9,17, the Title of the Application, and further detailed throughout said claims, sets forth or describes the broad abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, as demonstrated by the claim mapping to the above sub-groupings.
To be also clear, the match[ing] a code sequence against item codes by an exact match, a substring match, or a wildcard-modified match, and the mapping of model item(s), schedule item(s), cost item(s) initially contain[ed] (Claim 1) or receiv[ed] (Claims 9,17) in their respective
model database, schedule database, and cost databases, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶2, appears to be a claim drafting attempt at narrowing the aforementioned abstract concepts, to equally abstract fundamental principles or practices. Yet, no matter of the terms i.e. “model item code”, “schedule item code”, “cost item code”, to be match[ed] in a search string or “code sequence” with various truncations i.e. “exact match”, “substring match” or “wildcard modifier”, exemplified at Original Specification p.3 lines 13-14, such concepts still represent fundamental building blocks ineligible for patent protection. This is because MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶2 stresses that the term fundamental, as in fundamental practices, is not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known, but rather as a building block of modern economy. Here, considerations of cost, schedule or model for the items, in mapping capital projects as deliberately summarized at the Title of the current Application and then detailed throughout independent claims 1,9,17 falls squarely within such abstract fundamental economic practices of capital projects as read in light of the Background of the Invention at the Original Specification p.1 ¶3-p.2 ¶2, no matter whether or not they are old or well-known. Further, it is also clear that, their underlining concepts for the abstract mapping represent equally fundamental concepts “cost”, “schedule”, “model”, “material availability”, “resource utilization”, or “machine status”, which remain integral to abstract mapping of capital projects, no matter whether or not its search string or “code sequence” match[ing] is old or well-known under auspices of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶2. In fact, in In Re Killian (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit ruled that an analogous search algorithm identifying or matching SSDI eligibility did recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception.
These legal findings and ensuing rationales are further corroborated by MPEP 2106.04 I which cites Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979: to stress that even “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. It then follows that here, any purported groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant improvement in the abstract management of capital projects by mapping variables of cost, schedule, model, etc. that the independent Claims 1,9,17 would provide by rule map[ping] including a “match” between a “code sequence” or search string, to “at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier, would also not satisfy the 101 inquiry when tested per MPEP 2106.04 I supra. The “Myriad” rationale was further corroborated in “SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic” as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.C(i). Digging deeper, into the Court’s rationale, it was previously found in SAP that “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. At its turn, the “SAP” findings and rationales were corroborated by Versata Dev Grp Inc v SAP Am Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 once again undelaying the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective versus improvement to actual technology as reflected at MPEP 2106.04. For example, Versata Dev Grp, Inc v SAP Am, Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 once again underlined the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective versus improvement germane to actual technology, and found that even using fewer software tables and searches than prior-art software, to group, sort and eliminate less restrictive information did not render the claims eligible despite its dramatic improvement computer performance and ease of maintenance. It then follows that here, similar to Versata supra, the similar search string or code sequence algorithm
of less restrictive information according to truncation such as: “match using a wildcard modifier”, or more restrictive information such as: “exact match”, “a substring match”, to sort or “match” information in the mapping would similarly not render the current claims patent eligible,
Given the preponderance of legal evidence above, the Examiner similarly reasons that here, any purported benefit that the mapping of the cost, schedule, model, code-based rule set would present through match[ing] between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier, would at most represent a benefit that is entrepreneurial and abstract in planning or management of the construction project which remains ineligible no matter of its purported economic or abstract benefit.
Alternatively when testing the above claimed feature per MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) III C #2, the Examiner finds that the Applicant’s argued features are not meaningfully different than capabilities to store, access, compile and combine of information from disparate information sources, in an effort to generate a full picture of activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in a computer environment, which still set forth the abstract selecting of information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and announcement, as ruled in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed Cir. 2016) cited by MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) III C #2. Indeed, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III stresses that: # 1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, #2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, #3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, do not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract exception.
It then follows that here, consideration of three information sources namely: “a model database”, “a schedule database” and “a cost database”, constitute, along with the use of “rules engine” that includ[es] “a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier”, and along with the “mapping engine” “configured to map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or one or more cost items based on the rule”, at independent Claim 1, a computer environment or tools to aid in performance of the abstract processes of observation, evaluation, judgment enumerated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III 2, with the abstract observation and evaluation corresponding here to the “match” / “mapping” of independent Claims 1,9,17. These features can be also argued as not meaningfully different than: collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying [or notifying about] certain results of the collection and analysis found abstract in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as a non-limiting example enumerated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A, 5th bullet point.
It can also be argued that here, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A, recitation of “the rule including a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier” followed by recitation of “mapping one or more of the model items, one or more of the schedule items, or one or more of the cost items based on the rule” could be also argued to recite, or at minimum to describe or set forth the equally abstract mathematical relationships expressed in words. Specifically, when tested MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A iv, such limitations are not meaningfully different than organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations by generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form remains abstract. Here, such correlations are set forth by map[ping] “one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or one or more cost items based on the rule” that includ[es] “a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of” [a truncation algorithm namely] “an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier” [exemplified at Original Specification p.3 lines 13-14 as n* character that represents any alpha-numeric character]. Importantly, the Applicant was not the first to invent use of truncation characters in search queries to match query inputs to results, nor is the Applicant alleging as much. Add to this the fact that the Federal Circuit already ruled in, In Re Killian (Fed. Cir. 2022), that a search algorithm identifying SSDI eligibility recites the abstract exception, and it becomes increasingly clear that the analogous mapping or matching features argued by Applicant Remarks 07/27/2026 p.15 ¶3-p.16 ¶3 should similarly be construed to recite, describe or set forth the abstract idea.
Based on the preponderance of legal evidence shown above, it is clear that the claims’ character as a whole remains undeniably abstract.
Therefore, the Applicant’s Argument a. is found unpersuasive.
Argument b. Step 2A prong two: Remarks 07/27/2026 p.16 last ¶-p.17 ¶1 argues even if the claims recite the abstract exception their amendment reflect improvement to a technological process (i.e., automated linking of related items that reside in separate, independently maintained model, schedule, and cost data structures) and therefore integrate any recited exception into a practical application. Then, Remarks 07/27/2026 p.17 ¶4 argues that the specification states that, prior to the claimed system, it "was impossible to automatically map model items, cost items, and schedule items using property codes," and that mapping instead depended on manual, time-consuming, and error-prone selection and connection of items by technicians. The claimed invention solves this problem by generating a rule whose condition is a specified code sequence matching operation and applying that rule to automatically map items across the separate databases using their item codes. This is argued as a specific improvement in how the computer-based system links disparate project data, not mere use of a computer as a tool to perform pre-existing manual task. Finally, Remarks 07/27/2026 p.17 last ¶-p.18 ¶1 argues that as in DDR Holdings, the claimed solution is rooted in computer technology and responds to a problem that exists only because the model, schedule, and cost data are created and maintained across separate, independently configured software applications. It is also argued that as in McRO, the claimed code-sequence matching rules do not merely automate what technicians previously did by hand, manually selecting and connecting items, but instead employ a specific, rules-based matching mechanism that was not previously used to accomplish the mapping.
Examiner fully considered the Argument b. but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive.
Examiner first notes that the Original Specification p.15 ¶2 as relied by Applicant at Remarks 07/27/2026 p.17 ¶4, does not necessarily preclude manual selection and connection of items using software. This is explicitly stated by Original Specification p.15 ¶2, 2nd sentence. Rather, what the Original Specification p.15 ¶2, alleges, at its 1st sentence, was impossibility to previously map model items, cost items, and schedule items in automatically manner. Specifically, Remarks 07/27/2026 p.17 ¶4, 4th sentence, contends that the mapping is time-consuming, and error-prone in selection and connection of items by technicians. Yet, this does not mean that the previous mapping of model items, cost items, and schedule items was not achieved manually. This finding is especially relevant since, in Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys Inc. (Fed Cir 2016), the Federal Circuit found unpersuasive a similar argument that requiring large number of calculations precludes a pen and paper test because the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer did not materially alter the eligibility of the claimed subject matter, even in situations of “inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. As we have explained, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter” citing Bancorp Servs, 687 F.3d at 1278. Thus here, a similar allegation of solving the manual, time consuming, error-prone processes, as argued by Applicant at Remarks 07/27/2026 p.17 ¶4, should also not render the claims patent eligible. This is corroborated by MPEP 2106.05 I iii, stating that automation of manual processes1 is insufficient to show improvement to a technological process, and by MPEP 2106.05(a) ii and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) citing the same FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to show that accelerating or speeding up a process of when the increased speed comes from the capabilities of the computer does not represent improvement in actual technology but rather a mere invocation of computer components or machinery as a tool which does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Further, when more closely investigating FairWarning, the Examiner discovers that the patentee claimed an analogous system and method for accessing, compiling and combining information from disparate information sources according to several rules i.e. related to accesses in excess of specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, etc. Yet, the Federal Circuit ruled such concepts aa abstract, excluded from patent eligible subject matter, citing Elec. Power, 2016 WL 4073318, at *4. It then follows that here, the similar accessing of model, schedule and cost items information from similarly argued disparate or separate model, schedule and cost databases, as argued by Remarks 07/27/2026 p17 ¶1,¶4, for subsequent compiling and combining by map[ping] “one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or one or more cost items based on the rule” “including a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier” as newly amended at each of independent Claims 1,9,17, would similar to FairWarning, represent principles ineligible for patent protection.
With respect to McRO case law, as cited by Applicant at Remarks 07/27/2026 p.17 last ¶-p.18 ¶1, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a) paragraph 1 and finds that here, far from the technological details of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation by using computer-implemented rules as in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1103 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the current claims refer to the abstract mapping of capital projects through what appear to be narrow, yet still abstract forms of, map[ping] / match[ing] the various items [i.e. one or more of model item(s), schedule item(s), or cost item(s)].
With respect to DDR case law, as cited by Applicant at Remarks 07/27/2026 p.17 last ¶-p.18 ¶1, the Examiner submits that, at no point do the claims provide anything remotely technologically analogous to the systems and methods of generating a composite webpage that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third-party merchant, as in DDR Holdings, LLC v Hotels.com, LP,773 F.3d 1245,113 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed Cir 2014) and cited by MPEP 2106.05(d). Digging deeper into DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1248, 113 USPQ2d at 1099, the Examiner finds the Court ruled that the eligible claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host’s webpage to the third party’s webpage when the hyperlink was activated. Here, there is nothing technologically similar to such patent eligible technological arrangement found eligible in McRO or DDR.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s Argument b. to be unpersuasive.
Argument c. Remarks 07/27/2026 p.18 ¶3-¶5 argues that the current claims are different than ElectricPower Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-56 (Fed. Cir. 2016)., Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017), Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Then, Remarks 07/27/2026 p. 19 ¶1-¶2 argues that generating a rule whose condition is a code-sequence matching operation and applying that rule to automatically map items across separate model, schedule, and cost databases is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity
Examiner considered Argument c. but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by following MPEP 2106.05 (d) II guidelines and carrying over the findings of MPEP 2106.05 (f), to submit that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more than what was already identified as the abstract exception. This MPEP 2106.05(f) finding is sufficient legal evidence to demonstrate the claims do not recite additional elements that would provide significantly more, without having to rely on the well-understood, routine, or conventional test of MPEP 2106.05(d). For once, as revealed by MPEP 2106.04 I with respect to Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979: to articulate that even “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. It then follows that here, any purported unconventional or groundbreaking improvement in the abstract management of capital projects that the mapping of cost, schedule, model, items would provide using the code-sequence matching operation and the automatically mapping, as argued by Remarks 07/27/2026 p. 19 ¶1-¶2, would also not satisfy the 101 inquiry when tested per MPEP 2106.04 I supra. Furter still, the “Myriad” rationale was corroborated in “SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic” as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.C(i). Digging deeper, into the Court’s rationale, it was previously found in SAP that “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. At its turn, the “SAP” findings and rationales were corroborated by Versata Dev Grp Inc v SAP Am Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 once again undelaying the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective versus improvement to actual technology as reflected at MPEP 2106.04. Here, such entrepreneurial or abstract goal or objective is revealed by the Original Specification p.1 last ¶- p.2 ¶2 coordination between various teams of the project in difficult situations where the large-scale capital projects run beyond budget and behind on schedule.
These findings and rationales are also corroborated by MPEP 2106.04(a) II A ¶2 finding that the term fundamental, as in fundamental economic practices or principle, is not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known but rather as building blocks of modern economy. Examiner articulated that the principles of: receiv[ing] “a rule for mapping one or more model items, one or more schedule items, or one or more cost items, the rule including a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code”, to automatically “map” “one or more model items, one or more schedule items, or one or more cost items based on the rule, covers, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A ¶2, subject matter that represents such fundamental, building blocks of modern economy, as broadly defined by MPEP 2106.04(a) II A ¶2, which is ineligible for patent protection, no matter of any inquiry into the conventionality
Or well-known test as raised by Applicant at Remarks 07/27/2026 p. 19 ¶1-¶2. In fact, as revealed in the rebuttal of the Applicant’s arguments a. and b. above, the automation of such abstract concepts does not represent an improvement in technology, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(a), but rather the invocation of machinery or computer components as tools to apply the abstract exception, which, as revealed by MPEP 2106.05(f) not only is incapable to integrate the abstract exception into a practical application, but also does not provide significantly more than what was already identified as the abstract exception.
Yet, assuming additional evidence would be required, the examiner would point to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which as cited by MPEP 2106.05(g), showed that use of search tags (i.e. XML search tags) to form an index was deemed a conventional, token, extra-solution activity, ineligible to provide significantly more. It then follows that here the analogous configuration of “a rules a rules engine” “to receive a rule for mapping one or more model items, one or more schedule items, or one or more cost items, the rule including a condition comprising a match between a code sequence” [akin to the aforementioned index-based XML tag] “and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier”, as amended at independent Claims 1,9,17 can be viewed as the limiting of a database to a tags scheme, incapable to provide patent eligibility.
If necessary, the Examiner would also rely on MPEP 2106.05 (d) I #2 C and point to
- US 20170139942 A1 ¶ [0004] 5th - 6th sentences: Conventional techniques for performing these types of searches are based on using search patterns with wildcards, which is a sequence of characters that define a search pattern. The search pattern is then used for pattern-matching in a body of text being searched.
- US 20060092861 A1 ¶ [0218] 3rd sentence: Construction of database searches, including wild-card searches and query-by-example are well understood to those skilled in the art.
- US 20060242374 A1 ¶ [0020] 3rd sentence: In the example above, the "*" symbol is used to represent any series of characters as is known in conventional searching interfaces, but it will be appreciated that other wildcard mechanisms could be used
- US 20090164449 A1 ¶[0025] such conventional mechanisms might include, for example, stemming (i.e., shortening a search term using wild cards), case match (i.e., a Boolean value for whether a search term has the same case as a matching term in a result), token position (i.e., a measure of how well the order of search terms match the order of terms in a result), etc.
- US 20070118910 A1 ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: A participant 104 may include search software through which a user can enter queries which may be composed of any conventional search parameters including keywords, wildcards, Boolean operators…
- US 20060101285 A1 ¶ [0069] In the event that it is desired to employ one or more wildcards in a search query, where the wildcards are applied to terms which are subject to encryption, the client creates the search query in a conventional manner…
- US 20070219983 A1 ¶ [0027] 2nd sentence: Entering of a search term, per se, is conventional, and it is contemplated that users could use any combination of terms, Boolean logic, wildcards and so forth
- US 7293099 B1 column 7 lines 42-46: conventional search criteria such as text strings, wild cards, and/or boolean operations (step 174)
- US 5822539 A column 7 lines 29-34: The “*” in the match pattern indicates a So called “wild card’ character or characters which Stand for no characters or one or more characters at that position in the text. Use of Such wildcard characters are known in conventional Search techniques and not discussed further.
- US 7624052 B1 column 32 lines 28-31: a conventional wild card search functionality can be employed to search, for example, account numbers, advisor name, and/or CUSIP, among other data elements.
Based on the preponderance of legal and/or factual evidence above, the Examiner submits that no additional elements are capable to provide either alone or in combination significantly more than what was already identified as the abstract exception. Step 2B.
Accordingly, the Argument c. is found unpersuasive.
In conclusion, the Examiner submits that the argued claims, even as amended, still recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception (Step 2A prong one) with no additional elements are capable to integrate, either alone or in combination, the abstract exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or to provide significantly more than what was already identified as the abstract exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims are believed to be patent ineligible.
- Response to Applicant’s amendments / rebuttal argument on prior art rejection -
Remarks 07/27/2026 p. 20 argues Samson does not teach newly amended Claims 1,9,17.
i. First, Remarks 07/27/2026 p.21 ¶1 argues that nowhere does Samson describe:
- “an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier between item codes” as amended at independent Claims 1,9,17.
ii. Second, Remarks 07/27/2026 p.21 ¶2-¶3 also argues that Samson does not teach
- “a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code” as amended at independent Claims 1,9,17.
iii. Remarks 07/27/2026 p.21 ¶4-p.22 ¶1 argues that Samson does not disclose the recited real-time monitoring “based on realtime data received from one or more devices” at the amended at independent Claims 1,9,17. Finally, Remarks 07/27/2026 p.22 ¶4-p.23 ¶1 argues that the other cited prior art at the dependent claims does not cure the deficiencies of Samson.
Examiner fully considered Applicant’s rebuttal arguments of the prior art rejection, which are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Examiner relies on
Samson et al, US 20150324940 A1 hereinafter Samson in view of
Chidiac et al, US 20050125311 A1 hereinafter Chidiac, in further view of
Bramberger et al, US 20200319363 A1 hereinafter Bramberger, are now relied upon.
* Initially *
Samson still teaches: “the rule including a condition comprising a match”
(Samson ¶ [0034] 4th sentence: engineering resource system performs strength and dynamic analysis of a home design, per local standards, and to include or address building codes national and/or local. ¶ [0043] 4th-6th sentences: if any of data points of each sub-component part changes, such as price change of a sub-component part, these changes are quickly reflected, in real-time, in overall whole assembly maintained by common info database 212. The overall effect of this compartmentalized, integrated approach is that the attributes of each sub-component are quickly and easily updated in ERP system as they occur, and those changes are similarly easily reflected in common information database 212, while seamless to user participating in real-time virtual experience. Each assembly has its own unique ID code. A complete list of the chosen assemblies used in the final home design is maintained, and ultimately the ERP system is used to tally all of chosen assembly codes to provide complete pricing and a bill of materials for the entire, finalized home. mid-¶ [0044]: common information database 212 could be designed to periodically request update from each of ERP system 202 and CAD system 204 based upon pre-set schedule to provide highly up-to-date database. Similarly the info exchange 214 between common information database 212 and graphical front-end design studio 206 occur in either direction, but preferably design studio 206 will request certain info from common information database 212 on an as-needed basis. mid-¶ [0067] With this pricing data, the display update current price 508 to include retrieved the pricing data of chosen part assemblies from common information database 212);
* However *
Samson does not recite to anticipate: “the rule including a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier” explicit claimed [bolded emphasis added on untaught terms]
* Also while *
Samson still teaches “mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring… of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status”
(Samson ¶ [0040] 5th sentence: providing real-time construction data & product availability.
Samson ¶ [0031] 4th sentence: ERP systems track business resources, such as cash, raw materials, production capacity, scheduling, etc.
Samson ¶ [0043] 4th sentence: if any of data points of each sub-component part changes, of a sub-component part, these changes are entered into ERP system 202 and quickly reflected, in real-time, in overall whole assembly maintained by the common information database 212.
Samson ¶ [0044] 3rd, 5th-8th sentences: The information exchange 216 between common information database 212 and ERP system 202 and CAD system 204 can occur in either direction, but preferably changes to the ERP system 202 and/or CAD system 204 are pushed downward to common information database 212, in real-time to synchronize and provide a highly up-to-date database. For example, each time data is needed about a particular component part (e.g., a cabinet assembly, door, window, or other constructions feature), such data will be communicated on-demand to the design studio 206 to thereby provide the real-time virtual experience to the end user. It is contemplated that each data request made to the common information database 212 for an assembly can retrieve only that assembly, or may alternatively retrieve the requested assembly together with related swappable options. In this manner, the design studio 206 can pre-cache the various swappable options locally in an effort to make the experience operate more quickly to the end user as they wish to navigate among the different options and combinations. Alternatively, it is contemplated that the design studio 206 could have direct communication 218 with either or both of the ERP system 202 and CAD system 204.
Samson ¶ [0068] 1st -2nd sentences: ERP system is constantly updating its databases as to pricing, availability, production lead time, bill of materials, etc. Thus, real-time data including pricing, product availability, bill of materials, is accessible to builder/manufacturer and customer in a transparent manner so they quickly understand ramifications of their design choices).
* Still *
Samson does not explicitly recite to clearly anticipate: “the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring, based on real-time data received from one or more devices, of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” as claimed [bolded emphasis added on the untaught terms].
* Nevertheless *
Chidiac in analogous mapping of items teaches or at least suggests:
- “the rule including a condition” (Chidiac ¶ [0029] 1st-4th sentences in order to do automated part number mapping, the part number mapping engine 114 must first create predictor models for the available data, and then must apply these models to BOM data to determine the internal part numbers. The various components needed by the part number mapping engine to do these tasks are in Fig.3. The part number mapping engine 114 includes part number predictors 302, part class predictors 304, feature extractors 306, feature selectors 308, classifier learners 310, extractor-model learners 312, attribute-value pair matchers 314, and machine learning libraries 316. Feature extractors 306 consist of methods for tokenizing text, such as part descriptions, and converting them into a set of features for use in model creation. tokenization is the step of breaking down the textual information about the part into a set of strings according to some rules, such strings being words, phrases, or character strings)
“comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of”
- “the at least one model item code” (Chidiac Figs.2,5-8, ¶ [0008] 1st-3rd sentences: machine learning methods are used to automatically learn models for mapping BOM line items to the appropriate internal part numbers assigned to those parts by BOM receiver. These models are learned from historical BOM data comprising of BOMs submitted by various 3rd parties over time, such as contract manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and suppliers. In addition to this historical BOM data, we also use historical mapping data consisting of known mappings of internal part numbers to the part numbers of various third parties, parametric data that describes the parameters and their values that are specific to various parts (e.g. product A is 12 ohm resistor that can carry 1 ampere current) and taxonomic data that describes a taxonomy over the entire part repository (e.g., the parts may all be divided into a set of commodity classes, each such commodity class further divided into a part type class, each such part type class contain leaf classes, each leaf class then contains a set of similar products. ¶ [0009] 2nd-3rd sentences use available BOM, mapping, and taxonomic data, along with vocabulary to create classification models for various levels of the part taxonomy that take a given BOM item (containing inf on such as part description, supplier name about a certain part) and predict the class of products (at a given level in taxonomy) the given part belongs to. For example, in the example taxonomy above consisting of commodities, part type classes, leaf classes and parts, classification models are built to take the BOM information for a particular part and predict the commodity class it belongs to. ¶ [0010] 1st,4th-6th sentences: After creation of the classification models, extraction models are created to extract parametric info about a part from part description part of the BOM item. The extraction models that are learned from the historical data enable the extraction of these parameters and their values from this data, thus enabling their matching to the parametric data for the internal part repository which results in the identification of the part, and hence its part number. Parametric models are learned for each class at different levels of the taxonomy. For example, parametric models created for each leaf class in the taxonomy enables differentiation between the set of parts belonging to that leaf class based on parametric data that defines those parts. ¶ [0011] After these 2 types of models are created, actual mapping process is carried out in a hierarchical way. First, the classification models are used to predict the class of products (at some set level of taxonomy) to which the part in question belongs. For example, decide to predict the leaf class to which the part belongs. Then, extractor model for the predicted class (in above example, it would be the predicted leaf class) and extract the parametric data from the part description in BOM. Finally, match this parametric data with the data in the parametric data repository-for all parts belonging to the predicted class to identify the part in question. The internal part number for this predicted part is then assigned to the supplier part number given in BOM.
¶ [0012] 5th sentence: specific leafclass model is then be applied to predict a part),
- “the at least one schedule item code” (Chidiac ¶ [0029] last 6 sentences: feature selectors 308 consist of methods for determining a subset of features created by the feature-extractors that are most appropriate and useful for creating most accurate models…. different methods of feature selection are available in the open literature. One common method, called document frequency, is based on the number of times a particular feature is observed in the part information for the various BOM items. See, for example, … more frequent features are more useful for classification than less frequent features. Another approach based on the same principle, called the CHI test, uses a statistical test to determine which features are more relevant),
- “or the at least one cost item code” (Chidiac ¶ [0004] 5th sentence: comparison with the company-specific suppliers' cost for the same part or previously mapped parts),
“the match comprising at least one of”
= an exact match” (Chidiac ¶ [0026] 14th sentence: Each BOM consists of one or more BOM items, each BOM item having information about exactly one part, such as part description and supplier name),
= “a substring match” (Chidiac ¶ [0008] 3rd sentence: In addition to historical BOM data, use historical mapping data consisting of known mappings of internal part numbers to the part numbers of various third parties, parametric data that describes the parameters and their values that are specific to various parts (e.g., product A is 12 ohm resistor that can carry 1 ampere current) and taxonomic data that describes a taxonomy over the entire part repository (e.g., the parts may all be divided into a set of commodity classes, each such commodity class further divided into a part type class, each such part type class contain leaf classes, each leaf class then contains a set of similar products. ¶ [0036] Fig. 8 is flowchart showing the process of mapping part numbers where, instead of predicting exactly one part number, a list of part numbers, along with associated confidence levels, is predicted for each BOM part. This process is a simple extension to the mapping process in Fig.6. In addition to the receipt of a BOM by the P/N mapper 600, the process also receives input from a human specifying the number of parts to be predicted for each part and whether confidence level in each predicted part is desired. The BOM is then processed as before (using the process described in Fig.6) to map the unmapped P/N in a BOM item to internal part numbers in function block 802, the only difference being that a list of predicted part number is now produced in function block 804. In addition to the predicted part numbers, a confidence level is also generated which is a quantitative measure of how confident the system is that each predicted part number is in fact the correct internal part number for the BOM item being mapped, the higher the confidence level, the better is the prediction. The process is then repeated as long as any unmapped BOM items are still left in the BOM)
= “or a match using a wildcard modifier” (Chidiac ¶ [0033] 12th sentence: inputted tokenization/extraction methods are used in function block 574, along with any [read in light of Original Specification p.3 line 14 with emphasis on “any”] available domain vocabulary (dv) … to tokenize the training data and extract features)
* Finally *
Bramberger in analogous mapping of items teaches or suggests:
- “wherein the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring based on
real-time data received from one or more devices” (Bramberger. ¶ [0031] 1st-3rd sentences,
¶ [0061] 2nd-4th sentences: first data group comprise construction site information data which indicate what construction means 3 are present at construction site 1 where and when. Further, this can be machine data in the real-time, which provide information on construction machines at construction site, their activity [or utilization] and/or position [or status]. Furthermore, this can be [Building Information] BIM data, in particular three-dimensional building data and in addition time and/or cost data), “of one or more of the following: material availability” (Bramberger ¶ [0027] signal transmitter embedded into construction means in the form of bulk material into a heap of gravel or sand which is kept on construction site. In the case of a sensitive configuration of the signal transmitter, the same can also participate in unloading operations, when a heap of sand [or material] is delivered on a truck and is unloaded [or available] at the construction site. Similarly, ¶ [0051] 2nd sentence: when a delivery truck is driving construction means 3 provided with signal transmitters [or devices] 4 through the construction site entrance 6, said loop antenna 5 can detect the signals of signal transmitters [or devices] 4 and identify the construction means 3 brought to the construction site), “resource utilization” (Bramberger ¶ [0061] 3rd-4th sentences: real-time data can be machine [or resource] activity [or utilization] as well as BIM 3D building data and in addition time and/or cost data [as other examples of resource utilization]. ¶ [0046] to each of said construction means 3 a signal transmitter [or device] 4 can each be associated, which emits identification signal identifying the respective construction means 3. Said signal transmitter 4 can be attached to the respective component, wherein in the case of the described bulk material in the construction site sectors 1 b and 1 c the respective signal transmitter 4 can be loosely embedded in the bulk material. ¶ [0047] Said signal transmitters 4 each send individually coded, short identification signal, which individually identifies each construction means [or resource].
¶ [0064] 3rd sentence: BIM data in particular can comprise the current status of the building, for example what floor the shell of the building has reached and/or whether the roof is assembled already and/or whether façade elements are mounted already so that the current status of the building can be visualized for the fourth user group N4, cf Fig.3)), “or machine status” (Bramberger ¶ [0013] 3rd sentence, ¶ [0061] 3rd sentence: Further, this can be machine data preferably in real-time, which provide info on construction machines present at construction site, their activity and/or position [or status]. ¶ [0027] 2nd sentence: in particular, the construction means identified and determined in terms of their position can be used for controlling the construction machines, to the effect that position [or status] of respective construction means is communicated to a crane or a loader so that the crane or loader can automatically approach the pick-up point. ¶ [0028] The information or data obtained by the inductive communication between signal transmitter and loop antenna can be utilized in various ways in order to monitor and/or control and/or visualize the construction site. In particular, the construction means identified and determined in terms of their position can be used for controlling the construction machines, for example to the effect that the position of a respective construction means is communicated to a crane or a loader so that the crane or loader can automatically approach the pick-up point). (Claims 1,9,17)
Accordingly, the cited prior art teaches or at least suggests the argued prior art features.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) describe or set forth2:
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, because when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A,B, said claims still recite, or at least describe or set forth the abstract fundamental economic practices of mapping capital projects as summaries at the preamble of each of independent Claims 1,9,17, the Title of the Application and further detailed throughout said claims by consideration of what appear to be business relations in “containing” or “receiving”:
- “model items representing capital project components from a model, each of the model items having at least one model item code”;
- “schedule items representing a portion of a capital project construction schedule, each of the schedule items having at least one schedule item code”;
- “cost items representing a budget for the portion of the capital project construction schedule and/or the capital project components, each of the cost items having at least one cost item code”.
Such fundamental economic practices are also recited, described or set forth as “adjusted project schedule” [intended] “for3 action” “based on the insights” at dependent Claims 7,15, as well as recitations of “reallocation of resources, task resequencing, or revised timelines” at dependent Claims 8,16.
Further, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C, Examiner finds that such fundamental economic practices and business interactions or relations are implemented or relate to equally abstract managing of such interactions according to rules or instructions, which are recited, described or set forth here in the actual claim language of “providing a rule for mapping one or more model items, one or more schedule items, or one or more cost items, the rule including a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier” ;” mapping one or more of the model items, one or more of the schedule items or one or more of the cost items based on the rule”, and “performing real-time monitoring” “of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” as recited at each of independent Claims 9,17 and similarly recited at sister independent Claim 1.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶2 to stress that the term fundamental, as in fundamental practices, is not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known, but rather as a building block of modern economy. It then follows that here, no matter of the number of metrics, variables or dimensions taking into consideration i.e. cost, schedule, model, code-based rules etc., the claims would consider and match/map, they would still represent building blocks of modern economy in considering the model of the items, their schedule and cost as summarized at the title of the invention and then recited throughout independent Claims 1,9,17. These fall squarely within the abstract fundamental economic practices pertaining to the capital projects as read in light of the Background of the Invention at the Original Specification p.1 ¶3-p.2 ¶2, no matter whether or not they are old or well-known. This finding and rationale is corroborated by MPEP 2106.04 I which cites Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979: to articulate that even “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. It then follows that here, any purported groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant improvement in the abstract management of capital projects by matching/mapping variables of cost, schedule, model, code-based rules etc. that the independent Claims 1,9,17 would provide, would also not satisfy the 101 inquiry when tested per MPEP 2106.04 I supra.
The “Myriad” rationale was further corroborated in “SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic” as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.C(i). Digging deeper, into the Court’s rationale, it was previously found in SAP that “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”.
At its turn, the “SAP” findings and rationales were corroborated by Versata Dev Grp Inc v SAP Am Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 once again undelaying the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective versus improvement to actual technology as reflected at MPEP 2106.04. For example, Versata Dev Grp, Inc v SAP Am, Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 once again underlined the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective versus improvement germane to actual technology, and found that even using fewer software tables and searches than prior-art software, to group, sort and eliminate less restrictive information did not render the claims eligible despite its dramatic improvement computer performance and ease of maintenance. Given such legal findings, the Examiner similarly reasons that here, any purported benefit that the matching/mapping of the cost, schedule, model, code-based rule set would present, would at most represent an entrepreneurial and thus abstract benefit for the planning or management of the construction project which remains ineligible for patenting no matter of its purported entrepreneurial benefit.
In a similar vein, any purported level of computerization conferred by use of databases to contain model items, schedule and cost, at independent Claim 1 would constitute, along with the “rules engine” and “mapping engine” of at independent Claim 1, examples of interaction with a computer, which according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, fourth sentence, does not necessarily preclude the claims to recite the abstract Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.
This finding is further corroborated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C ¶8 which cites Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018), to state that providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity including acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content did not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception. Similarly, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C ii cites BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to state that considering historical usage information while inputting data, also did not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception.
It follows that here, receiving or acquiring content as “model items”, schedule items”, “cost items” for “mapping” would also not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract exception.
Alternatively when testing the above claimed feature per MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) III C #2, the Examiner finds that they are not meaningfully different than capabilities to store, access, compile and combine of information from disparate information sources, in an effort to generate a full picture of activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in such computer environment, which still set forth the abstract selecting of information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and announcement as ruled by the Federal Circuit in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed Cir. 2016) and cited by MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) III C #2. Indeed, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III stresses that: # 1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, #2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, #3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, do not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract exception.
It then follows that here, consideration of three information sources namely “a model database”, “a schedule database” and “a cost database”, continue, along with the use of rules engine that includ[es] “a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier” and along with the “mapping engine” “configured to map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or one or more cost items based on the rule”, at independent Claim 1, and similarly at independent Claims 9,17, as such computer environment or tools to aid in performance of the abstract processes of observation, evaluation, judgment and subsequent opinion as enumerated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III 2, with the abstract evaluation corresponding here to the “mapping” of independent Claims 1,9,17, and the abstract judgment corresponding here to the “insights” of Claims 5,7,13,15 and the opinion corresponding here to the “notification for action” of dependent Claims 6,14. These features can be argued as not meaningfully different than: collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying [or notifying about] certain results of the collection and analysis found abstract in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as a non-limiting example enumerated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A, 5th bullet point.
It can also be argued that here, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A, recitation of “the rule including a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier” followed by recitation of “mapping one or more of the model items, one or more of the schedule items, or one or more of the cost items based on the rule” could be argued to would recite, or at a minimum describe or set forth the equally abstract mathematical relationships expressed in words. Specifically, when tested MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A iv, such limitations are not meaningfully different than organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations by generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form remains abstract. Here, such “rule” manipulation of existing items information and correlations are set forth by map[ping] “one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or one or more cost items based on the rule” that includ[es] “a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of” [a truncation algorithm namely] “an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier” [exemplified at Original Specification as n* character that represents any alpha-numeric character]. The same rationale could would apply with respect to “generates an output relating to the deviation” “upon detecting a deviation from the planned schedule” at dependent Claims 5,13.
In abundance of caution, the Examiner will now more granularly test the level of computerization at the subsequent steps below. For now, given the preponderance of legal evidence, the claims’ character as a whole is found to be undeniably abstract. Step 2A prong one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual, or combination, of the additional, computer-based elements are/is found, per MPEP 2106.05(f), to merely apply the above abstract idea and/or narrow the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment per MPEP 2106.05(h).
Here, the Examiner identified the computer aids above as tools, computer environments etc. to aid performing the abstract processes as recognized above. Now, even when more granularly testing the aforementioned computerization as representative of additional, computer-based elements, the Examiner finds that its underlining databases and engines of independent Claim 1, program code of Claims 17,18,19, artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model of Claims 4,5,7,8,12,13,15,16,20 and devices communication of dependent Claims 2,10,18, narrowed as one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, or mobile robots at dependent Claims 3,11,19, would merely apply the above abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow it to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)] none of which would integrate it into a practical application. For example, the “model database”, “schedule database” and “cost database” “configured to” respectively “contain” “model items”, “schedule items”, and “cost items” of independent Claim 1 would represent computerized capability to store data. Similarly, the “program code” for respectively “receiving” “model items”, “schedule items” and “cost items” at independent Claim 17 would represent computerized capability to receive data. Yet, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶14 is clear that use of computer or other machinery for economic or other tasks to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i) states that applying a business process and an underlining mathematical algorithm on a computer represents mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool, which does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. It follows that here, at dependent Claims 4-5,7,8,12,13,15,16,20 the applying of an “artificial intelligence / machine learning (AI/ML) model” to the abstract “mapping” of the abstract constituents identified at the prior step, and the applying of the “artificial intelligence / machine learning (AI/ML) model”
to the algorithmic “deviation” would equally represent mere invocation of a computer component or machinery as a tool, which would also not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further still, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) and (iv) state that monitoring audit log data executed on a computer5 and requiring use of a computer component such as software to tailor information and provide it on a computer6 are also examples of mere invocation of computers or machinery as tools, which once again do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. It follows that here, recitation of “one or more devices” “based on” which to “perform” “real-time monitoring” (independent Claims 1,9,17) would constitute, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii), invocation of computer components or machinery to perform the monitoring which would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Similarly, recitation of “program code for performing real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” at independent Claim 17, and recitation of “AI/ML model” tailoring or produc[ing] insights and generates an output relating to the deviation” at dependent Claims 5,13, as “a notification for action” at dependent Claims 6,14 and then tailored or “adjusted project schedule based upon the insights and outputs the adjusted project schedule for action” at dependent Claims 7,15, with the tailored information further narrowed to include “one or more of the following: reallocation of resources, task resequencing, or revised timelines” at dependent Claims 8,16, would similarly represent, under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii),(iv) mere invocation of computers or machinery as tools, which again would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, with respect to recitation of “wherein the one or more devices include one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, or mobile robots”, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(h) and finds such elements as a further narrowing of the abstract exception above to a field of use or technological environment, akin to a communication medium, which according to MPEP 2106.05(h)(viii) does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
Additionally, or alternatively recitation of “wherein the one or more devices include one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, or mobile robots”, could also be argued as part of generality of applying the abstract exception which, according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(3), would also not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, per the recitation of “real time” as in “wherein the system is in communication with one or more devices to receive real-time data” at dependent Claim 2, and “receiving the real-time data from one or more devices” at dependent Claim 10 and similarly “program code for receiving the real-time data from one or more devices” at dependent Claim 18, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(a) I, which cites Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to state that automation of manual processes or speeding up such processes is insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. This is further corroborated by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) iii. and MPEP 2106.05(a) I, each citing the same FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to stress that a process for analyzing audit log data executed on a computer where the increased in speed or acceleration in the process comes from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application because it represents a mere invocation of computer components or machinery to apply the abstract exception, which is insufficient to show improvement in computer-functionality, and thus not integrating the abstract exception into a practical application. Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D cited Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n1 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1, to find, right from the onset, that a wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid was integral the abstract exception.
Finally, per the recitation of “wherein the mapping engine includes an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model, the AJ/ML model receiving as an input the real-time data and identifying deviations from a planned schedule” at dependent Claims 4,12,20, the Examiner points to the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2025), and cited by PTAB Appeal 2025-003304: “The requirements that the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted based on real time changes do not represent a technological improvement” at least because they are “incident to the very nature of machine learning”.
According, there is preponderance of legal evidence showing the level of computerization, even when tested from the perspective of as additional elements does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Step 2A prong two.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea and/or link it to a field of use or technological environment. Specifically, Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II guidelines and carries over the findings of MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h) above, to submit that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more as sufficient legal evidence without having to rely on the conventionally test of MPEP 2106.05(d). Yet, assuming arguendo, further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional computer-based elements, per MPEP 2106.05(d), the Examiner would point as evidence to the high level of generality of the additional computer-based elements, as identified above and read in light of Original Disclosure, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(d).I.2: …”in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional”. Here,
* Original Specification p.9 ¶2 to p.10 ¶1 reciting at a high level of generality: “To that end, those skilled in the art have developed plant design programs/products ("plant design programs") to assist in planning/designing, developing, maintaining, and decommissioning capital projects 10, such as those shown in Figures 1A-1C. Examples of widely used building & infrastructure design program include BricsCAD® and/or plant design program is known as the10 SmartPlant® Enterprise product (hereinafter "SmartPlant® product"), distributed by Hexagon PPM of Huntsville, Alabama. In a manner similar to other such products, the above-noted modeling products have at least the following interrelated functions and components: " 3D modeling and visualization, 15" engineering and schematics, " information management, " procurement, fabrication, and construction, " open integration with other proprietary and open systems. 20 Accordingly, architects, designers, engineers, developers, managers and other relevant parties use these and other features of design programs, such as the SmartBuild® and SmartPlant® products, to design, build, update, manage, and decommission capital projects 10, such as the buildings 10 shown in Figures 1A-1C. As known by those skilled in the art, such 3D or 2D design programs25 often produce a template that, along with multiple software tools, serves as a37402-17701 4/30/202012principal mechanism for designing and managing their projects”
* Original Specification p.20 ¶ 2 reciting at a high level of generality: “Those skilled in the art should understand that each of these10 components can be implemented in a variety of conventional manners, such as by using hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software, across one or more other functional components”
* Original Specification p.20 last reciting at a high level of generality:
“Those skilled in the art should understand that such a system typically has many other physical and25 functional components, such as central processing units, various utilities, 37402-17701 4/30/202026
controllers, short-term memory, etc.”
* Original Specification p.26 ¶4 reciting at a high level of generality: “As known to those of skill in the art, mapping may produce a 5D visualization, where the 5D mapping result is displayed in the user interface 46”.
* Original Specification p.45 ¶3-p.46 ¶4 reciting at high level of generality: “Accordingly, the term 5D is not intended to limit the amount and/or variety of types of items that may be mapped using illustrative embodiments. In various embodiments, real time data monitoring of machines may be utilized. For example, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, and/or mobile robots may be deployed to monitor the construction site continuously. These monitoring devices may collect real-time data on material availability, resource utilization, and machine status. Accordingly, whether material or resources are available or being utilized can be monitored to more effectively determine allocation of resources and material. Similarly, by monitoring various machines that are being utilized or not, more effective utilization of those machines is possible. In various embodiments, the monitoring and collection of real-time data may be input into a machine learning model where one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms or models analyze the real-time data to identify deviations from the planned schedule. (e.g., capital project (CAP) deviation detection for a schedule). In various embodiments, the AI/ML checks resource availability, including materials, labor, and machinery. For example, the AI/ML algorithm may receive the real-time data as an input, check and search ERP/material management system for material availability (e.g., in stores, etc.). In various embodiments, upon the AI/ML algorithm of model detecting a significant change (e.g., resource shortage, delayed materials, machine breakdowns), the AI/ML algorithm may flag the issue. In various embodiments, the AI/ML algorithm may produce insights relating to the change (e.g., what change occurred and potential issues arising therefrom such as delays) and generate and output a notification for action by, for example, a superintendent, site manager, and/or stakeholders in the capital project. In various embodiments, the AI/ML algorithm may create an adjusted project schedule considering the flagged issues and output the adjusted project schedule. In various embodiments, the adjusted AI/ML generated schedule includes the reallocation of resources, task resequencing, and revised timelines (e.g., revised production plan)”.
* Original Specification p.47 ¶4 -p.48 ¶2 reciting at a high level of generality: “ Various embodiments of the invention may be implemented at least in part in any conventional computer programming language. For example, some embodiments may be implemented in a procedural programming language (e.g.,25 "C"), as a visual programming process, or in an object oriented programming 37402-177014/30/202058 language (e.g., "C++"). Other embodiments of the invention may be implemented as a pre-configured, stand-along hardware element and/or as preprogrammed hardware elements (e.g., application specific integrated circuits, FPGAs, and digital signal processors), or other related components. 5 In an alternative embodiment, the disclosed apparatus and methods (e.g., see the methods described above) may be implemented as a computer program product for use with a computer system. Such implementation may include a series of computer instructions fixed either on a tangible, non-transitory, non- transient medium, such as a computer readable medium (e.g., a diskette, CD-10ROM, ROM, or fixed disk). The series of computer instructions can embody all or part of the functionality previously described herein with respect to the system. Those skilled in the art should appreciate that such computer instructions can be written in a number of programming languages for use with many 15 computer architectures or operating systems. Furthermore, such instructions may be stored in any memory device, such as semiconductor, magnetic, optical or other memory devices, and may be transmitted using any communications technology, such as optical, infrared, microwave, or other transmission technologies.20 Among other ways, such a computer program product may be distributed as a removable medium with accompanying printed or electronic documentation (e.g., shrink wrapped software), preloaded with a computer system (e.g., on system ROM or fixed disk), or distributed from a server or electronic bulletin board over the network (e.g., the Internet or World Wide Web). In fact, some 25 embodiments may be implemented in a software-as-a-service model ("SAAS") or37402-177014/30/2020 59cloud computing model. Of course, some embodiments of the invention may be implemented as a combination of both software (e.g., a computer program product) and hardware. Still other embodiments of the invention are implemented as entirely hardware, or entirely software. 5 Although the above discussion discloses various exemplary embodiments of the invention, it should be apparent that those skilled in the art can make various modifications that will achieve some of the advantages of the invention without departing from the true scope of the invention.
Additionally or alternatively, assuming arguendo, further evidence would still be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional computer-based elements, per MPEP 2106.05 (d), Examiner would point as evidence to MPEP 2106.05(d).II showing the conventional functions of: i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, including using the Internet to gather data7 and utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information, and
ii. gathering statistics8 /electronic recordkeeping9/ storing and retrieving info in memory10
- Here -
i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, including using the Internet to gather data11 utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information is relevant to: “wherein the system is in communication with one or more devices to receive real-time data” at dependent Claim 2 and “receiving the real-time data from one or more devices” at dependent Claim 10, and “program code for receiving the real-time data from one or more devices” at dependent Claim 18, as well as “wherein the one or more devices include one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, or mobile robots” at dependent Claims 3,11,19, showing such features as conventional.
ii. gathering statistics12 /electronic recordkeeping13/ storing and retrieving info in memory14 is relevant to recitation of the “model database”, “schedule database” and “cost database” “configured to” respectively “contain” “model items”, “schedule items”, and “cost items” of independent Claim 1, thus showing such features as conventional.
All of these fail to provide anything significantly more than what is already well-understood, routine and conventional in light MPEP 2106.05(d).
Additionally or attentively, assuming additional evidence would be required, the examiner would point to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which as cited by MPEP 2106.05(g), showed that use of search tags (i.e. XML search tags) to form an index was deemed a conventional, token, extra-solution activity, ineligible to provide significantly more. It then follows that here the analogous configuration of “a rules a rules engine” “to receive a rule for mapping one or more model items, one or more schedule items, or one or more cost items, the rule including a condition comprising a match between a code sequence” [akin to the aforementioned index-based XML tag] “and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier”, as amended at independent Claims 1,9,17 can be viewed as limiting of a database to a tags scheme, incapable to provide patent eligibility.
If necessary, the Examiner would also rely on MPEP 2106.05 (d) I #2 C and point to:
- US 20170139942 A1 ¶ [0004] 5th - 6th sentences: Conventional techniques for performing these types of searches are based on using search patterns with wildcards, which is a sequence of characters that define a search pattern. The search pattern is then used for pattern-matching in a body of text being searched.
- US 20060092861 A1 ¶ [0218] 3rd sentence: Construction of database searches, including wild-card searches and query-by-example are well understood to those skilled in the art.
- US 20060242374 A1 ¶ [0020] 3rd sentence: In the example above, the "*" symbol is used to represent any series of characters as is known in conventional searching interfaces, but it will be appreciated that other wildcard mechanisms could be used
- US 20090164449 A1 ¶[0025] such conventional mechanisms might include, for example, stemming (i.e., shortening a search term using wild cards), case match (i.e., a Boolean value for whether a search term has the same case as a matching term in a result), token position (i.e., a measure of how well the order of search terms match the order of terms in a result), etc.
- US 20070118910 A1 ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: A participant 104 may include search software through which a user can enter queries which may be composed of any conventional search parameters including keywords, wildcards, Boolean operators…
- US 20060101285 A1 ¶ [0069] In the event that it is desired to employ one or more wildcards in a search query, where the wildcards are applied to terms which are subject to encryption, the client creates the search query in a conventional manner…
- US 20070219983 A1 ¶ [0027] 2nd sentence: Entering of a search term, per se, is conventional, and it is contemplated that users could use any combination of terms, Boolean logic, wildcards and so forth
- US 7293099 B1 column 7 lines 42-46: conventional search criteria such as text strings, wild cards, and/or boolean operations (step 174)
- US 5822539 A column 7 lines 29-34: The “*” in the match pattern indicates a So called “wild card’ character or characters which Stand for no characters or one or more characters at that position in the text. Use of Such wildcard characters are known in conventional Search techniques and not discussed further.
- US 7624052 B1 column 32 lines 28-31: a conventional wild card search functionality can be employed to search, for example, account numbers, advisor name, and/or CUSIP, among other data elements.
- In Conclusion -
Claims 1-20 although directed to statutory categories (here “system” or machine at Claims 1-8, “method” or process at Claims 9-16, and “computer program product comprising a tangible, non-transient computer usable medium” at Claims 17-20) they still recite, or at least set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with their additional, computer-based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than what was already identified as the abstract idea (Step 2B). Claims 1-20 are thus ineligible.
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,2, 9,10 and 17,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Samson et al, US 20150324940 A1 hereinafter Samson in view of
Chidiac et al, US 20050125311 A1 hereinafter Chidiac, in further view of
Bramberger et al, US 20200319363 A1 hereinafter Bramberger. As per,
Claims 1,9,17 Samson teaches/suggests: “A system for 5D mapping of capital projects” (Samson ¶ [0038] 6th-7th sentences: instant API is described as 6D Building Information Modeling (BIM), derived from: 3 dimensional CAD design components+Time+Cost+Manufacturer Information = 6D BIM Information (including all relevant building component information, such as product data and details, maintenance / operation manuals, cut sheet specifications, photos, warranty data, web links to product online sources, manufacturer information and contacts, etc. Examiner interprets Samson’s 6D mapping as narrower version of the currently claimed 5D mapping, and thus meets the currently claimed 5D mapping), “the system comprising at least one hardware processor, a memory operatively coupled with the at least one hardware processor” (Samson mid-¶ [0010], mid-¶ [0026], ¶ [0027]) / “A method for mapping a plurality of cost items, a plurality of model items, and a plurality of schedule items for a 15large-scale capital project, the method comprising” / “A computer program product for use on a computer system for mapping a plurality of 5cost items, a plurality of model items, and a plurality of schedule items, the computer program product comprising a tangible, non-transient computer usable medium having computer readable program thereon, the computer readable program code comprising: program code for” (Samson ¶ [0026] - ¶ [0028]) “:a model database stored in the memory and configured to contain (Claim 1) / “receiving” (Claim 9) / “program code for receiving” (Claim 17) /
- “model items representing capital project components / from a model”
(Samson Fig1, ¶ [0056] user select from predefined list 408 of available home models constructed by selected manufacturer or builder. Each of these home models is pre-designed building template. List 408 is scrollable and available homes shown as 2 step list. it is understood that home designs could be arranged in various multi-step lists or other organizational structure. In the shown example, user selected 1st model 410 in list. Upon selecting a model, pictures 412 of selected model are shown to user. Picture 412 illustrates front elevation of selected home model. Additional corresponding info 414 is presented below picture 412 in scrollable format, such as engineering floor plans, secondary images of home model, etc. user select any of this corresponding info 414 for enlarged view. Further, corresponding home specifications 416 presented below picture 412 such as written description of home, model, square footage, style, number of rooms, baths, bedrooms, stories, garage bays, home dimensions (depth, width), base price, etc. user quickly select different collection 404, home model list 408, and different home model 410 for view. Based upon this displayed info, user has access to available home plans for comparison purposes. Once the user selected a desired home model to customize, the user proceed by selecting configure & Price button 418), “each of the model items having at least one model item code” (Claims 1,9,17) (Samson ¶ [0010] 5th sentence: common info database stores data comprises product assemblies with each product assembly corresponding to one of customization options, and each product assembly further comprises one of said first data element. ¶ [0043] last 3 sentences: overall effect of this compartmentalized, integrated approach is that attributes of each sub-component can be quickly and easily updated in ERP system as they occur, and those changes can be similarly reflected in common information database 212, while being seamless to user participating in real-time virtual experience. Each assembly has its ID code. A complete list of chosen assemblies used in final home design is maintained, and ERP system can be used to tally all of chosen assembly codes to provide complete pricing and bill of materials for entire, finalized home);
- “a schedule database stored in the memory and configured to contain” (Claim 1) / “receiving” (Claim 9) / “program code for receiving” (Claim 17) “schedule items representing a portion of a capital project construction schedule, each of the schedule items having at least one schedule item code” (Claims 1,9,17)
(Samson ¶ [0036] last sentence: 3D design studio 106 provide production engine 128, which facilitate production schedule, lead time, delivery, as exemplary activities for building constructing customized real-world building. ¶ [0030] activities such as: product planning, production scheduling, cost and development; manufacturing; inventory management; purchasing management, sales order processing; distribution; job costing; labor information; geographical cost adjustments; shipping & payment; and Financial accounting.
Samson ¶ [0031] 4th sentence corroborates such activities of scheduling, etc., as well as the status of business commitments, such as orders, purchase orders, and payroll”.
Samson ¶ [0032] corroborates such activities: ERP system provide estimated pricing and availability of these items, and sales configuration tools. For example, ERP system include info relating to: inventory/purchasing; manufacturing; production scheduling; sales order processing; distribution; job costing; financial; and accounting”. ¶ [0033] last 3 sentences corroborate such activities: with each item selected or changed, the ERP system quickly enable (preferably in real-time) estimated pricing, scheduling, availability, and conflict management. This system further convert the final, customized home into a production plan or manufacturing plan. The system further handle the management and ordering of basic building materials, including wood, steel, fasteners, roofing, plumbing, electrical, insulation, concrete, windows, doors, landscaping, etc.
Samson ¶ [0038] last sentence: 6D BIM Information (including all relevant building component info, such as product data and details, maintenance/operation manuals, cut sheet specifications, photos, warranty data, web links to product online sources, manufacturer info and contacts, etc.) can be delivered to home or property owner; ¶ [0042] last sentence: Each of these sub-component parts have its own engineering data (prepared 2D drawing, pre-rendered 3D drawing, dimensions, physical features, materials, performance data, unique installation requirements, etc. ¶ [0043] 6th sentence each assembly has its own unique ID code.
Samson mid-¶ [0044]: each time data is needed about a particular component part or other constructions feature, such data will be communicated on-demand to the design studio 206 to thereby provide the real-time virtual experience to end user);
Samson ¶ [0043] 6th sentence: Each assembly has its own unique ID code. ¶ [0030] 2nd-3rd sentences: ERP system store and manage data from different stages of business. Some of these stages include: production scheduling. ¶ [0010] 5th sentence: The common information database stores computer-readable data that comprises a plurality of product assemblies with each product assembly corresponding to one of the customization options, and each product assembly further comprises …one of said second data element);
- “10a cost database stored in the memory and configured to contain” (Claim 1) / “receiving” (Claim 9)/“program code for receiving”(Claim 17) “cost items / a plurality of cost items representing a portion of a budget for the capital project construction schedule” (Claims 1,10) / “or the capital project components, each of the cost items having at least one cost item code” (Claim 16)
(Samson ¶ [0030] 2nd-3rd sentences: ERP system store and manage data from different stages of business. Some of these stages include: marketing and sales; purchasing management; sales order processing; cost adjustments, shipping and payment; and financial accounting.
Samson ¶ [0031] 4th sentence: ERP systems track business resources, such as cash, raw materials, production capacity, scheduling, etc. and status of business commitments, such as orders, purchase orders, and payroll. ¶ [0036] 3rd sentence: further explains that the financing engine 126 handle customer contractual & financial obligations or costs to pay real-world building. Samson ¶ [0036] 2nd sentence: real-time pricing engine 124 is provided based on all various customizations & design changes selected by user via customization engine 122. Indeed Samson ¶ [0040] last two sentence states that: as the customer is actively customizing a new home or building in real time, system architecture 200 is designed to provide real-time pricing to the user so that the immediate cost and effect of each customization can be experience by the user. In this regard, the user quickly and efficiently understand actual price effect of each choice made during the home design process. ¶ [0051] 1st sentence following customization of the home, full pricing will be provided for all aspects. ¶ [0042] last sentence: Each of the sub-component parts can have its own pricing data (manufacturer cost, labor cost, overhead, adjustment factors, suggested retail price or mark-up factor, etc.) maintained by the ERP system 202.
Samson ¶ [0069] 3rd sentence: due to the large expense of a home purchase, the system can further direct the customer through one or more financing options, simulations, purchase agreements, etc. See mid-¶ [0067] for additional details)
- “a rules engine executed by the a least one hardware processor and configured to receive a rule” (Claim 1) / “providing a rule” (Claim 9) / “program code for creating a rule” (Claim 17) “for mapping the one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or one or more cost items” (Claims 1,9,17) / “the rule including a condition comprising a match ; (Claims 1,9,17)
(Samson ¶ [0034] 4th sentence: the engineering resource system performs strength and dynamic analysis of a home design, per local standards, and to include or address building codes national and/or local. ¶ [0043] 4th-6th sentences: if any of data points of each sub-component part changes, such as price change of a sub-component part, these changes are quickly reflected, in real-time, in overall whole assembly maintained by common info database 212. The overall effect of this compartmentalized, integrated approach is that the attributes of each sub-component are quickly & easily updated in ERP system as they occur, and those changes are similarly easily reflected in common information database 212, while seamless to user participating in real-time virtual experience. Each assembly can have its own unique ID code. A complete list of the chosen assemblies used in the final home design can be maintained, and ultimately the ERP system can be used to tally all of the chosen assembly codes to provide complete pricing and a bill of materials for the entire, finalized home. mid-¶ [0044]: common information database 212 could be designed to periodically request an update from each of ERP system 202 and CAD system 204 based upon a pre-set schedule to provide a highly up-to-date database. Similarly, the info exchange 214 between common information database 212 and graphical front-end design studio 206 occur in either direction, but preferably design studio 206 will request certain info from common information database 212 on an as-needed basis. mid-¶ [0067] With this pricing data, the display update current price 508 to include retrieved the pricing data of chosen part assemblies from common information database 212); “and”
- “a mapping engine executed by the at least one hardware processor and configured to communicate with the model item database, the schedule item database, and the cost item database, the mapping engine further configured to”(Claims 1,9,17) (Samson [0040] 3rd sentence: API 208 middleware enable uni or bi directional communication and access to shared common information database 212 accessible by any ERP system 202, CAD system 204, and graphical front-end design studio 206. ¶ [0041] 1st,11th sentences further explains system architecture 200 leverages common information database 212 to enable communication between graphical front-end design studio 206, and supporting back-end ERP system 202 and CAD system 204. common information database 212 acts as intermediary server-connected storage to maintain operational communication between ERP and CAD systems 202, 204 at one physical location, and design studio 206 at other physical location. [0044] 5th-9th sentences: information exchange 214 between common information database 212 and graphical front-end design studio 206 can occur in either direction, but preferably the design studio 206 will request certain info from common information database 212 on as-needed basis. For example, each time data is needed about particular component part (cabinet assembly, door, window, or other constructions feature), such data will be communicated on-demand to design studio 206 to provide real-time virtual experience to the user.,, each data request made to common information database 212 for assembly to retrieve only that assembly or alternatively retrieve the requested assembly together with related swappable options. In this manner design studio 206 pre-cache the various swappable options locally to make the experience operate more quickly to the user as they wish to navigate among different options and combinations. Alternatively, it is contemplated that design studio 206 can have direct communication 218 with either or both of the ERP system 202 and CAD system 204)
“to map / mapping one or more model items, one or more schedule items, or one or more cost items based on the rule” (Claims 1,9,17) (Samson ¶ [0040] 4th-5th sentences: API 208 middleware enable uni-directional or bi-directional communication and access to shared common information database 212 accessible by any or all of ERP system 202, CAD system 204, and graphical front-end design studio 206. The common information database 212 is especially useful for providing real-time construction data and product availability, as well as real-time pricing to the customer as part of the real-time virtual experience. ¶ [0043] 3rd-6th sentences: as a result, the user quickly see the effect of changing between cabinet option A and cabinet option B, each with its own certain features, appearance, and price. At the same time, if any of the data points of each sub-component part changes, such as a price change of a sub-component part, these changes can be entered into the ERP system 202 and can be quickly reflected, possibly in real-time, in the overall whole assembly maintained by the common information database 212. A complete list of the chosen assemblies used in the final home design can be maintained, and ultimately the ERP system can be used to tally all of the chosen assembly codes to provide complete pricing and a bill of materials for the entire, finalized home. ¶ [0060] 1st -7th sentences noting another example noting upon choosing the wall to be customized, and selecting the “Select Stone Wall” 524 feature, a predetermined list of options 526 is presented to the user. The predetermined list of options 526 provides the user with, for example, different stone types, arrangements, finishes, and colors. A selection of any of these options will change the appearance of the stone facing 514 in the graphical virtual home exterior 510. In this manner, the user can quickly and easily experience what the various stone facing options will look like for their custom home. ¶ [0067] last sentence: common information database 212 may contain the engineering drawings for display to the user as assemblies with an associated bill of materials)
- “wherein the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring, , of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status”.
(Samson ¶ [0040] 5th sentence: providing real-time construction data & product availability.
Samson ¶ [0031] 4th sentence: ERP systems track business resources, such as cash, raw materials, production capacity, scheduling, etc.
Samson ¶ [0043] 4th sentence: if any of data points of each sub-component part changes, of a sub-component part, these changes are entered into ERP system 202 and quickly reflected, in real-time, in overall whole assembly maintained by the common information database 212.
Samson ¶ [0044] 3rd, 5th-8th sentences: The information exchange 216 between common information database 212 and ERP system 202 and CAD system 204 can occur in either direction, but preferably changes to the ERP system 202 and/or CAD system 204 are pushed downward to common information database 212, in real-time to synchronize and provide a highly up-to-date database. For example, each time data is needed about a particular component part (e.g., a cabinet assembly, door, window, or other constructions feature), such data will be communicated on-demand to the design studio 206 to thereby provide the real-time virtual experience to the end user. It is contemplated that each data request made to the common information database 212 for an assembly can retrieve only that assembly, or may alternatively retrieve the requested assembly together with related swappable options. In this manner, the design studio 206 can pre-cache the various swappable options locally in an effort to make the experience operate more quickly to the end user as they wish to navigate among the different options and combinations. Alternatively, it is contemplated that the design studio 206 could have direct communication 218 with either or both of the ERP system 202 and CAD system 204.
Samson ¶ [0068] 1st -2nd sentences: ERP system is constantly updating its databases as to pricing, availability, production lead time, bill of materials, etc. Thus, real-time data including pricing, product availability, bill of materials, is accessible to builder/manufacturer and customer in a transparent manner so they quickly understand ramifications of their design choices).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Samson Fig.1 in support of rejection arguments
* While *
Samson above still teaches “the rule including a condition comprising a match”
Samson does not explicitly recite, to clearly anticipate: “the rule including a condition comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code, the at least one schedule item code, or the at least one cost item code, the match comprising at least one of an exact match, a substring match, or a match using a wildcard modifier” as explicit claimed [bolded emphasis added]
* Also, while *
Samson above is still “mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring… of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status”
Samson does not explicitly recite to clearly anticipate: “the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring, based on real-time data received from one or more devices, of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” as claimed [bolded emphasis added].
* Nevertheless *
Chidiac in analogous mapping of items teaches or suggests:
- “the rule including a condition” (Chidiac ¶ [0029] 1st-4th sentences in order to do automated part number mapping, the part number mapping engine 114 must first create predictor models for the available data, and then must apply these models to BOM data to determine the internal part numbers. The various components needed by the part number mapping engine to do these tasks are in Fig.3. The part number mapping engine 114 includes part number predictors 302, part class predictors 304, feature extractors 306, feature selectors 308, classifier learners 310, extractor-model learners 312, attribute-value pair matchers 314, and machine learning libraries 316. Feature extractors 306 consist of methods for tokenizing text, such as part descriptions, and converting them into a set of features for use in model creation. tokenization is the step of breaking down the textual information about the part into a set of strings according to some rules, such strings being words, phrases, or character strings) “comprising a match between a code sequence and at least a portion of at least two of the at least one model item code” (Chidiac Figs.2,5-8,
¶ [0008] 1st-3rd sentences: machine learning methods are used to automatically learn models for mapping BOM line items to the appropriate internal part numbers assigned to those parts by BOM receiver. These models are learned from historical BOM data comprising of BOMs submitted by various 3rd parties over time, such as contract manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and suppliers. In addition to this historical BOM data, we also use historical mapping data consisting of known mappings of internal part numbers to the part numbers of various third parties, parametric data that describes the parameters and their values that are specific to various parts (e.g. product A is 12 ohm resistor that can carry 1 ampere current) and taxonomic data that describes a taxonomy over the entire part repository (e.g., the parts may all be divided into a set of commodity classes, each such commodity class further divided into a part type class, each such part type class contain leaf classes, each leaf class then contains a set of similar products. ¶ [0009] 2nd-3rd sentences use available BOM, mapping, and taxonomic data, along with vocabulary to create classification models for various levels of the part taxonomy that take a given BOM item (containing inf on such as part description, supplier name about a certain part) and predict the class of products (at a given level in taxonomy) the given part belongs to. For example, in the example taxonomy above consisting of commodities, part type classes, leaf classes and parts, classification models are built to take the BOM information for a particular part and predict the commodity class it belongs to. ¶ [0010] 1st,4th-6th sentences: After creation of the classification models, extraction models are created to extract parametric info about a part from part description part of the BOM item. The extraction models that are learned from the historical data enable the extraction of these parameters and their values from this data, thus enabling their matching to the parametric data for the internal part repository which results in the identification of the part, and hence its part number. Parametric models are learned for each class at different levels of the taxonomy. For example, parametric models created for each leaf class in the taxonomy enables differentiation between the set of parts belonging to that leaf class based on parametric data that defines those parts. ¶ [0011] After these 2 types of models are created, actual mapping process is carried out in a hierarchical way. First, the classification models are used to predict the class of products (at some set level of taxonomy) to which the part in question belongs. For example, decide to predict the leaf class to which the part belongs. Then, extractor model for the predicted class (in above example, it would be the predicted leaf class) and extract the parametric data from the part description in BOM. Finally, match this parametric data with the data in the parametric data repository-for all parts belonging to the predicted class to identify the part in question. The internal part number for this predicted part is then assigned to the supplier part number given in BOM. ¶ [0012] 5th sentence: specific leafclass model is then be applied to predict a part),
“the at least one schedule item code” (Chidiac ¶ [0029] last 6 sentences: feature selectors 308 consist of methods for determining a subset of features created by the feature-extractors that are most appropriate and useful for creating most accurate models…. different methods of feature selection are available in the open literature. One common method, called document frequency, is based on the number of times a particular feature is observed in the part information for the various BOM items. See, for example, … more frequent features are more useful for classification than less frequent features. Another approach based on the same principle, called the CHI test, uses a statistical test to determine which features are more relevant),
“or the at least one cost item code” (Chidiac ¶ [0004] 5th sentence: comparison with the company-specific suppliers' cost for the same part or previously mapped parts),
“the match comprising at least one of an exact match” (Chidiac ¶ [0026] 14th sentence: Each BOM consists of one or more BOM items, each BOM item having information about exactly one part, such as part description and supplier name), “a substring match” (Chidiac ¶ [0008] 3rd sentence: In addition to historical BOM data, use historical mapping data consisting of known mappings of internal part numbers to the part numbers of various third parties, parametric data that describes the parameters and their values that are specific to various parts (e.g., product A is 12 ohm resistor that can carry 1 ampere current) and taxonomic data that describes a taxonomy over the entire part repository (e.g., the parts may all be divided into a set of commodity classes, each such commodity class further divided into a part type class, each such part type class contain leaf classes, each leaf class then contains a set of similar products. ¶ [0036] Fig. 8 is flowchart showing the process of mapping part numbers where, instead of predicting exactly one part number, a list of part numbers, along with associated confidence levels, is predicted for each BOM part. This process is a simple extension to the mapping process in Fig.6. In addition to the receipt of a BOM by the P/N mapper 600, the process also receives input from a human specifying the number of parts to be predicted for each part and whether confidence level in each predicted part is desired. The BOM is then processed as before (using the process described in Fig.6) to map the unmapped P/N in a BOM item to internal part numbers in function block 802, the only difference being that a list of predicted part number is now produced in function block 804. In addition to the predicted part numbers, a confidence level is also generated which is a quantitative measure of how confident the system is that each predicted part number is in fact the correct internal part number for the BOM item being mapped, the higher the confidence level, the better is the prediction. The process is then repeated as long as any unmapped BOM items are still left in the BOM) “or a match using a wildcard modifier” (Chidiac ¶ [0033] 12th sentence: inputted tokenization/extraction methods are used in function block 574, along with any [read in light of Original Specification p.3 line 14 with emphasis on “any”] available domain vocabulary (dv) … to tokenize the training data and extract features)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention , to have modified Samson’s system/method/product to have included Chidiac’s teachings or suggestions in order to have provided a more rigorous machine learning algorithm for mapping such part numbers by using information about the part that is available in the corresponding BOM line item such as part description, supplier information and so on (Chidiac ¶ [0006]-¶ [0007] in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skills of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Samson ¶ [0012], ¶ [0026], ¶ [0044] in view of Chidiac ¶ [0029]-¶ [0030], ¶ [0037] -0 ¶ [0038]
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with mapping. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical, matching, mapping function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements evidenced by Samson in view of Chidiac, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further still *
Bramberger in analogous mapping of items teaches or suggests:
- “wherein the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring based on
real-time data received from one or more devices” (Bramberger ¶ [0031] 1st-3rd sentences,
¶ [0061] 2nd-4th sentences: first data group comprise construction site information data which indicate what construction means 3 are present at construction site 1 where and when. Further, this can be machine data in the real-time, which provide information on construction machines at construction site, their activity [or utilization] and/or position [or status]. Furthermore, this can be [Building Information] BIM data, in particular three-dimensional building data and in addition time and/or cost data), “of one or more of the following: material availability” (Bramberger ¶ [0027] signal transmitter embedded into construction means in the form of bulk material into a heap of gravel or sand which is kept on construction site. In the case of a sensitive configuration of the signal transmitter, the same can also participate in unloading operations, when a heap of sand [or material] is delivered on a truck and is unloaded [or available] at the construction site. Similarly, ¶ [0051] 2nd sentence: when a delivery truck is driving construction means 3 provided with signal transmitters [or devices] 4 through the construction site entrance 6, said loop antenna 5 can detect the signals of signal transmitters [or devices] 4 and identify the construction means 3 brought to the construction site), “resource utilization” (Bramberger ¶ [0061] 3rd-4th sentences: real-time data can be machine [or resource] activity [or utilization] as well as BIM 3D building data and in addition time and/or cost data [as other examples of resource utilization]. ¶ [0046] to each of said construction means 3 a signal transmitter [or device] 4 can each be associated, which emits identification signal identifying the respective construction means 3. Said signal transmitter 4 can be attached to the respective component, wherein in the case of the described bulk material in the construction site sectors 1 b and 1 c the respective signal transmitter 4 can be loosely embedded in the bulk material. ¶ [0047] Said signal transmitters 4 each send individually coded, short identification signal, which individually identifies each construction means [or resource].
¶ [0064] 3rd sentence: BIM data in particular can comprise the current status of the building, for example what floor the shell of the building has reached and/or whether the roof is assembled already and/or whether facade elements are mounted already so that the current status of the building can be visualized for the fourth user group N4, cf Fig.3)), “or machine status” (Bramberger ¶ [0013] 3rd sentence, ¶ [0061] 3rd sentence: Further, this can be machine data preferably in real-time, which provide info on construction machines present at construction site, their activity and/or position [or status]. ¶ [0027] 2nd sentence: in particular, the construction means identified and determined in terms of their position can be used for controlling the construction machines, to the effect that position [or status] of respective construction means is communicated to a crane or a loader so that the crane or loader can automatically approach the pick-up point. ¶ [0028] The information or data obtained by the inductive communication between signal transmitter and loop antenna can be utilized in various ways in order to monitor and/or control and/or visualize the construction site. In particular, the construction means identified and determined in terms of their position can be used for controlling the construction machines, for example to the effect that the position of a respective construction means is communicated to a crane or a loader so that the crane or loader can automatically approach the pick-up point). (Claims 1,9,17)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Samson/Chidiac “system”/”method”/”product” to have further included Bramberger’s teachings or suggestions to have more efficiently controlled, planed and monitored construction sites (Bramberger ¶ [0002] in view of MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with mapping of items. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical, matching, mapping function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Samson/Chidiac in further view of
Bramberger, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 2,10,18. Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger teaches all the limitations in claims 1,9,17 above.
Samson further recites at ¶ [0029] 2nd-3rd sentences: the computerized system provides real-time integrated solution that includes a plurality of major components that interface over a communication network, including: Enterprise resource planning (ERP) system 102; CAD system 104 (i.e. computer automated design system) that provides an Engineering resource system; a 3D Design Studio 106 that provides a user with a real-time virtual experience based upon data provided by ERP and CAD systems; and an application programming interface (API) 108 that provides the integration layer between the 3D design studio and the ERP and CAD systems. The 3D design studio 106 is a graphical front-end layered on top of the ERP system 102 and CAD system 104 to provide a user input and output system, and the API 108 manages and controls interaction between the ERP/CAD systems and 3D design studio. ¶ [0031] 1st sentence: ERP systems provide an integrated real-time view of core business processes, using common databases maintained by a database management system).
Samson/Chidiac does not exactly recite “wherein the system is in communication with the one or more devices to receive the real-time data” (Claim 2) / “receiving” / “program code for receiving the real-time data from the one or more devices” (Claims 10,18) as amended.
Bramberger in analogous mapping of items teaches/suggests: “the system is in communication with the one or more devices to receive the real-time data” (Claim 2) / “receiving” / “program code for receiving the real-time data from the one or more devices” (Claims 10,18)
(Bramberger ¶ [0017]-¶ [0022] Fig. 2 ¶ [0061] 1st 3rd sentences: a first data set can be configured, which substantially comprises all data collected at the construction site 1. This first data group can comprise for example construction site information data which indicate what construction means 3 are present at the construction site 1 where and when. Furthermore, this can be machine data preferably in the form of real-time data, which provide information on construction machines present at the construction site, their activity and/or position)
Rationales to have modified/combined Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger are above & reincorporated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 3,11,19, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger as applied to claims 2,10,18 above, and in view of
Harris et al, US 20190147247 A1 hereinafter Harris. As per,
Claims 3,11,19 Samson teaches all the limitations in claims 2,10,18 above.
Samson still recites at ¶ [0029] 3rd sentence: 3D design studio 106 is a graphical front-end that is layered on top of the ERP system 102 and CAD system 104 to provide user input and output system. ¶ [0027] 1st sentence: input devices comprise camera-based input. Other examples at mid-¶ [0048] 7th sentence: noting the input information is related to the desired home/building and customizations),
Bramberger ¶ [0031], ¶ [0035], ¶ [0061] ¶ [0065] also disclose use of camera.
* However *
Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger as a combination does not recite: “wherein the one or more devices include one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, or mobile robots”.
* Nevertheless *
Harris in analogous modeling of structures for bill of materials in analysis of projects of construction, reconstruction or repair teaches or suggests: “wherein the one or more devices include one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors” “drones, or mobile robots”
(Harris ¶ [0016] 3rd, 5th sentences: in step 12, system could receive one or more digital images of a property. Images of a property could be gathered from many possible sources including, but not limited to, drones, and from ground-based cameras).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger’s system/method/product to have included Harris’ teachings or suggestions to have automatically delineated candidate objects in the model for annotation, to rapidly increase in the efficiency and speed with which annotated computer models of structures are developed (Harris ¶ [0029] last sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated Harris ¶ [0035].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor in analysis of projects. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical and organizational function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger in view of Harris, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like puzzle pieces in logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 4,12,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger as applied to claims 2,10,18 above, and in view of
Morkos et al US 20190205484 A1 hereinafter Morkos. As per,
Claims 4,12,20 Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger teaches all the limitations in claims 1,9,17 above.
Chidiac as mapped above teaches use of machine learning for the mapping
* However *
Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger as a combination does not teach or suggest: - “wherein the mapping engine includes an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model, the AI/ML model receiving as an input the real-time data and identifying deviations from a planned schedule” as claimed.
* Nevertheless *
Morkos in analogous art of construction planning teaches/suggests:
- “wherein the mapping engine includes an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model, the AI/ML model receiving as an input the real-time data and identifying deviations from a planned schedule” (Morkos ¶ [0103] 7th-14th sentences: upon receipt of the real progress, real parameter or condition, and/or real resource pool of the construction project, the estimated construction schedule for the future time frame can be updated. For example, the server may re-run or re-calculate the remaining construction schedule based on remaining (e.g., future) portions of the construction plan. In some instances, the estimated construction schedule for the future time frame can be updated in real-time. Real-time can include a response time of less than 1 second, tenths of a second, hundredths of a second, or a millisecond. In some instances, a comparison between the estimated progress and real progress can be factored into a machine learning algorithm used by the server. An updated construction schedule can be presented to a user automatically or upon user instructions for an update. The updated construction schedule may be visualized, for example, by methods (e.g graph, Gantt chart, 4D model, information cards, etc.) described elsewhere herein. For example, at Fig.10 and ¶ [0091] 9th -10th sentences: In some instances, the location of a point on the chart 1002 for a construction plan and/or schedule can be indicative of a duration and total cost of the project. Beneficially, such visual plotting can easily allow assessment of whether a construction plan is within an operable or objective time frame and/or operable or objective cost. ¶ [0097] 1st sentence: A bar may curve up at the end, such that operations taking a longer duration are more distinguished and easier to follow visually)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger system/method/product to have further included Morkos’s teachings to have better mitigated complications, hazards, inefficiency, waste of resources and budget, etc. (Morkos ¶ [0003] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Morkos ¶ [0018], ¶ [0035], ¶ [0116].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with construction analysis or planning. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical, organizational and managerial function as separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Samson / Chidiac / Bramberger in further view of Morkos, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like puzzle pieces in logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination’s results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 5-8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos as applied to claims 4,12 in further view of
Subramanian et al, US 20210117878 A1 hereinafter Subramanian. As per,
Claims 5,13 Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos teaches all limitations in claims 4,12 above.
Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos does not recite “wherein the AI/ML model, upon detecting a deviation from the planned schedule, produces insights and generates an output relating to the deviation” as explicitly claimed.
* Nevertheless *
Subramanian in analogous art of worksite project tracking teaches/suggests:
- “wherein the AI/ML model, upon detecting a deviation from the planned schedule, produces insights and generates an output relating to the deviation”
(Subramanian ¶ [0054] 1st,4th,5th sentences: system controller 122 implement machine learning techniques to determine which components, are likely to inhibit progress. The notification include multiple levels of urgency based on which of the multiple threshold progress values the progress value is less than. The notification indicate a time period for which the progress value is less than the threshold progress value. For example Fig. 5 element 512: Is progress value less than a threshold progress value?->yes-> step 516: determine components are underperforming.
Subramanian ¶ [0054] 9th,12th- 13th sentence: system controller 122 implement machine learning techniques to determine which components, individually or in combination, are likely to inhibit progress of paving system 100. In addition, through the machine learning techniques, the system may learn the type of recommendations [interpreted as insights] that are most effective when implemented in the paving system 100 in order to reach the target data.
Subramanian ¶ [0054] 6th-7th sentences: As described with respect to Fig.3 the notification may include one or more selectable controls that, when selected, may display progress data and/or recommendation(s) to the user. The notification recommendations may be based at least in part on determining the one or more components of the paving system 100 that are inhibiting progress of the paving project 206 and/or the paving system 100). Similar ¶ [0005] 3rd sentence:
generating, with the controller and based at least in part on determining that the progress value is less than the threshold progress value, at least one of an alarm or a recommendation, and sending, with the controller, at least one of the alarm or the recommendation to an electronic device associated with a user).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos “system” / “method” to have included Subramanian’s teachings or suggestions in order to have provided a more rigorous algorithm that would have used feature reduction and/or feature selection algorithm (i.e. Spearman's rank correlation between factors, recursive feature elimination (RFE), principal component analysis (PCA), matrix factorization, diversity selection based on latent space from a matrix factorization, a Relief algorithm, or a combination thereof) in order to have better identified one or more factors and/or components that impact the progress of the paving project the most and or will impact the paving project. (Subramanian ¶ [0054] last 3 sentences in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills as further articulated by Subramanian ¶ [0060].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with project planning or monitoring. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same analytical, organizational and managerial / planning function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos in further view of Subramanian, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 6,14 Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos/Subramanian teaches all the limitations in claims 5,13 above.
Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos as a combination does not teach “wherein the output includes a notification for action” as explicitly claimed.
Subramanian however in analogous art of worksite project tracking teaches/suggests
- “wherein the output includes a notification for15 action”
(Subramanian ¶ [0042] 2nd,4th-5th sentences the recommendations include data describing which components of paving system 100 causing the paving project 206 to be behind schedule to identify strategies to overcome the one or more inefficiencies. These strategies may be presented to the user on the display when the user selects the control 306 to allow the foreman at ¶ [0049] last sentence to make changes to the paving system 100 prior to the paving project getting behind schedule. Also see ¶ [0048] 14th-15th sentences: noting additional details of the system controller 122 comparing the actual start time with the projected start time and/or the suggested start time and send, to electronic device 128 associated with the user, an indication whether the current work day started early, late, or substantially on time (i.e., within approximately 15, 25, 30 minutes, etc.). In an example where the system controller 122 determines that the start time was later than projected start time and/or suggested start time,the system controller 122 may automatically update the target data in order to reach the target data for the day
Rationales to have modified/combined Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos/ Subramanian are above and reincorporated.
Claims 7,15 Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos/Subramanian teaches all the limitations in claims 6,14 above.
Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos does not teach “wherein the AI/ML model generates an adjusted project schedule based upon the insights and outputs the adjusted project schedule for action”
* However *
Subramanian in analogous art of worksite project tracking teaches/suggest:
- “wherein the AI/ML model generates an adjusted project schedule based upon the insights and outputs the adjusted project schedule for16 action”.
(Subramanian ¶ [0054] 9th,12th-13th sentence system controller 122 implement machine learning techniques to determine which components, individually or in combination, are likely to inhibit progress of paving system 100. In addition, through the machine learning techniques, the system learn the type of recommendations [or insights] that are most effective when implemented in the paving system 100 in order to reach the target data. For example, at Fig.5 step 512 and
Subramanian ¶ [0052] 4th sentence: if the system controller 122 determines that the progress value is greater than threshold progress value, the system controller 122 may evaluate and/or adjust the target data, which is represented at ¶ [0037] 1st sentence as a projected bar. For example, at ¶ [0048] 14th-15th sentences: the system controller 122 compare the actual start time with the projected start time and/or the suggested start time and send, to electronic device 128 associated with the user, an indication whether the current work day started early, late, or substantially on time (i.e., within approximately 15, 25, 30 minutes, etc.). In an example where the system controller 122 determines that the start time was later than the projected start time and/or the suggested start time, the system controller 122 may automatically update the target data in order to reach the target data for the day. This way at ¶ [0049] last sentence the foreman can make changes to the paving system 100 prior to the paving project getting behind schedule)
Rationales to have modified/combined Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos/ Subramanian are above and reincorporated.
Claims 8,16 Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos/Subramanian teaches all the limitations in claims 7,15 above.
Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos does not teach:
- “wherein the adjusted AI/ML generated schedule output includes one or more of the following: reallocation of resources, task resequencing, or revised timelines” as claimed.
Subramanian however in analogous art of worksite project tracking teaches/suggest
- “wherein the adjusted AI/ML generated schedule output includes one or more of the following: reallocation of resources” (Subramanian [0054] 9th,12th-13th sentence system controller 122 implement machine learning techniques to determine which components, individually or in combination, are likely to inhibit progress of paving system 100. In addition, through the machine learning techniques, the system may learn the type of recommendations that are most effective when implemented in the paving system 100 in order to reach the target data. For example, at
¶ [0048] last sentence the system controller 122 may adjust an amount of paving material 108 that needs to be paved every hour in order to reach the target data for the day and/or the paving project 206), task resequencing, or revised timelines” (Subramanian ¶ [0048] 14th-15th sentences: system controller 122 compare the actual start time with projected start time and/or the suggested start time and send, to electronic device 128 associated with the user, an indication whether the current work day started early, late, or substantially on time (i.e., within approximately 15,25,30 minutes etc.). In an example where the system controller 122 determines that the start time was later than the projected start time and/or the suggested start time, the system controller 122 may automatically update the target data in order to reach the target data for the day).
Rationales to have modified/combined Samson/Chidiac/Bramberger/Morkos/ Subramanian are above and reincorporated.
Conclusion
Following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
* WO 2011091158 A2 teaching performing or assisting management of construction project, has server that manages set of tasks information from user, which is applied to frame work to determine attendant state of project and compared with preset conditions
* Kalagnanam et al, A system for automated mapping of bill-of-materials part numbers, 10th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, p 805-810, Aug22 2004
* US 20160224927 A1 hereinafter Pettersson teaching:
wherein the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring, based on real-time data received from one or more devices, of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status.
(Pettersson ¶ [0012] surveying on-site spatial location information of the executing entity at its place of action. This involves location tracking of the executing entity by the mobile client device. ¶ [0014] providing specific on-site task information to the executing entity via mobile client device, which is done with a dynamic updating of the construction database and of specific on-site task. In a particular embodiment, the updating can be done in real time. ¶ [0055] 2nd sentence: the mobile client device can automatically generate which tool, resources, construction components, auxiliary materials etc. are needed and in particular which of those are available at or nearby the spatial location of the place of action or which are to be brought by this or another executing entity. Specifically, per, ¶ [0022] The physical construction components and/or the executing entity can comprise tags to be read out by machine, preferably from remote by mobile client device. Those tags can for example be embodied as RFID-Tags or optical codes link barcodes, QR-codes or the like. In an advanced embodiment, the construction components and/or the executing entity can be recognized and identified by image processing of image from a camera, with an identification of the construction components and/or the executing entity and optionally also an optical surveying to gain spatial location information about its location, orientation and/or size. In an example of an embodiment, location trackable RFIDs can be used, where the mobile client device can read out the tags of the physical construction components and/or the executing entity for the therewith associated identifiers and wherein the mobile client device can optionally also locate the tags with respect to the mobile client device. The locating of the tag (resp. the tag's carrier) can e.g. be based on their emitted radio waves and/or based on a location tracker associated with the tag, which provides location information to be read from the tag by the mobile client device).
* US 20200134745 A1 ¶ [0262] Fig.9 is a flow diagram illustrating method 132 for automatic real-time creation of a Bill of Materials. At Step 134, the BIM electronic drawing is updated via the 3D BIM modeling program on the network device for the desired physical structure. At Step 136, a second message is sent from the network device to the SaaS service on the cloud server network device via the cloud communications network to create an updated Bill of Materials from the updated BIM electronic drawing, the second message including a second electronic link to the updated BIM electronic drawing. At Step 138, the database is update via the SaaS service on the cloud server network device with updated information collected from the updated BIM electronic drawing. At Step 140, the SaaS service on the cloud server network device creates in real-time from the database on the updated Bill of Materials for the updated BIM electronic drawing. At Step 142, the updated Bill of Materials is send from the SaaS service on the cloud server network device to the network device via the cloud communications network. ¶ [0277] 1st sentence: At Step 172, the network device 12 requests in real-time from a SaaS service 64 on a cloud server network device 22 with one or more processors via a cloud communications network 18, automatic creation of the BOM 13 for the BIM electronic drawing 13 for the desired physical structure 21. The BOM 23 including the report 146 produced in the standard and repeatable format with a calculated quantity, purchase cost, installation time, installation cost and waste factor for the plural physical components used to build the desired physical structure and including other BOM components which are not drawn in the BIM modeling program 19 including fastening components and covering components for the desired physical structure 2
* US 20030101168 A1 ¶ [0021] 2nd-6th sentences: also referring to Fig.3, upon receiving part number 210 and possibly associated part description information for a part from a buyer 102 (e.g., included within a BOM associated with PO or RFQ), a user such as seller 104 performs a database search to identify and retrieve all manufacturer part numbers that correspond to that part. For this example, the search identifies for seller 104 three manufacturer part numbers 212, 214, 216 for the part. The search also identifies and retrieves for seller 104 the seller's internal part number 218 that corresponds to all of the manufacturer part numbers 212, 214, 216 identified for the part. Ideally, one internal part number exists for all the manufacturer part numbers identified. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that although part numbers are primarily described, the present invention contemplates any suitable items and any suitable identifiers for those items. ¶ [0022] 1st-3rd sentences for example in Fig.4 seller internal part number 218 corresponds to the 3 manufacturer part numbers 212,214,216. Also buyer's customer part number 210 corresponds to the three manufacturer part numbers 212, 214, 216. Based on this mapping of the manufacturer part numbers 212, 214, 216 to both the customer part number 210 and the internal part number 218, the customer part number 210 and internal part number 218 can be considered equivalent).
* US 20140277666 A1 teaching generating scheduling options in consideration of specific space constraints within a construction site
* US 20220254054 A1 teaching construction machine work information generation system and work information generation method
* US 20210192419 A1 teaching time and attendance system suitable for large or mobile work forces
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 OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Octavian Rotaru/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
September 2nd, 2026
1 Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
2 MPEP 2106.04(a): “…examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible…”.
3 USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04, with respect to the patentable weight of intended use or result
4 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
5 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
6 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
7 Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
8 OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
9 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014)
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755
10 Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
11 Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
12 OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
13 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014)
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755
14 Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
15 USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04, with respect to the patentable weight of intended use or result
16 USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04, with respect to the patentable weight of intended use or result
Prosecution Insights