DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed April 18, 2025. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 13, and 16 are the independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 10, 13, and 16, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of construction planning. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, construction planning (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to generate construction management information by associating actual (construction) performance information with construction plan information (e.g. comparing as-built vs. planned/designed), wherein construction planning is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “acquire”, “generate”, and “generate” recite functions of the construction planning are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The step of generate a trained predictive model is also directed to an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 10, 13, and 16 appears to be to associating actual construction information with planned construction information.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the generic computer elements: (management) server, (performance acquisition) terminal, generator (construction plan information, construction management information; software per se), computer readable medium including instruction. See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: (management) server, (performance acquisition) terminal, generator (construction plan information, construction management information; software per se), computer readable medium including instruction. These generic computing components are merely used to receive/access, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 1). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's construction planning in the general field of project management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited (management) server, (performance acquisition) terminal, generator (construction plan information, construction management information; software per se), computer readable medium including instruction," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of generate construction plan information related to a construction plan and generating construction management information associated with actual performance information all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a (management) server, (performance acquisition) terminal, generator (construction plan information, construction management information; software per se), computer readable medium nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps detecting a acquire data related to a construction actual performance is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of displaying the generated explanations is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic (management) server, (performance acquisition) terminal, generator (construction plan information, construction management information; software per se), computer readable medium are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the acquire step that was considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of construction planning and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 10, 13, and 16.
Claims 2, 11, 14 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by associating the plan and actual performance information with a management target (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by creating a list of actual performance information acquired in a predetermined construction period (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 12, 15 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by creating a document in which actual performance information is associated with each management position in a predetermined format (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the construction plan to include a design value, actual data is a measurement corresponding to the design value and calculating the difference (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the management item to a photograph, acquiring a photograph as actual performance and associating captured photograph with actual performance (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by creating an electronic blackboard and adding photograph data to the blackboard (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by associating the construction plan and management information with a range (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by associating construction plan information with a work schedule, associating the construction plan information with a work range and schedule, output actual performance information and modifying the construction plan based on the output (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-18, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a (management) server, (performance acquisition) terminal, generator (construction plan information, construction management information; software per se), computer readable medium at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. server, computer readable medium, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a (management) server, (performance acquisition) terminal, generator (construction plan information, construction management information; software per se), computer readable medium including instructions merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Sonmez et al., Geographical information system-based visualization system for planning and monitoring of repetitive construction projects (2008).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 13, and 16, Sonmez et al. discloses a pipeline construction management system and method (Abstract) comprising:
A (management) server (computer readable medium);
An actual performance acquisition terminal (device, computer, sensor, etc.) configured/programmed communicate with the management server and to acquire data related to a construction actual performance corresponding to a management item (e.g. satellite image) for managing an actual performance in the construction, as actual performance information (Visualization of progress, Page 1344; Figures 1-3) wherein
The management server is configured/programmed to (e.g. GIS, Google Earth, etc.; Column 1, Paragraphs 1-2, Page 1343; Column 2, Paragraphs 2-4, Page 1343):
Generate construction plan information by associating information related to a construction plan that is a target of the construction with the management item, via a construction plan information generator (Column 1, Last Two Paragraphs, Page 1343; Column 1, Lines 1344; Column 2, Paragraphs 2-4, Page 1343; Table 1);
Generate construction management information by associated the actual performance information acquired with the construction plan information, via a construction management information generator (Figures 1-3; Visualization of progress, Page 1344; Column 2, Second to Last Paragraph, Page 1344).
The recite pipeline construction management, is directed to a non-functional intended use of the construction management system. That the construction is associated with a pipeline does not change how the method steps are performed does it change overall functionality of the system. Merely recites non-functional descriptive material.
Regards Claims 2, 11, 14 and 17, Sonmez et al. discloses a construction management system and method wherein the construction management information generator is configured or programmed to generate the construction management information by associating the construction plan information and the actual performance information with a management position that is a management target in the pipeline (Visualization of progress, Page 1344; Column 2, Second to Last Paragraph, Page 1344; Figures 2, 3).
Regarding Claim 3 Sonmez et al. discloses a construction management system and method wherein the management service is configured/programmed to create data of a list of actual performance information acquired in a predetermined construction period based on the construction management information (Column 2, Paragraphs 2-4, Page 1343; Visualization of progress, Page 1344; Column 2, Second to Last Paragraph, Page 1344).
Regarding Claims 4, 12, 15 and 18 Sonmez et al. discloses a construction management system and method further configured/programmed to create a document in which actual performance information is associated with each management position in accordance with a predetermined format (e.g. graph, colors, etc.) based on the construction management information (Figures 1-3; Visualization of progress, Page 1344; KML code generation, Page 1343; Column 2, Page 1344).
Regarding Claim 6 Sonmez et al. discloses a construction management system and method wherein:
The management item is a photograph (Figures 2-3; General System, Column 1, Paragraph 2, Page 1343; Visualization of progress, Page 1344);
The actual performance information terminal acquires captured photograph data as the actual performance information (Visualization of progress, Page 1344); and
Generate the construction management information by associated the photograph data captured with the management position (Visualization of progress, Page 1344; Figures 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonmez et al., Geographical information system-based visualization system for planning and monitoring of repetitive construction projects (2008) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Bosche, Automated recognition of 3D CAD model objects in laser scans and calculation of as-built dimensions for dimensional compliance control in construction (2010).
Regarding Claim 5, Sonmez et al. does not disclose a design value as claimed.
Bosche, from the same field of endeavor of construction management/progress visualization (Abstract), discloses a construction management system and method wherein:
The construction plan information includes a design value (e.g. dimension) related to earthwork of the construction (Section 3, Calculation of objects’ as-built dimensions and dimensional compliance control; Pages113, 114);
The data related to the construction actual performance is a measurement value corresponding to the design value (dimensional tolerances/compliance; Section 3, Calculation of objects’ as-built dimensions and dimensional compliance control; Pages113, 114); and
Calculate a difference between the design value and the measurement value included in the actual performance information acquired by the actual performance acquisition terminal (Section 3, Calculation of objects’ as-built dimensions and dimensional compliance control; Pages113, 114);
Generate the construction management information by associating the design value, the measurement value, and the difference with the management position (e.g. dimensional compliance/tolerance; Section 3, Calculation of objects’ as-built dimensions and dimensional compliance control; Pages113, 114).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Sonmez et al. would have benefited from generating/determining a difference between a design value and a measurement value in view of the disclosure of Bosche, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonmez et al., Geographical information system-based visualization system for planning and monitoring of repetitive construction projects (2008) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Gustafson et al., U.S. Patent No. 11386364.
Regarding Claim 7, while utilizing blackboards (chat rooms, workspaces, collaboration spaces, portals, hubs and the like) are old, well-known and widely used Sonmez et al. does not disclose a blackboard as claimed.
Gustafson et al., from the same field of endeavor of construction management, discloses a construction management system and method comprising a management server including an electronic blackboard creator configured or programmed to create an electronic blackboard (hub) to be added to the photograph data, based on the construction plan information; and the construction management information generator is configured or programmed to generate the construction management information by associating the photograph data to which the electronic blackboard is added with the management position (Abstract; Column 6, Lines 45-60; Column 8, Lines 7-34; Figure 2, Element 36; Figure 3, Element 44).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Sonmez et al. would have benefited generating an electronic blackboard and associating photograph data in view of the disclosure of Gustafson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonmez et al., Geographical information system-based visualization system for planning and monitoring of repetitive construction projects (2008) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Smith et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180176409.
Regarding Claim 8, Sonmez et al. does not disclose a work range as claimed.
Smith et al., from the same field of construction management, discloses a construction management system and method comprising each of construction plan information, actual performance information, and construction management information is associated with a work range in the construction (Paragraphs 112, 113, 149; Figures 5, 6).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Sonmez et al. would have benefited associating a range with information/data, in view of the disclosure of Smith et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonmez et al., Geographical information system-based visualization system for planning and monitoring of repetitive construction projects (2008) in view of Smith et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180176409as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Song, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20060044307.
Regarding Claim 9, Sonmez et al. discloses a system and method wherein:
The construction plan information is associated with work schedule information that is information related to a schedule of work (Column 1, Last Two Paragraphs, Page 1343; Column 1, Lines 1344; Column 2, Paragraphs 2-4, Page 1343; Table 1);
Acquire the construction plan information from the management server, acquire actual performance information that corresponds to the construction plan information and is associated with the work and the work schedule information (Figures 1-3; Visualization of progress, Page 1344; KML code generation, Page 1343; Column 2, Page 1344), and
Output the actual performance information to the management server (Figures 1-3; Visualization of progress, Page 1344; KML code generation, Page 1343; Column 2, Page 1344).
Sonmez et al. does not disclose a work range as claimed.
Smith et al., from the same field of construction management, discloses a construction management system and method comprising:
Construction plan information is associated with work schedule information that is information related to a schedule of work in the work range (Paragraphs 112, 113, 149; Figures 5, 6);
Acquire actual performance information that corresponds to the construction plan information and is associated with the work range and the work schedule information (Paragraphs 112, 113, 149; Figures 5, 6);
Output the actual performance information to a server (Paragraphs 112, 113, 149; Figures 5, 6);
While modifying a construction plan based on actual performance is old, well-known, conventional and routine Sonmez et al. does not disclose modifying the construction plan as claimed.
Song, from the same field of endeavor of construction management, discloses a system and method further comprising modifying a construction plan information based on the actual performance information output from an actual performance acquisition terminal (Paragraphs 18, 53, 610, 620, 706).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Sonmez et al. would have modifying construction plan based on actual performance, in view of the disclosure of song, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Behnama, Ali et al., Automated progress monitoring system for linear infrastructure projects using satellite remote sensing (2016), discloses a construction management system and method comprising comparing actual and planned performance.
PNG
media_image1.png
555
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
606
793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights