DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 8/4/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 1 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 10 and 19 recite an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite a method for providing content-based assessments, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: receiving, by the at least one processor, a request from a user device; in response to the request, by the at least one processor, displaying user interface options via a user interface; obtaining, by the at least one processor, via a user interface option of the user interface, a plurality of media items captured from a construction site of at least one property at predefined time intervals; utilizing the at least one processor to obtain, from a municipality of the at least one property, a construction plan in a form of a blueprint architecture of the at least one property; loading, by the at least one processor, the plurality of media items into a trained machine learning model for performing an analysis on the plurality of media items, the analysis comprises comparing the plurality of media items with a set of input data that comprises global positioning system (GPS) details a virtual representation of the at least one property; depicting a construction progress as per the construction plan and a construction quality of the at least one property based on the analysis on the plurality of media items; generating, by the at least one processor, a valuation of the at least one property based on the construction progress and the construction quality; and transmitting, by the at least one processor the valuation to the user device. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. The claims are also commercial interactions, such as sales activities and business relations (See, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017)), as well as managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. The claims are also mental processes, capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of processor, user device, and trained machine learning model, global positioning system, user interface options, and user interface. The additional elements of a processor, user device, and trained machine learning model, global positioning system, user interface options, and user interface are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (processor, user device, and trained machine learning model, global positioning system, user interface options, and user interface) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claims 2 and 11 recite wherein the plurality of media items comprises images, videos, and construction site surroundings of the at least one property. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1 and 10, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 and 10, supra.
Claims 3, 12 and 20 recite wherein the set of input data comprises a project schedule associated with the construction site of the at least one property, a building information model, and video(s) of surroundings of the construction site, a blueprint. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, 10, and 19, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, 10, and 19 supra.
Claims 4 and 13 recite wherein the predefined time intervals comprise a first interval and subsequent intervals. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1 and 10, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 and 10, supra.
Claims 5 and 14 recite wherein the analysis on the plurality of media items at the subsequent intervals further comprises: comparing, by the at least one processor, the plurality of media items captured at the subsequent intervals with the set of input data to determine a delay in the construction progress of the at least one property; and updating, by the at least one processor, the delay in the construction progress of the at least one property in the construction progress. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1 and 10, and the additional elements of the processor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 and 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 and 10, supra.
Claims 6 and 15 recite wherein the trained machine learning model utilizes at least one from among a convolution neural network (CNN) and deep learning algorithms. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1 and 10, and the additional elements of the trained machine learning mode, CNN, and deep learning algorithms are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 and 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 and 10, supra.
Claims 7 and 16 recite wherein the valuation includes a valuation report that comprises a ratio, quality deviations within allowed thresholds as per design, a progress as per deadlines, and a location of the at least one property. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1 and 10, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 and 10, supra.
Claims 8 and 17 recite wherein the construction progress includes a construction progress report that comprises new changes identified compared to a previous report, deviations identified compared to a project plan, a projected completion date, and remaining construction work of the at least one property. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1 and 10, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 and 10, supra.
Claims 9 and 18 recite wherein the construction quality includes a construction quality report that comprises information related to construction materials, dimensions of an interior of the at least one property, shapes of structures, and types of equipment used for construction. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1 and 10, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 and 10, supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 10; set forth in the above Office Action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art discloses a method for providing content-based assessments, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: receiving, by the at least one processor, a request from a user device; in response to the request, by the at least one processor, displaying user interface options via a user interface;
obtaining, by the at least one processor, via a user interface option of the user interface, a plurality of media items captured from a construction site of at least one property at predefined time intervals; loading, by the at least one processor, the plurality of media items into a trained machine learning model for performing an analysis on the plurality of media items, the analysis comprises comparing the plurality of media items with a set of input data that comprises global positioning system (GPS) details a virtual representation of the at least one property; depicting a construction progress as per the construction plan and a construction quality of the at least one property based on the analysis on the plurality of media items; generating, by the at least one processor, a valuation of the at least one property based on the construction progress and the construction quality; and transmitting, by the at least one processor the valuation to the user device, but fails to disclose utilizing the at least one processor to obtain, from a municipality of the at least one property, a construction plan in a form of a blueprint architecture of the at least one property. However, the claims still do not overcome the 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are integrated into a practical application (Applicant arguments, pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. The currently recited claims recite receiving a request, displaying user interface options, obtaining media via a user interface, obtaining a municipal blueprint, loading media into an machine learning model, comparising global positioning details and a virtual representation, depicting progress, generating a valuation, and transmitting the valuation. These steps are data-gathering, data-processing, presenting data, and transmitting performed on a generic computer and processor. The claim does not recite a particular technical improvement. Furthermore, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
The claims are also not synonymous with Core Wireless. Core Wireless added a functionality to the user interface that was different than just displaying different information. Ultimately, it was the technology behind the user interface that allowed it to function differently for smaller screens. Thus, while an application is in an unlaunched state it displayed summary information, so that the user can obtain the information without launching the application. The invention was in how it functioned, and not in what data was displayed (so not in the abstract idea). In the instant application, the invention is in the data that is being displayed, not in the functionality of the display itself.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/4/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered and in combination with the newly amended claim limitations of Claims 1, 10 and 19 on 8/4/2026, are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights