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 Application
This office action is in response to the most recent filings filed by applicants on 08/14/25.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 11 are amended
Claims 9-10 are cancelled
No claims are added
Claims 1-8, 11-20 are pending
Note:
Regarding the claim limitations in claims 4 and 15: The engineering facility scheduling method according to claim 2, wherein the scheduling policy comprises sequential scheduling and unmanned scheduling; and the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work comprises: if the scheduling policy corresponding to the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the sequential scheduling or the unmanned scheduling and if the working condition information of the transportation facility is a no-load status, generating a sequential scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility to move to the excavating and loading facility in turn to perform loading work, and then move to an unloading platform specified by the scheduling group to perform unloading.
The underlined claims are difficult to understand. It is unclear what “if the scheduling policy corresponding to the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the sequential scheduling or the unmanned scheduling and if the working condition information of the transportation facility is a no-load status, generating a sequential scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility to move to the excavating and loading facility in turn to perform loading work, and then move to an unloading platform specified by the scheduling group to perform unloading” mean? The above limitations also have multiple “if” statements, but there is no follow up to what happens when the “if” statement does not apply. So, it feels like the claim is missing steps.
Same is true, regarding the claim limitations in claims 5: wherein the scheduling policy further comprises automatic scheduling; and the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work further comprises: determining an excavating and loading facility with the shortest idle time and generating a priority loading scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility in the no-load status to move to the excavating and loading facility with the shortest idle time to perform loading work, if: the scheduling policy corresponding to the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the automatic scheduling,
the working condition information of the transportation facility is the no-load status, and the working condition information of the transportation facility is non-wait timeout.
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 1-8, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 1-8, 13, 15-20 is/are directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 11 is/are directed to a system which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 12 is/are directed to a facility which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 14 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium which is a statutory category.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. Further, particular groupings of abstract ideas are consistent with judicial precedent and are based on an extraction and synthesis of the key concepts identified by the courts as being abstract.
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong One, the claims as drafted, and given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (business relations; relationships or interactions between people). For instance, independent Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “obtaining facility information and working condition information; obtaining, a scheduling group where the engineering facility is located, and obtaining a scheduling policy corresponding to the scheduling group; generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, a scheduling to perform work, wherein the facility information comprises at least one of load data, facility type, latitude and longitude and historical working data of the engineering facility, and a scheduling group where the engineering facility is located, and wherein the working condition information comprises at least one of idle status information of the engineering facility, waiting time information of the engineering facility, no- load status information of the engineering facility, full-load status information of the engineering facility, and information of a distance of the engineering facility from other engineering facilities.”
independent Claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “record facility information and working condition information of an engineering facility and form one scheduling group; a shift arrangement make a shift arrangement plan and a scheduling policy of the scheduling group; obtain the facility information and the working condition information of the engineering facility, obtain, based on the facility information, the scheduling group where the engineering facility is located, obtain the scheduling policy corresponding to the scheduling group, and generate, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information, a scheduling for instructing the engineering facility to perform work; wherein the facility information comprises at least one of load data, facility type, latitude and longitude and historical working data of the engineering facility, and a scheduling group where the engineering facility is located, and wherein the working condition information comprises at least one of idle status information of the engineering facility, waiting time information of the engineering facility, no- load status information of the engineering facility, full-load status information of the engineering facility, and information of a distance of the engineering facility from other engineering facilities.”
independent Claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “switch the engineering facility to an online status and instruct the engineering facility to perform work corresponding to the scheduling instruction, if it is identified that the engineering facility has the working condition information within a preset period of time; and switch the engineering facility to a rest status or an offline status and instruct the engineering facility not to perform work, if it is identified that the engineering facility has no working condition information within the preset period of time.”
independent Claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “obtaining facility information and working condition information; obtaining, a scheduling group where the engineering facility is located, and obtaining a scheduling policy corresponding to the scheduling group; generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, a scheduling to perform work, wherein the facility information comprises at least one of load data, facility type, latitude and longitude and historical working data of the engineering facility, and a scheduling group where the engineering facility is located, and wherein the working condition information comprises at least one of idle status information of the engineering facility, waiting time information of the engineering facility, no- load status information of the engineering facility, full-load status information of the engineering facility, and information of a distance of the engineering facility from other engineering facilities.”
Applicants’ specification on page 1, lines 10-22: With the rapid development of economy, urban construction, highway construction, mining and other aspects are also in rapid development, which also leads to the constant growth of labor costs. How to reduce business costs and carry out fine management on engineering facilities involved in mines, earthwork, construction sites, etc. has been a problem for the majority of business owners. At present, in the management process of engineering facilities for mines, it is necessary to manually make instructions with detailed time and clear scheduling information for operators and facilities, and the engineering facilities perform the work corresponding the instructions according to the instructions. Therefore, the shift arrangement and scheduling management of the engineering facilities needs a large number of manual participations, which may increase labor costs and reduce the efficiency of the planning of shift arrangement. How to reduce manual participation and make the management of mine engineering facilities more automatic is a technical problem that needs to be solved.
These claim limitations belong to the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the claims are related to mine engineering management. Managing mine engineering for one or more human entities involves organizing human activity based on the description of “certain methods of organizing human activity” provided by the courts. The court have used the phrase “Certain methods of organizing human activity” as —fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements:
Claim 1: “An engineering facility scheduling method, comprising: of an engineering facility; based on the facility information, instruction for instructing the engineering facility, and sending the scheduling instruction to the engineering facility.”
Claim 11: “An engineering facility scheduling system, comprising: an operation management module configured to: by a plurality of engineering facilities; and scheduling module electrically connected with the operation management module and configured to: an instruction generation module electrically connected with the shift arrangement and scheduling module and configured to: of the engineering facility, instruction, and an instruction sending module electrically connected with the instruction generation module and configured to: send the scheduling instruction to the engineering facility.”
Claim 12: “An engineering facility, comprising: a facility intelligent terminal configured to: obtain the scheduling instruction according to claim 1;”
Claim 13: “An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program that is stored on the memory and capable of running on the processor, the processor, when executing the program, implementing steps of the engineering facility scheduling method according to claim 1.”
Claim 14: “A computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored on the computer-readable storage medium, the computer program being used for performing steps of the engineering facility scheduling method according to any one of the claims claim 1.”
Claim 16: “The engineering facility scheduling method according to claim 2, instruction for, or the unmanned scheduling,”
at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 12-15 does not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly dependent claims 2-8, 13, and 15-20 are also directed to an abstract idea under 2A, first and second prong. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. For instance, dependent claims 2 recite “wherein the scheduling group where the engineering facility is located is determined by following steps: determining, based on the obtained facility information of the engineering facility, a matching degree of facility information of different engineering facilities; and classifying, based on the matching degree of the facility information of the different engineering facilities, a plurality of the engineering facilities into one scheduling group” and dependent claims 4 recite “wherein the scheduling policy comprises sequential scheduling and unmanned scheduling; and the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work comprises: generating, if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the sequential scheduling or the unmanned scheduling and the working condition information of the transportation facility is a no-load status, a sequential scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility to move to the excavating and loading facility in turn to perform loading work, and then move to an unloading platform specified by the scheduling group to perform unloading.” Here, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims which are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claim above.
Dependent claims 4 recite “wherein the scheduling policy comprises sequential scheduling and unmanned scheduling; and the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work comprises: generating, if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the sequential scheduling or the unmanned scheduling and the working condition information of the transportation facility is a no-load status, a sequential scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility to move to the excavating and loading facility in turn to perform loading work, and then move to an unloading platform specified by the scheduling group to perform unloading.” In this claim, “located is the sequential scheduling or the unmanned scheduling and the working condition information of the transportation facility is a no-load status, a sequential scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility to move to the excavating and loading facility in turn to perform loading work, and then move to an unloading platform specified by the scheduling group to perform unloading” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-8, 13, and 15-20 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
With respect to Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the invention lacks improvements to another technology or technical field [see Alice at 2351; 2019 IEG at 55], and lacks meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment [Alice at 2360, 2019 IEG at 55], and fails to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing [2019 IEG, 55]. For the reasons articulated above, the claims recite an abstract idea that is limited to a particular field of endeavor (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and recites insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). By the factors and rationale provided above with respect to these MPEP sections, the additional elements of the claims that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application also fail to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “Claim 1: “An engineering facility scheduling method, comprising: of an engineering facility; based on the facility information, instruction for instructing the engineering facility, and sending the scheduling instruction to the engineering facility.”
Claim 1: “An engineering facility scheduling method, comprising: of an engineering facility; based on the facility information, instruction for instructing the engineering facility, and sending the scheduling instruction to the engineering facility.”
Claim 11: “An engineering facility scheduling system, comprising: an operation management module configured to: by a plurality of engineering facilities; and scheduling module electrically connected with the operation management module and configured to: an instruction generation module electrically connected with the shift arrangement and scheduling module and configured to: of the engineering facility, instruction, and an instruction sending module electrically connected with the instruction generation module and configured to: send the scheduling instruction to the engineering facility.”
Claim 12: “An engineering facility, comprising: a facility intelligent terminal configured to: obtain the scheduling instruction according to claim 1;”
Claim 13: “An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program that is stored on the memory and capable of running on the processor, the processor, when executing the program, implementing steps of the engineering facility scheduling method according to claim 1.”
Claim 14: “A computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored on the computer-readable storage medium, the computer program being used for performing steps of the engineering facility scheduling method according to any one of the claims claim 1.”
Claim 16: “The engineering facility scheduling method according to claim 2, instruction for, or the unmanned scheduling,”
are insufficient to amount to significantly more. Applicants originally submitted specification describes the computer components above at least in page 22/ paragraph 4. In light of the specification, it should be noted that the components discussed above did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See MPEP 2106.05(f) - Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception - “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.). The additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and storing and retrieving information in memory, 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; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, it should be noted that additional elements of the claimed invention such as claim limitations when considered individually or as an ordered combination along with the other limitations discussed above in method claim 1 also do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-8, 13, and 15-20 also do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under the second prong or 2B of the Alice framework. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. Further, it should be noted that the dependent claims do not include limitations that overcome the stated assertions. Here, the dependent claims recite features/limitations that include computer components identified above in part 2B of analysis of independent claims 1, 11-12, and 14. As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-8, 13, and 15-20 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106, January 2019 Guidance at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01 -07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf
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(s) 1-8, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2019/0057354 A1) Mckenzie, and further in view of (US 2015/0363746 A1) Fairbanks.
As per claim 1: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie shows:
An engineering facility scheduling method (McKenzie shows in abstract: Disclosed is a system designed to improve construction crew safety, quality, productivity, planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability. A back-office system facilitates short interval planning, constraint removal, hazard identification and mitigation, and field crew labor performance reporting. The work package centric system will accommodate the smallest of organizations and projects, yet is scalable to meet the requirements of very large construction companies that execute complex, mega projects. Dashboards and reports can be customized by individual and the role they play within the organization. A frontline system has dynamic user interface graphics that displays crew performance for the tasks being executed that, combined, constitute a work package. The frontline system simplifies the reporting typically required by a frontline supervisor and encourages compliance with an interesting, easy to use interface. Among other features and functions, the system introduces a measurement that enables a game-like ranking of company frontline supervisor performance. McKenzie shows [0173] Referring next to FIG. 14, the specific method of calculating earned hours 410 is generally disclosed and begins with the inputting of the estimated percentage complete 328 for each task 215 of the shift), comprising:
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie shows:
obtaining facility information and working condition information of an engineering facility (McKenzie shows: [0227] A high level company executive or project manager can evaluate an organizational unit, a project or a work package using the report central tab 790 and dashboard tab 710 of the back-office system 20 and obtain substantial amounts of information about the planning and performance of an organization at levels of detail down to specific tasks. Moreover, such high-level company executive or project manager can use these tools to evaluate the performance of frontline supervisors and quickly identify top performing frontline supervisors in the company, as well as frontline supervisors that require coaching or training.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie shows:
obtaining, based on the facility information, a scheduling group where the engineering facility is located, and obtaining a scheduling policy corresponding to the scheduling group (McKenzie shows: [0123] Once a construction company has received a project award 530, a project planner and/or project manager for the project begins the project planning 200 using the back-office system 20 of the TLMS system 10. Project planning 200 begins with work package estimating 210 during which work packages 212 are created based the project estimate 510 and other project documents, such as a project master schedule. As set forth more fully in the discussion with respect to FIG. 7, the process of creating work packages 212 requires the creation of tasks 215 for each work package 212. The subdivision of a construction project 500 into work package 212 and a number of tasks 215 to be completed in connection with each work package 212 maximizes the value of the TLMS system 10 to a construction company using the TLMS system 10.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, a scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work; and
Regarding the claim limitations above, applicants originally submitted specifications shows “scheduling policy” (A shift arrangement plan may be shift time used for instructing the scheduling group to perform work, and the engineering facilities in the scheduling group perform work according to the shift time specified in the shift arrangement plan. The scheduling policy is a rule to be followed when the scheduling group is instructed to perform work, specification, page 2, last paragraph). In light of the description, even though McKenzie is concerned with planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), McKenzie does not go into details about how the schedules are created. It would be reasonably understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that creating reliable schedules using different constraints like worker availability and planning of resources effectively reads on “scheduling policy” in the claim.
However, Reference Fairbanks shows the above limitation at least in [0049] The learning module 310 may use the information from the observation module 305 to develop parameters and the like. For example, the learning module 310 may learn the scheduling needs of the business based on the observations and set forth certain parameters or rules for drafting and/or producing the work schedule and/or the shift requirements. The learning module 310 may optimize shift changes, or any necessary overlap between personnel for a cohesive business unit. Additionally, the learning module 310 may put rules in place where certain personnel are either to be scheduled together as frequently as possible or never be scheduled together.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
sending the scheduling instruction to the engineering facility (Mckenzie shows: [0127] The process is continued for each work package 212 until all work packages 212 for the project are constructed. The TLMS system 10 calculates project outputs 400 specific to each work package 212 and to the project, including customer satisfaction 410, schedule reliability 420, schedule slippage 430 and an index chart 440 that plots a variety of project parameters. The project outputs 400 enable the project manager or other high-level company personnel to evaluate what aspects of the project were productive, timely, and within budget as well as those aspects of the project that may have been unproductive, untimely, overbudget, or a combination thereof.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the facility information comprises at least one of load data, facility type, latitude and longitude and historical working data of the engineering facility, and a scheduling group where the engineering facility is located (McKenzie shows [0129] The non-project specific segments 112 are disclosed more completely in connection with FIG. 41. The non-project specific segments 112 are particularly important for larger construction companies with a corporate hierarchy, multiple divisions, and multiple geographic locations. McKenzie also shows in the background the problem they are solving: [0005] Productivity loss can result from a wide variety of common problems on a construction site, including idle time, rework time, and crew inefficiency. Idle time often results from crews simply waiting for material, equipment, tools, or direction on how to proceed. Idle work also can result from safety issues causing temporary work shut downs. Rework time results from the crew having to spend time correcting mistakes made by the crew or others, such as the designers of the project. Productivity is also often lost as a result of damages inflicted on preexisting structures. Often productivity is lost simply because the crew is not working efficiently. [0026] The constraints listed in the constraints checklist, once created, can then be marked completed in the TLMS back office system or the TLMS frontline system when the constraints are completed. The constraints checklist provides the project manager and frontline supervisor with an immediate list of items that need to be performed before commencing with construction and helps avoid the problems of idle labor time. [0033] The work package tab of the frontline system has a short interval schedule page and a constraints checklist page. The short interval schedule page has provides key metrics of the project planning for the work package, including applicable cost codes, tasks, scope, list of crew members, and total planned man hours. These key metrics provide the frontline supervisor with important work package plan details itemized down to the task level. The constraints checklist page provides the detailed information pertaining to the constraints for the work package, including whether or not the constraints are completed. [0124]-[0125], [0145]-[0157])), and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the working condition information comprises at least one of idle status information of the engineering facility, waiting time information of the engineering facility, no- load status information of the engineering facility, full-load status information of the engineering facility, and information of a distance of the engineering facility from other engineering facilities (McKenzie shows [0129] The non-project specific segments 112 are disclosed more completely in connection with FIG. 41. The non-project specific segments 112 are particularly important for larger construction companies with a corporate hierarchy, multiple divisions, and multiple geographic locations. [0179] Upon completion of the project, the TLMS system 10 performs an eighth calculation 464 whereby the TLMS system 10 averages the assigned values 463 for the work packages 212 and then outputs the resulting schedule reliability 466 to a back office 20 dashboard. It is to be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the TLMS system 10 also can also save assigned values 463 for a particular type of work package 212, such as concrete foundation, and the TLMS system can then calculate schedule reliability of a particular type of work package 212 over the course of multiple projects.).
As per claim 2: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the scheduling group where the engineering facility is located is determined by following steps (McKenzie shows: [0227] A high level company executive or project manager can evaluate an organizational unit, a project or a work package using the report central tab 790 and dashboard tab 710 of the back-office system 20 and obtain substantial amounts of information about the planning and performance of an organization at levels of detail down to specific tasks. Moreover, such high-level company executive or project manager can use these tools to evaluate the performance of frontline supervisors and quickly identify top performing frontline supervisors in the company, as well as frontline supervisors that require coaching or training.):
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
determining, based on the obtained facility information of the engineering facility, a matching degree of facility information of different engineering facilities (McKenzie does not explicitly show “a matching degree”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0048] In some embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical scheduling information or other information relating to the business. For example, the observation module 305 may receive information regarding historical shift scheduling, salary information, accounting information, personnel information and the like. The information may be uploaded into the observation module 305 or otherwise received and analyzed by the observation module 305. In further embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical information such as seasonal information, market information, or previous sales information. For example, the observation module 305 may observe market fluctuations based on external forces such as weather, world events, or the like. The observation module 305 may additionally observe and analyze previous sales information and may determine a pattern or other characteristics of pervious sales. In some embodiments, the information may be gathered and compared to other gathered data to determine correlations between work schedules, market fluctuations, seasonal impacts, and the like.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
classifying, based on the matching degree of the facility information of the different engineering facilities, a plurality of the engineering facilities into one scheduling group (McKenzie shows: [0133] This process of creating employee records 120 includes the creation of employee classifications. These employee classifications are customizable for specific projects 116 and can include well known industry classifications such as foreman, operator, pipe fitter, surveyor, ironworker, etc. For each classification, the back office system 20 also prompts the system administrator to select user defined level designations, such as level I, level II, level III, etc. For example, during the process of creating employee classifications, the system administrator might include an operator level I, and a pipe fitter level III. These classifications and the required levels are selected based on the various types of skilled workers that are required to construct the various aspects of the project.).
As per claim 3: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the engineering facility comprises:
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
an excavating and loading facility and a transportation facility (McKenzie shows: [0137] Another step in the setup and configuration 100 is to create and/or import costs codes 170. For example, a unique cost code 170 should be created in connection with tasks such as mobilization, staging of materials, survey layout, excavation, form and strip, etc., that the construction company would expect to regularly perform. Projects have unique aspects that may require one or more unique cost codes. Other projects have cost codes that are provided by the customer. The TLMS system 10 back office system 20 provides the flexibility for the system administrator to input construction company standard cost codes 170 during the setup and configuration or for a project manager to assign cost codes 170 during project planning 200 to address project specific cost codes 170 or customer driven cost codes 170. [0143]);
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the obtaining the facility information of the engineering facility comprises:
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
obtaining a historical total loading duration of the excavating and loading facility, a historical average round-trip duration of the transportation facility, and a historical average loading duration of the transportation facility
(McKenzie shows [0115] Back-office system 20 is utilized to input and organize an awarded project from external data sources 15, such as general estimating data 18 and/or client provided historical data 19. In a preferred embodiment, back-office system 20 includes a variety of digital equipment devices, such as computer workstations 21 and 22. [0143] The project planner then inputs a work package description 219 for the work package 212, such as welding, pump foundation, pump installation, etc. The project planner also inputs the specific tasks 215 to be completed for the work package 212. Tasks 215 could include items such as mobilization, staged material, survey/lay-out, excavation, form and strip, rebar, etc. For each task 215 added to a work package 212, the next step is for the project planner manager to assign a cost code 221 to each task 215 selected from the list of cost codes 170 created during the setup and configuration 100 if it is required to track employee time and labor costs to the cost code level. Tracking employee time and labor cost to a cost code 221 is optional. The project manager or project planner may elect to record time at the work package 212 level. [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. Tasks 215 for the work package 212 shown are mobilization, stage materials, survey/lay-out, excavation, form & strip, rebar, anchor blts., 2″ conduit, 6″ conduit, place & finish, backfill, and punch lists/de-mob. For each task 215 added to the work package 212, a variety of task inputs 757 are required, including task name 757(a), cost code 757(b), quantity 757(c), unit of measurement 757(d), unit/man hours 757(e), man hours 757(f), weighted % 757(g), bid composite base rate 757(h) and estimated budget 757(i). The process of making task inputs 757 is performed during the work package estimating 210 process.
McKenzie does not explicitly show “a matching degree”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0048] In some embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical scheduling information or other information relating to the business. For example, the observation module 305 may receive information regarding historical shift scheduling, salary information, accounting information, personnel information and the like. The information may be uploaded into the observation module 305 or otherwise received and analyzed by the observation module 305. In further embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical information such as seasonal information, market information, or previous sales information. For example, the observation module 305 may observe market fluctuations based on external forces such as weather, world events, or the like. The observation module 305 may additionally observe and analyze previous sales information and may determine a pattern or other characteristics of pervious sales. In some embodiments, the information may be gathered and compared to other gathered data to determine correlations between work schedules, market fluctuations, seasonal impacts, and the like.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the classifying, based on the matching degree of the facility information of the different engineering facilities, the plurality of the engineering facilities into one scheduling group comprises
(McKenzie shows [0115] Back-office system 20 is utilized to input and organize an awarded project from external data sources 15, such as general estimating data 18 and/or client provided historical data 19. In a preferred embodiment, back-office system 20 includes a variety of digital equipment devices, such as computer workstations 21 and 22. [0143] The project planner then inputs a work package description 219 for the work package 212, such as welding, pump foundation, pump installation, etc. The project planner also inputs the specific tasks 215 to be completed for the work package 212. Tasks 215 could include items such as mobilization, staged material, survey/lay-out, excavation, form and strip, rebar, etc. For each task 215 added to a work package 212, the next step is for the project planner manager to assign a cost code 221 to each task 215 selected from the list of cost codes 170 created during the setup and configuration 100 if it is required to track employee time and labor costs to the cost code level. Tracking employee time and labor cost to a cost code 221 is optional. The project manager or project planner may elect to record time at the work package 212 level. [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. Tasks 215 for the work package 212 shown are mobilization, stage materials, survey/lay-out, excavation, form & strip, rebar, anchor blts., 2″ conduit, 6″ conduit, place & finish, backfill, and punch lists/de-mob. For each task 215 added to the work package 212, a variety of task inputs 757 are required, including task name 757(a), cost code 757(b), quantity 757(c), unit of measurement 757(d), unit/man hours 757(e), man hours 757(f), weighted % 757(g), bid composite base rate 757(h) and estimated budget 757(i). The process of making task inputs 757 is performed during the work package estimating 210 process.
McKenzie does not explicitly show “a matching degree”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0048] In some embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical scheduling information or other information relating to the business. For example, the observation module 305 may receive information regarding historical shift scheduling, salary information, accounting information, personnel information and the like. The information may be uploaded into the observation module 305 or otherwise received and analyzed by the observation module 305. In further embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical information such as seasonal information, market information, or previous sales information. For example, the observation module 305 may observe market fluctuations based on external forces such as weather, world events, or the like. The observation module 305 may additionally observe and analyze previous sales information and may determine a pattern or other characteristics of pervious sales. In some embodiments, the information may be gathered and compared to other gathered data to determine correlations between work schedules, market fluctuations, seasonal impacts, and the like.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A):
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
obtaining a matching degree between the excavating and loading facility and the transportation facility by dividing the historical total loading duration by a sum of the historical average round-trip duration and the historical average loading duration
(McKenzie shows [0115] Back-office system 20 is utilized to input and organize an awarded project from external data sources 15, such as general estimating data 18 and/or client provided historical data 19. In a preferred embodiment, back-office system 20 includes a variety of digital equipment devices, such as computer workstations 21 and 22. [0143] The project planner then inputs a work package description 219 for the work package 212, such as welding, pump foundation, pump installation, etc. The project planner also inputs the specific tasks 215 to be completed for the work package 212. Tasks 215 could include items such as mobilization, staged material, survey/lay-out, excavation, form and strip, rebar, etc. For each task 215 added to a work package 212, the next step is for the project planner manager to assign a cost code 221 to each task 215 selected from the list of cost codes 170 created during the setup and configuration 100 if it is required to track employee time and labor costs to the cost code level. Tracking employee time and labor cost to a cost code 221 is optional. The project manager or project planner may elect to record time at the work package 212 level. [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. Tasks 215 for the work package 212 shown are mobilization, stage materials, survey/lay-out, excavation, form & strip, rebar, anchor blts., 2″ conduit, 6″ conduit, place & finish, backfill, and punch lists/de-mob. For each task 215 added to the work package 212, a variety of task inputs 757 are required, including task name 757(a), cost code 757(b), quantity 757(c), unit of measurement 757(d), unit/man hours 757(e), man hours 757(f), weighted % 757(g), bid composite base rate 757(h) and estimated budget 757(i). The process of making task inputs 757 is performed during the work package estimating 210 process. [0174] Referring next to FIG. 15, the specific method of calculating the productivity index 420 is generally disclosed. The productivity index calculation 420 begins with inputting the calculated earned hours 415 from the earned hours calculation 410. Next, a third calculation 422 is performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the calculated earned hours 415 are divided by the crew hours 326 for the shift. The output is the daily productivity index 424 which is outputted to a back office dashboard in the TLMS system 10 and to the frontline supervisor dynamic graphic interface 600. The TLMS system 10 next queries whether all tasks in the work package 212 are complete 426. If no, then steps 415, 422 and 424 are repeated for the next shift until the answer to query 426 is yes. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a sixth calculation 434 whereby the total labor cost is divided by the total number of hours worked during the same time frame that total labor cost is captured and outputs the resulting actual crew composite rate 436 to the back-office dashboard. [0182]-[0184]: Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a seventh calculation 442 performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the estimated crew composite rate 227 is divided by the actual crew composite rate 436. The resulting composite rate index 444 is outputted to a back office dashboard. A composite rate index 444 that is less than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that labor cost is overbudget. Similarly, a composite rate index 444 that is greater than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that the actual labor cost was under budget. The TLMS system 10 then performs an eleventh calculation 486 whereby the total number of work packages performed as planned 484 is divided by the total number of work packages performed 482 resulting in the frontline supervisor reliability rate 480. The supervisor reliability rate 480 is then outputted 488 to a Back Office 20 dashboard. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a twelfth calculation 493 whereby the TLMS system 10 calculates aggregate labor efficiency index by multiplying the sum of total earned hours divided by actual hours with the sum of estimated composite rate 227 divided by actual composite rate 436.
McKenzie does not explicitly show “a matching degree”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0048] In some embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical scheduling information or other information relating to the business. For example, the observation module 305 may receive information regarding historical shift scheduling, salary information, accounting information, personnel information and the like. The information may be uploaded into the observation module 305 or otherwise received and analyzed by the observation module 305. In further embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical information such as seasonal information, market information, or previous sales information. For example, the observation module 305 may observe market fluctuations based on external forces such as weather, world events, or the like. The observation module 305 may additionally observe and analyze previous sales information and may determine a pattern or other characteristics of pervious sales. In some embodiments, the information may be gathered and compared to other gathered data to determine correlations between work schedules, market fluctuations, seasonal impacts, and the like.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
classifying, if the matching degree is greater than or equal to a preset threshold, the corresponding excavating and loading facility and transportation facility into the same scheduling group
(McKenzie shows [0115] Back-office system 20 is utilized to input and organize an awarded project from external data sources 15, such as general estimating data 18 and/or client provided historical data 19. In a preferred embodiment, back-office system 20 includes a variety of digital equipment devices, such as computer workstations 21 and 22. [0143] The project planner then inputs a work package description 219 for the work package 212, such as welding, pump foundation, pump installation, etc. The project planner also inputs the specific tasks 215 to be completed for the work package 212. Tasks 215 could include items such as mobilization, staged material, survey/lay-out, excavation, form and strip, rebar, etc. For each task 215 added to a work package 212, the next step is for the project planner manager to assign a cost code 221 to each task 215 selected from the list of cost codes 170 created during the setup and configuration 100 if it is required to track employee time and labor costs to the cost code level. Tracking employee time and labor cost to a cost code 221 is optional. The project manager or project planner may elect to record time at the work package 212 level. [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. Tasks 215 for the work package 212 shown are mobilization, stage materials, survey/lay-out, excavation, form & strip, rebar, anchor blts., 2″ conduit, 6″ conduit, place & finish, backfill, and punch lists/de-mob. For each task 215 added to the work package 212, a variety of task inputs 757 are required, including task name 757(a), cost code 757(b), quantity 757(c), unit of measurement 757(d), unit/man hours 757(e), man hours 757(f), weighted % 757(g), bid composite base rate 757(h) and estimated budget 757(i). The process of making task inputs 757 is performed during the work package estimating 210 process. [0174] Referring next to FIG. 15, the specific method of calculating the productivity index 420 is generally disclosed. The productivity index calculation 420 begins with inputting the calculated earned hours 415 from the earned hours calculation 410. Next, a third calculation 422 is performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the calculated earned hours 415 are divided by the crew hours 326 for the shift. The output is the daily productivity index 424 which is outputted to a back office dashboard in the TLMS system 10 and to the frontline supervisor dynamic graphic interface 600. The TLMS system 10 next queries whether all tasks in the work package 212 are complete 426. If no, then steps 415, 422 and 424 are repeated for the next shift until the answer to query 426 is yes. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a sixth calculation 434 whereby the total labor cost is divided by the total number of hours worked during the same time frame that total labor cost is captured and outputs the resulting actual crew composite rate 436 to the back-office dashboard. [0182]-[0184]: Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a seventh calculation 442 performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the estimated crew composite rate 227 is divided by the actual crew composite rate 436. The resulting composite rate index 444 is outputted to a back office dashboard. A composite rate index 444 that is less than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that labor cost is overbudget. Similarly, a composite rate index 444 that is greater than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that the actual labor cost was under budget. The TLMS system 10 then performs an eleventh calculation 486 whereby the total number of work packages performed as planned 484 is divided by the total number of work packages performed 482 resulting in the frontline supervisor reliability rate 480. The supervisor reliability rate 480 is then outputted 488 to a Back Office 20 dashboard. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a twelfth calculation 493 whereby the TLMS system 10 calculates aggregate labor efficiency index by multiplying the sum of total earned hours divided by actual hours with the sum of estimated composite rate 227 divided by actual composite rate 436.
McKenzie does not explicitly show “a matching degree”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0048] In some embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical scheduling information or other information relating to the business. For example, the observation module 305 may receive information regarding historical shift scheduling, salary information, accounting information, personnel information and the like. The information may be uploaded into the observation module 305 or otherwise received and analyzed by the observation module 305. In further embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical information such as seasonal information, market information, or previous sales information. For example, the observation module 305 may observe market fluctuations based on external forces such as weather, world events, or the like. The observation module 305 may additionally observe and analyze previous sales information and may determine a pattern or other characteristics of pervious sales. In some embodiments, the information may be gathered and compared to other gathered data to determine correlations between work schedules, market fluctuations, seasonal impacts, and the like. McKenzie also does not explicitly show “a threshold”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0056]: every shift may be required to have at least one expert personnel in each personnel role scheduled. Or, only certain shifts may have this requirement, for example, a restaurant may require an expert chef for the lunch and/or dinner hours but may only require an advanced or intermediate chef scheduled during the slow business hours. In additional embodiments, the parameters module 405 may set a threshold of scores for shifts. For example, a shift may require a combined score such as 50. Then the personnel for the shift must have a combined score that meets or exceeds the score of 50. For example, scheduling 5 personnel for the shift with a score of 10 would meet the threshold. Other combinations of personnel and shift requirements may also meet the combined the score. The combined score or threshold may ensure the shift is adequately staffed to support the shift needs. [0079]: For example, if personnel have a score associated with them, the list may only comprise personnel who have achieved and/or maintained a certain score or proficiency level or surpassed a threshold.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
performing rematching and grouping if the matching degree is less than the preset threshold
(McKenzie shows [0115] Back-office system 20 is utilized to input and organize an awarded project from external data sources 15, such as general estimating data 18 and/or client provided historical data 19. In a preferred embodiment, back-office system 20 includes a variety of digital equipment devices, such as computer workstations 21 and 22. [0143] The project planner then inputs a work package description 219 for the work package 212, such as welding, pump foundation, pump installation, etc. The project planner also inputs the specific tasks 215 to be completed for the work package 212. Tasks 215 could include items such as mobilization, staged material, survey/lay-out, excavation, form and strip, rebar, etc. For each task 215 added to a work package 212, the next step is for the project planner manager to assign a cost code 221 to each task 215 selected from the list of cost codes 170 created during the setup and configuration 100 if it is required to track employee time and labor costs to the cost code level. Tracking employee time and labor cost to a cost code 221 is optional. The project manager or project planner may elect to record time at the work package 212 level. [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. Tasks 215 for the work package 212 shown are mobilization, stage materials, survey/lay-out, excavation, form & strip, rebar, anchor blts., 2″ conduit, 6″ conduit, place & finish, backfill, and punch lists/de-mob. For each task 215 added to the work package 212, a variety of task inputs 757 are required, including task name 757(a), cost code 757(b), quantity 757(c), unit of measurement 757(d), unit/man hours 757(e), man hours 757(f), weighted % 757(g), bid composite base rate 757(h) and estimated budget 757(i). The process of making task inputs 757 is performed during the work package estimating 210 process. [0174] Referring next to FIG. 15, the specific method of calculating the productivity index 420 is generally disclosed. The productivity index calculation 420 begins with inputting the calculated earned hours 415 from the earned hours calculation 410. Next, a third calculation 422 is performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the calculated earned hours 415 are divided by the crew hours 326 for the shift. The output is the daily productivity index 424 which is outputted to a back office dashboard in the TLMS system 10 and to the frontline supervisor dynamic graphic interface 600. The TLMS system 10 next queries whether all tasks in the work package 212 are complete 426. If no, then steps 415, 422 and 424 are repeated for the next shift until the answer to query 426 is yes. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a sixth calculation 434 whereby the total labor cost is divided by the total number of hours worked during the same time frame that total labor cost is captured and outputs the resulting actual crew composite rate 436 to the back-office dashboard. [0182]-[0184]: Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a seventh calculation 442 performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the estimated crew composite rate 227 is divided by the actual crew composite rate 436. The resulting composite rate index 444 is outputted to a back office dashboard. A composite rate index 444 that is less than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that labor cost is overbudget. Similarly, a composite rate index 444 that is greater than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that the actual labor cost was under budget. The TLMS system 10 then performs an eleventh calculation 486 whereby the total number of work packages performed as planned 484 is divided by the total number of work packages performed 482 resulting in the frontline supervisor reliability rate 480. The supervisor reliability rate 480 is then outputted 488 to a Back Office 20 dashboard. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a twelfth calculation 493 whereby the TLMS system 10 calculates aggregate labor efficiency index by multiplying the sum of total earned hours divided by actual hours with the sum of estimated composite rate 227 divided by actual composite rate 436.
McKenzie does not explicitly show “a matching degree”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0048] In some embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical scheduling information or other information relating to the business. For example, the observation module 305 may receive information regarding historical shift scheduling, salary information, accounting information, personnel information and the like. The information may be uploaded into the observation module 305 or otherwise received and analyzed by the observation module 305. In further embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical information such as seasonal information, market information, or previous sales information. For example, the observation module 305 may observe market fluctuations based on external forces such as weather, world events, or the like. The observation module 305 may additionally observe and analyze previous sales information and may determine a pattern or other characteristics of pervious sales. In some embodiments, the information may be gathered and compared to other gathered data to determine correlations between work schedules, market fluctuations, seasonal impacts, and the like. McKenzie also does not explicitly show “a threshold”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0056]: every shift may be required to have at least one expert personnel in each personnel role scheduled. Or, only certain shifts may have this requirement, for example, a restaurant may require an expert chef for the lunch and/or dinner hours but may only require an advanced or intermediate chef scheduled during the slow business hours. In additional embodiments, the parameters module 405 may set a threshold of scores for shifts. For example, a shift may require a combined score such as 50. Then the personnel for the shift must have a combined score that meets or exceeds the score of 50. For example, scheduling 5 personnel for the shift with a score of 10 would meet the threshold. Other combinations of personnel and shift requirements may also meet the combined the score. The combined score or threshold may ensure the shift is adequately staffed to support the shift needs. [0079]: For example, if personnel have a score associated with them, the list may only comprise personnel who have achieved and/or maintained a certain score or proficiency level or surpassed a threshold.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 4: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the scheduling policy comprises sequential scheduling and unmanned scheduling
Regarding the claim limitations above, McKenzie shows “unmanned scheduling” at least in [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back-office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. McKenzie also shows “sequential scheduling” [0190]: The TLMS system 10 also calculates and displays on the dynamic user interface graphic 600 the current productivity related to the relevant work package 212 in progress. As set forth more fully in connection with FIGS. 25 through 90 below, for each dynamic user interface graphic 600 stored in the TLMS system 10, a series of sequential dynamic user interface graphics are also stored in the TLMS system 10, wherein each sequential user interface graphic is linked to a specific percentage of completion; and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work comprises:
if the scheduling policy corresponding to the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the sequential scheduling or the unmanned scheduling and if the working condition information of the transportation facility is a no-load status, generating a sequential scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility to move to the excavating and loading facility in turn to perform loading work, and then move to an unloading platform specified by the scheduling group to perform unloading.
Regarding the claim limitations above, McKenzie shows “unmanned scheduling” at least in [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back-office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. McKenzie also shows “sequential scheduling” [0190]: The TLMS system 10 also calculates and displays on the dynamic user interface graphic 600 the current productivity related to the relevant work package 212 in progress. As set forth more fully in connection with FIGS. 25 through 90 below, for each dynamic user interface graphic 600 stored in the TLMS system 10, a series of sequential dynamic user interface graphics are also stored in the TLMS system 10, wherein each sequential user interface graphic is linked to a specific percentage of completion.
As per claim 5: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the scheduling policy further comprises automatic scheduling
Regarding the claim limitations above, McKenzie shows “unmanned scheduling” at least in [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. McKenzie also shows “sequential scheduling” [0190]: The TLMS system 10 also calculates and displays on the dynamic user interface graphic 600 the current productivity related to the relevant work package 212 in progress. As set forth more fully in connection with FIGS. 25 through 90 below, for each dynamic user interface graphic 600 stored in the TLMS system 10, a series of sequential dynamic user interface graphics are also stored in the TLMS system 10, wherein each sequential user interface graphic is linked to a specific percentage of completion; and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
the working condition information is a shortest idle time
McKenzie shows [0115] Back-office system 20 is utilized to input and organize an awarded project from external data sources 15, such as general estimating data 18 and/or client provided historical data 19. In a preferred embodiment, back-office system 20 includes a variety of digital equipment devices, such as computer workstations 21 and 22. [0143] The project planner then inputs a work package description 219 for the work package 212, such as welding, pump foundation, pump installation, etc. The project planner also inputs the specific tasks 215 to be completed for the work package 212. Tasks 215 could include items such as mobilization, staged material, survey/lay-out, excavation, form and strip, rebar, etc. For each task 215 added to a work package 212, the next step is for the project planner manager to assign a cost code 221 to each task 215 selected from the list of cost codes 170 created during the setup and configuration 100 if it is required to track employee time and labor costs to the cost code level. Tracking employee time and labor cost to a cost code 221 is optional. The project manager or project planner may elect to record time at the work package 212 level. [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. Tasks 215 for the work package 212 shown are mobilization, stage materials, survey/lay-out, excavation, form & strip, rebar, anchor blts., 2″ conduit, 6″ conduit, place & finish, backfill, and punch lists/de-mob. For each task 215 added to the work package 212, a variety of task inputs 757 are required, including task name 757(a), cost code 757(b), quantity 757(c), unit of measurement 757(d), unit/man hours 757(e), man hours 757(f), weighted % 757(g), bid composite base rate 757(h) and estimated budget 757(i). The process of making task inputs 757 is performed during the work package estimating 210 process. [0174] Referring next to FIG. 15, the specific method of calculating the productivity index 420 is generally disclosed. The productivity index calculation 420 begins with inputting the calculated earned hours 415 from the earned hours calculation 410. Next, a third calculation 422 is performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the calculated earned hours 415 are divided by the crew hours 326 for the shift. The output is the daily productivity index 424 which is outputted to a back office dashboard in the TLMS system 10 and to the frontline supervisor dynamic graphic interface 600. The TLMS system 10 next queries whether all tasks in the work package 212 are complete 426. If no, then steps 415, 422 and 424 are repeated for the next shift until the answer to query 426 is yes. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a sixth calculation 434 whereby the total labor cost is divided by the total number of hours worked during the same time frame that total labor cost is captured and outputs the resulting actual crew composite rate 436 to the back-office dashboard. [0182]-[0184]: Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a seventh calculation 442 performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the estimated crew composite rate 227 is divided by the actual crew composite rate 436. The resulting composite rate index 444 is outputted to a back office dashboard. A composite rate index 444 that is less than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that labor cost is overbudget. Similarly, a composite rate index 444 that is greater than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that the actual labor cost was under budget. The TLMS system 10 then performs an eleventh calculation 486 whereby the total number of work packages performed as planned 484 is divided by the total number of work packages performed 482 resulting in the frontline supervisor reliability rate 480. The supervisor reliability rate 480 is then outputted 488 to a Back Office 20 dashboard. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a twelfth calculation 493 whereby the TLMS system 10 calculates aggregate labor efficiency index by multiplying the sum of total earned hours divided by actual hours with the sum of estimated composite rate 227 divided by actual composite rate 436; and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
“the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work further comprises:
determining an excavating and loading facility with the shortest idle time and generating a priority loading scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility in the no-load status to move to the excavating and loading facility with the shortest idle time to perform loading work, if:
the scheduling policy corresponding to the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the automatic scheduling,
the working condition information of the transportation facility is the no-load status, and
the working condition information of the transportation facility is non-wait timeout.”
(McKenzie shows [0115] Back-office system 20 is utilized to input and organize an awarded project from external data sources 15, such as general estimating data 18 and/or client provided historical data 19. In a preferred embodiment, back-office system 20 includes a variety of digital equipment devices, such as computer workstations 21 and 22. [0143] The project planner then inputs a work package description 219 for the work package 212, such as welding, pump foundation, pump installation, etc. The project planner also inputs the specific tasks 215 to be completed for the work package 212. Tasks 215 could include items such as mobilization, staged material, survey/lay-out, excavation, form and strip, rebar, etc. For each task 215 added to a work package 212, the next step is for the project planner manager to assign a cost code 221 to each task 215 selected from the list of cost codes 170 created during the setup and configuration 100 if it is required to track employee time and labor costs to the cost code level. Tracking employee time and labor cost to a cost code 221 is optional. The project manager or project planner may elect to record time at the work package 212 level. [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. Tasks 215 for the work package 212 shown are mobilization, stage materials, survey/lay-out, excavation, form & strip, rebar, anchor blts., 2″ conduit, 6″ conduit, place & finish, backfill, and punch lists/de-mob. For each task 215 added to the work package 212, a variety of task inputs 757 are required, including task name 757(a), cost code 757(b), quantity 757(c), unit of measurement 757(d), unit/man hours 757(e), man hours 757(f), weighted % 757(g), bid composite base rate 757(h) and estimated budget 757(i). The process of making task inputs 757 is performed during the work package estimating 210 process. [0174] Referring next to FIG. 15, the specific method of calculating the productivity index 420 is generally disclosed. The productivity index calculation 420 begins with inputting the calculated earned hours 415 from the earned hours calculation 410. Next, a third calculation 422 is performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the calculated earned hours 415 are divided by the crew hours 326 for the shift. The output is the daily productivity index 424 which is outputted to a back office dashboard in the TLMS system 10 and to the frontline supervisor dynamic graphic interface 600. The TLMS system 10 next queries whether all tasks in the work package 212 are complete 426. If no, then steps 415, 422 and 424 are repeated for the next shift until the answer to query 426 is yes. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a sixth calculation 434 whereby the total labor cost is divided by the total number of hours worked during the same time frame that total labor cost is captured and outputs the resulting actual crew composite rate 436 to the back-office dashboard. [0182]-[0184]: Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a seventh calculation 442 performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the estimated crew composite rate 227 is divided by the actual crew composite rate 436. The resulting composite rate index 444 is outputted to a back office dashboard. A composite rate index 444 that is less than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that labor cost is overbudget. Similarly, a composite rate index 444 that is greater than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that the actual labor cost was under budget. The TLMS system 10 then performs an eleventh calculation 486 whereby the total number of work packages performed as planned 484 is divided by the total number of work packages performed 482 resulting in the frontline supervisor reliability rate 480. The supervisor reliability rate 480 is then outputted 488 to a Back Office 20 dashboard. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a twelfth calculation 493 whereby the TLMS system 10 calculates aggregate labor efficiency index by multiplying the sum of total earned hours divided by actual hours with the sum of estimated composite rate 227 divided by actual composite rate 436.
McKenzie also shows in the background the problem they are solving: [0005] Productivity loss can result from a wide variety of common problems on a construction site, including idle time, rework time, and crew inefficiency. Idle time often results from crews simply waiting for material, equipment, tools, or direction on how to proceed. Idle work also can result from safety issues causing temporary work shut downs. Rework time results from the crew having to spend time correcting mistakes made by the crew or others, such as the designers of the project. Productivity is also often lost as a result of damages inflicted on preexisting structures. Often productivity is lost simply because the crew is not working efficiently. [0026] The constraints listed in the constraints checklist, once created, can then be marked completed in the TLMS back office system or the TLMS frontline system when the constraints are completed. The constraints checklist provides the project manager and frontline supervisor with an immediate list of items that need to be performed before commencing with construction and helps avoid the problems of idle labor time. [0033] The work package tab of the frontline system has a short interval schedule page and a constraints checklist page. The short interval schedule page has provides key metrics of the project planning for the work package, including applicable cost codes, tasks, scope, list of crew members, and total planned man hours. These key metrics provide the frontline supervisor with important work package plan details itemized down to the task level. The constraints checklist page provides the detailed information pertaining to the constraints for the work package, including whether or not the constraints are completed. [0124]-[0125], [0145]-[0157]).
McKenzie does not explicitly show “a matching degree”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0048] In some embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical scheduling information or other information relating to the business. For example, the observation module 305 may receive information regarding historical shift scheduling, salary information, accounting information, personnel information and the like. The information may be uploaded into the observation module 305 or otherwise received and analyzed by the observation module 305. In further embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical information such as seasonal information, market information, or previous sales information. For example, the observation module 305 may observe market fluctuations based on external forces such as weather, world events, or the like. The observation module 305 may additionally observe and analyze previous sales information and may determine a pattern or other characteristics of pervious sales. In some embodiments, the information may be gathered and compared to other gathered data to determine correlations between work schedules, market fluctuations, seasonal impacts, and the like. McKenzie also does not explicitly show “a threshold”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0056]: every shift may be required to have at least one expert personnel in each personnel role scheduled. Or, only certain shifts may have this requirement, for example, a restaurant may require an expert chef for the lunch and/or dinner hours but may only require an advanced or intermediate chef scheduled during the slow business hours. In additional embodiments, the parameters module 405 may set a threshold of scores for shifts. For example, a shift may require a combined score such as 50. Then the personnel for the shift must have a combined score that meets or exceeds the score of 50. For example, scheduling 5 personnel for the shift with a score of 10 would meet the threshold. Other combinations of personnel and shift requirements may also meet the combined the score. The combined score or threshold may ensure the shift is adequately staffed to support the shift needs. [0079]: For example, if personnel have a score associated with them, the list may only comprise personnel who have achieved and/or maintained a certain score or proficiency level or surpassed a threshold.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 6: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the scheduling policy further comprises automatic scheduling Regarding the claim limitations above, McKenzie shows “unmanned scheduling” at least in [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. McKenzie also shows “sequential scheduling” [0190]: The TLMS system 10 also calculates and displays on the dynamic user interface graphic 600 the current productivity related to the relevant work package 212 in progress. As set forth more fully in connection with FIGS. 25 through 90 below, for each dynamic user interface graphic 600 stored in the TLMS system 10, a series of sequential dynamic user interface graphics are also stored in the TLMS system 10, wherein each sequential user interface graphic is linked to a specific percentage of completion; and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work further comprises:
regenerating a scheduling instruction if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the automatic scheduling, the working condition information of the transportation facility is the no-load status, and the working condition information of the transportation facility is wait timeout.
(McKenzie shows [0115] Back-office system 20 is utilized to input and organize an awarded project from external data sources 15, such as general estimating data 18 and/or client provided historical data 19. In a preferred embodiment, back-office system 20 includes a variety of digital equipment devices, such as computer workstations 21 and 22. [0143] The project planner then inputs a work package description 219 for the work package 212, such as welding, pump foundation, pump installation, etc. The project planner also inputs the specific tasks 215 to be completed for the work package 212. Tasks 215 could include items such as mobilization, staged material, survey/lay-out, excavation, form and strip, rebar, etc. For each task 215 added to a work package 212, the next step is for the project planner manager to assign a cost code 221 to each task 215 selected from the list of cost codes 170 created during the setup and configuration 100 if it is required to track employee time and labor costs to the cost code level. Tracking employee time and labor cost to a cost code 221 is optional. The project manager or project planner may elect to record time at the work package 212 level. [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. Tasks 215 for the work package 212 shown are mobilization, stage materials, survey/lay-out, excavation, form & strip, rebar, anchor blts., 2″ conduit, 6″ conduit, place & finish, backfill, and punch lists/de-mob. For each task 215 added to the work package 212, a variety of task inputs 757 are required, including task name 757(a), cost code 757(b), quantity 757(c), unit of measurement 757(d), unit/man hours 757(e), man hours 757(f), weighted % 757(g), bid composite base rate 757(h) and estimated budget 757(i). The process of making task inputs 757 is performed during the work package estimating 210 process. [0174] Referring next to FIG. 15, the specific method of calculating the productivity index 420 is generally disclosed. The productivity index calculation 420 begins with inputting the calculated earned hours 415 from the earned hours calculation 410. Next, a third calculation 422 is performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the calculated earned hours 415 are divided by the crew hours 326 for the shift. The output is the daily productivity index 424 which is outputted to a back office dashboard in the TLMS system 10 and to the frontline supervisor dynamic graphic interface 600. The TLMS system 10 next queries whether all tasks in the work package 212 are complete 426. If no, then steps 415, 422 and 424 are repeated for the next shift until the answer to query 426 is yes. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a sixth calculation 434 whereby the total labor cost is divided by the total number of hours worked during the same time frame that total labor cost is captured and outputs the resulting actual crew composite rate 436 to the back-office dashboard. [0182]-[0184]: Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a seventh calculation 442 performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the estimated crew composite rate 227 is divided by the actual crew composite rate 436. The resulting composite rate index 444 is outputted to a back office dashboard. A composite rate index 444 that is less than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that labor cost is overbudget. Similarly, a composite rate index 444 that is greater than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that the actual labor cost was under budget. The TLMS system 10 then performs an eleventh calculation 486 whereby the total number of work packages performed as planned 484 is divided by the total number of work packages performed 482 resulting in the frontline supervisor reliability rate 480. The supervisor reliability rate 480 is then outputted 488 to a Back Office 20 dashboard. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a twelfth calculation 493 whereby the TLMS system 10 calculates aggregate labor efficiency index by multiplying the sum of total earned hours divided by actual hours with the sum of estimated composite rate 227 divided by actual composite rate 436.
McKenzie does not explicitly show “a matching degree”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0048] In some embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical scheduling information or other information relating to the business. For example, the observation module 305 may receive information regarding historical shift scheduling, salary information, accounting information, personnel information and the like. The information may be uploaded into the observation module 305 or otherwise received and analyzed by the observation module 305. In further embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical information such as seasonal information, market information, or previous sales information. For example, the observation module 305 may observe market fluctuations based on external forces such as weather, world events, or the like. The observation module 305 may additionally observe and analyze previous sales information and may determine a pattern or other characteristics of pervious sales. In some embodiments, the information may be gathered and compared to other gathered data to determine correlations between work schedules, market fluctuations, seasonal impacts, and the like. McKenzie also does not explicitly show “a threshold”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0056]: every shift may be required to have at least one expert personnel in each personnel role scheduled. Or, only certain shifts may have this requirement, for example, a restaurant may require an expert chef for the lunch and/or dinner hours but may only require an advanced or intermediate chef scheduled during the slow business hours. In additional embodiments, the parameters module 405 may set a threshold of scores for shifts. For example, a shift may require a combined score such as 50. Then the personnel for the shift must have a combined score that meets or exceeds the score of 50. For example, scheduling 5 personnel for the shift with a score of 10 would meet the threshold. Other combinations of personnel and shift requirements may also meet the combined the score. The combined score or threshold may ensure the shift is adequately staffed to support the shift needs. [0079]: For example, if personnel have a score associated with them, the list may only comprise personnel who have achieved and/or maintained a certain score or proficiency level or surpassed a threshold.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 7: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work further comprises:
generating, if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the sequential scheduling, the automatic scheduling or the unmanned scheduling and the working condition information of the transportation facility is a full-load status, a full-load scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility in the full-load status to move to an unloading platform specified by the scheduling group to perform unloading work
(McKenzie shows [0115] Back-office system 20 is utilized to input and organize an awarded project from external data sources 15, such as general estimating data 18 and/or client provided historical data 19. In a preferred embodiment, back-office system 20 includes a variety of digital equipment devices, such as computer workstations 21 and 22. [0143] The project planner then inputs a work package description 219 for the work package 212, such as welding, pump foundation, pump installation, etc. The project planner also inputs the specific tasks 215 to be completed for the work package 212. Tasks 215 could include items such as mobilization, staged material, survey/lay-out, excavation, form and strip, rebar, etc. For each task 215 added to a work package 212, the next step is for the project planner manager to assign a cost code 221 to each task 215 selected from the list of cost codes 170 created during the setup and configuration 100 if it is required to track employee time and labor costs to the cost code level. Tracking employee time and labor cost to a cost code 221 is optional. The project manager or project planner may elect to record time at the work package 212 level. [0156] As a specific work package 212 nears readiness for release to the frontline supervisor for construction, the project manager or project planner begins the process of completing or removing constraints 267. Upon the completion or removal of a constraint, the constraint is listed as completed 268. Once all constraints are listed as completed 268, the project manager or project planner changes the work package status to ready 269 and releases the fully planned work package 212 to the frontline supervisor for construction. If approval of the fully planned work package by the project manager's or project planner's supervisor is required, said supervisor can status the work package 212 as approved. [0170]: Next, the project planner or project manager must define the physical area 205 of the phase as some phases of a project may be performed in a different physical area than other phases of a project. Next, the project planner or project manager identifies the specific disciplines 206 required to complete the phase 203, such as electrical, concrete, HVAC, plumbing, etc. Next, the project planner or project manager divides the scope of work 207 for each discipline into one or more work packages 212. For each work package 212 identified in step 207, the project planner or project manager must then divide each work package 212 into a series of steps or tasks 215 to be completed 208. [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back-office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. Tasks 215 for the work package 212 shown are mobilization, stage materials, survey/lay-out, excavation, form & strip, rebar, anchor blts., 2″ conduit, 6″ conduit, place & finish, backfill, and punch lists/de-mob. For each task 215 added to the work package 212, a variety of task inputs 757 are required, including task name 757(a), cost code 757(b), quantity 757(c), unit of measurement 757(d), unit/man hours 757(e), man hours 757(f), weighted % 757(g), bid composite base rate 757(h) and estimated budget 757(i). The process of making task inputs 757 is performed during the work package estimating 210 process. [0174] Referring next to FIG. 15, the specific method of calculating the productivity index 420 is generally disclosed. The productivity index calculation 420 begins with inputting the calculated earned hours 415 from the earned hours calculation 410. Next, a third calculation 422 is performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the calculated earned hours 415 are divided by the crew hours 326 for the shift. The output is the daily productivity index 424 which is outputted to a back office dashboard in the TLMS system 10 and to the frontline supervisor dynamic graphic interface 600. The TLMS system 10 next queries whether all tasks in the work package 212 are complete 426. If no, then steps 415, 422 and 424 are repeated for the next shift until the answer to query 426 is yes. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a sixth calculation 434 whereby the total labor cost is divided by the total number of hours worked during the same time frame that total labor cost is captured and outputs the resulting actual crew composite rate 436 to the back-office dashboard. [0182]-[0184]: Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a seventh calculation 442 performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the estimated crew composite rate 227 is divided by the actual crew composite rate 436. The resulting composite rate index 444 is outputted to a back-office dashboard. A composite rate index 444 that is less than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that labor cost is overbudget. Similarly, a composite rate index 444 that is greater than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that the actual labor cost was under budget. The TLMS system 10 then performs an eleventh calculation 486 whereby the total number of work packages performed as planned 484 is divided by the total number of work packages performed 482 resulting in the frontline supervisor reliability rate 480. The supervisor reliability rate 480 is then outputted 488 to a Back Office 20 dashboard. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a twelfth calculation 493 whereby the TLMS system 10 calculates aggregate labor efficiency index by multiplying the sum of total earned hours divided by actual hours with the sum of estimated composite rate 227 divided by actual composite rate 436. [0231] The primary display on the graphical interface for the WP progress tab 810 is a dynamic user interface graphic 600. In FIG. 68, the dynamic user interface graphic 600 is a partially constructed pyramid. In FIG. 69, the dynamic user interface graphic 600 is a fully constructed dam. The graphical interface for the WP progress tab 810 includes a planned progress graphical display 814 and an actual progress graphical display 816. The planned progress graphic display 814 is based upon the progress planned completion for day derived by the TLMS system 10 from data inputted during the project planning phase 200. The actual progress graphic display 816 is based upon the actual progress completed progress derived by the TLMS system 10 from the frontline supervisor's inputs during the construction phase 300. The productivity index graphic display 818 is the productivity index 429 outputted from the TLMS system 10. The planned progress graphical display 814, the actual progress graphical display 816, and the productivity index graphic display 818 all are dynamic and adjust daily based upon the original project planning phase data 200 and progress and inputs by the frontline supervisor. The dynamic user interface graphic 600 is selected by the frontline supervisor prior to commencing construction of the specific work package 212.
McKenzie does not explicitly show “a matching degree”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0048] In some embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical scheduling information or other information relating to the business. For example, the observation module 305 may receive information regarding historical shift scheduling, salary information, accounting information, personnel information and the like. The information may be uploaded into the observation module 305 or otherwise received and analyzed by the observation module 305. In further embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical information such as seasonal information, market information, or previous sales information. For example, the observation module 305 may observe market fluctuations based on external forces such as weather, world events, or the like. The observation module 305 may additionally observe and analyze previous sales information and may determine a pattern or other characteristics of pervious sales. In some embodiments, the information may be gathered and compared to other gathered data to determine correlations between work schedules, market fluctuations, seasonal impacts, and the like. McKenzie also does not explicitly show “a threshold”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0056]: every shift may be required to have at least one expert personnel in each personnel role scheduled. Or, only certain shifts may have this requirement, for example, a restaurant may require an expert chef for the lunch and/or dinner hours but may only require an advanced or intermediate chef scheduled during the slow business hours. In additional embodiments, the parameters module 405 may set a threshold of scores for shifts. For example, a shift may require a combined score such as 50. Then the personnel for the shift must have a combined score that meets or exceeds the score of 50. For example, scheduling 5 personnel for the shift with a score of 10 would meet the threshold. Other combinations of personnel and shift requirements may also meet the combined the score. The combined score or threshold may ensure the shift is adequately staffed to support the shift needs. [0079]: For example, if personnel have a score associated with them, the list may only comprise personnel who have achieved and/or maintained a certain score or proficiency level or surpassed a threshold.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 8: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work further comprises:
generating, if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the unmanned scheduling, and the working condition information of the transportation facility is that a distance from a transportation facility ahead is less than a safety distance, a deceleration scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility having the distance from the transportation facility ahead being less than the safety distance to decelerate.
(McKenzie shows [0115] Back-office system 20 is utilized to input and organize an awarded project from external data sources 15, such as general estimating data 18 and/or client provided historical data 19. In a preferred embodiment, back-office system 20 includes a variety of digital equipment devices, such as computer workstations 21 and 22. [0143] The project planner then inputs a work package description 219 for the work package 212, such as welding, pump foundation, pump installation, etc. The project planner also inputs the specific tasks 215 to be completed for the work package 212. Tasks 215 could include items such as mobilization, staged material, survey/lay-out, excavation, form and strip, rebar, etc. For each task 215 added to a work package 212, the next step is for the project planner manager to assign a cost code 221 to each task 215 selected from the list of cost codes 170 created during the setup and configuration 100 if it is required to track employee time and labor costs to the cost code level. Tracking employee time and labor cost to a cost code 221 is optional. The project manager or project planner may elect to record time at the work package 212 level. [0156] As a specific work package 212 nears readiness for release to the frontline supervisor for construction, the project manager or project planner begins the process of completing or removing constraints 267. Upon the completion or removal of a constraint, the constraint is listed as completed 268. Once all constraints are listed as completed 268, the project manager or project planner changes the work package status to ready 269 and releases the fully planned work package 212 to the frontline supervisor for construction. If approval of the fully planned work package by the project manager's or project planner's supervisor is required, said supervisor can status the work package 212 as approved. [0170]: Next, the project planner or project manager must define the physical area 205 of the phase as some phases of a project may be performed in a different physical area than other phases of a project. Next, the project planner or project manager identifies the specific disciplines 206 required to complete the phase 203, such as electrical, concrete, HVAC, plumbing, etc. Next, the project planner or project manager divides the scope of work 207 for each discipline into one or more work packages 212. For each work package 212 identified in step 207, the project planner or project manager must then divide each work package 212 into a series of steps or tasks 215 to be completed 208. [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. Tasks 215 for the work package 212 shown are mobilization, stage materials, survey/lay-out, excavation, form & strip, rebar, anchor blts., 2″ conduit, 6″ conduit, place & finish, backfill, and punch lists/de-mob. For each task 215 added to the work package 212, a variety of task inputs 757 are required, including task name 757(a), cost code 757(b), quantity 757(c), unit of measurement 757(d), unit/man hours 757(e), man hours 757(f), weighted % 757(g), bid composite base rate 757(h) and estimated budget 757(i). The process of making task inputs 757 is performed during the work package estimating 210 process. [0174] Referring next to FIG. 15, the specific method of calculating the productivity index 420 is generally disclosed. The productivity index calculation 420 begins with inputting the calculated earned hours 415 from the earned hours calculation 410. Next, a third calculation 422 is performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the calculated earned hours 415 are divided by the crew hours 326 for the shift. The output is the daily productivity index 424 which is outputted to a back office dashboard in the TLMS system 10 and to the frontline supervisor dynamic graphic interface 600. The TLMS system 10 next queries whether all tasks in the work package 212 are complete 426. If no, then steps 415, 422 and 424 are repeated for the next shift until the answer to query 426 is yes. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a sixth calculation 434 whereby the total labor cost is divided by the total number of hours worked during the same time frame that total labor cost is captured and outputs the resulting actual crew composite rate 436 to the back-office dashboard. [0182]-[0184]: Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a seventh calculation 442 performed by the TLMS system 10 whereby the estimated crew composite rate 227 is divided by the actual crew composite rate 436. The resulting composite rate index 444 is outputted to a back office dashboard. A composite rate index 444 that is less than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that labor cost is overbudget. Similarly, a composite rate index 444 that is greater than one notifies a user of the TLMS system 10 that the actual labor cost was under budget. The TLMS system 10 then performs an eleventh calculation 486 whereby the total number of work packages performed as planned 484 is divided by the total number of work packages performed 482 resulting in the frontline supervisor reliability rate 480. The supervisor reliability rate 480 is then outputted 488 to a Back Office 20 dashboard. Next, the TLMS system 10 performs a twelfth calculation 493 whereby the TLMS system 10 calculates aggregate labor efficiency index by multiplying the sum of total earned hours divided by actual hours with the sum of estimated composite rate 227 divided by actual composite rate 436. [0231] The primary display on the graphical interface for the WP progress tab 810 is a dynamic user interface graphic 600. In FIG. 68, the dynamic user interface graphic 600 is a partially constructed pyramid. In FIG. 69, the dynamic user interface graphic 600 is a fully constructed dam. The graphical interface for the WP progress tab 810 includes a planned progress graphical display 814 and an actual progress graphical display 816. The planned progress graphic display 814 is based upon the progress planned completion for day derived by the TLMS system 10 from data inputted during the project planning phase 200. The actual progress graphic display 816 is based upon the actual progress completed progress derived by the TLMS system 10 from the frontline supervisor's inputs during the construction phase 300. The productivity index graphic display 818 is the productivity index 429 outputted from the TLMS system 10. The planned progress graphical display 814, the actual progress graphical display 816, and the productivity index graphic display 818 all are dynamic and adjust daily based upon the original project planning phase data 200 and progress and inputs by the frontline supervisor. The dynamic user interface graphic 600 is selected by the frontline supervisor prior to commencing construction of the specific work package 212.
McKenzie does not explicitly show “a matching degree”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0048] In some embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical scheduling information or other information relating to the business. For example, the observation module 305 may receive information regarding historical shift scheduling, salary information, accounting information, personnel information and the like. The information may be uploaded into the observation module 305 or otherwise received and analyzed by the observation module 305. In further embodiments, the observation module 305 may collect historical information such as seasonal information, market information, or previous sales information. For example, the observation module 305 may observe market fluctuations based on external forces such as weather, world events, or the like. The observation module 305 may additionally observe and analyze previous sales information and may determine a pattern or other characteristics of pervious sales. In some embodiments, the information may be gathered and compared to other gathered data to determine correlations between work schedules, market fluctuations, seasonal impacts, and the like. McKenzie also does not explicitly show “a threshold”. However, Fairbanks shows the above limitations at least in [0056]: every shift may be required to have at least one expert personnel in each personnel role scheduled. Or, only certain shifts may have this requirement, for example, a restaurant may require an expert chef for the lunch and/or dinner hours but may only require an advanced or intermediate chef scheduled during the slow business hours. In additional embodiments, the parameters module 405 may set a threshold of scores for shifts. For example, a shift may require a combined score such as 50. Then the personnel for the shift must have a combined score that meets or exceeds the score of 50. For example, scheduling 5 personnel for the shift with a score of 10 would meet the threshold. Other combinations of personnel and shift requirements may also meet the combined the score. The combined score or threshold may ensure the shift is adequately staffed to support the shift needs. [0079]: For example, if personnel have a score associated with them, the list may only comprise personnel who have achieved and/or maintained a certain score or proficiency level or surpassed a threshold.
Reference McKenzie and Reference Fairbanks are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling of resources for a business. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., G06Q/10. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fairbanks, particularly the learning the scheduling needs of a business and managing shift changes accordingly [0049], in the disclosure of Reference McKenzie, particularly in the planning effectiveness and scheduling reliability (abstract), in order to provide for a system that automates scheduling for a business. The method may comprise observing actions of at least one personnel associated with the business, wherein the action may comprise at least one of performance, timeliness, and reliability. The method may additionally comprise learning one or more scheduling parameters of the business based at least in part on the observing. The method may produce a work schedule for personnel associated with the business. The work schedule may be for a predetermined time period and being based at least in part on the learning as taught by Reference Fairbanks (see at least in [0004]), so that the process of scheduling of resources for a business can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling of resources for a business field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference McKenzie in view of Reference Fairbanks, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 11:
An engineering facility scheduling system, comprising:
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
an operation management module configured to (McKenzie shows the above limitation at least in [0024]-[0034]):
an instruction generation module electrically connected with the shift arrangement and scheduling module and configured to (McKenzie shows the above limitation at least in [0024]-[0034]):
Examiner notes that claim(s) 11 recites substantially similar limitations as those addressed above in claim(s) 1, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 11 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim(s) 1, respectively.
As per claim 12: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
An engineering facility, comprising:
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
a facility intelligent terminal configured to: obtain the scheduling instruction according to claim 1
Examiner notes that claim(s) 11 recites substantially similar limitations as those addressed above in claim(s) 1, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 11 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim(s) 1, respectively;
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
switch the engineering facility to an online status and instruct the engineering facility to perform work corresponding to the scheduling instruction, if it is identified that the engineering facility has the working condition information within a preset period of time (McKenzie shows: [0156]-[0160]: Once all constraints are listed as completed 268, the project manager or project planner changes the work package status to ready 269 and releases the fully planned work package 212 to the frontline supervisor for construction. If approval of the fully planned work package by the project manager's or project planner's supervisor is required, said supervisor can status the work package 212 as approved. [0160] Once the process of selecting a work package 304 is complete, the frontline supervisor verifies that all work package constraints are competed 312 through review of the constraint checklist 260. The frontline supervisor will be able to quickly and easily verify if any constraints in the constraint checklist 260 are not complete by review of the constraint status. If one or more of the constraints for the work package 212 is not competed, the frontline supervisor can then immediately notify the project manager of the issue and receive direction from him or her as to whether or not to proceed with construction for the day. [0214]-[0232]); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
switch the engineering facility to a rest status or an offline status and instruct the engineering facility not to perform work, if it is identified that the engineering facility has no working condition information within the preset period of time (McKenzie shows: [0156]-[0160]: Once all constraints are listed as completed 268, the project manager or project planner changes the work package status to ready 269 and releases the fully planned work package 212 to the frontline supervisor for construction. If approval of the fully planned work package by the project manager's or project planner's supervisor is required, said supervisor can status the work package 212 as approved. [0160] Once the process of selecting a work package 304 is complete, the frontline supervisor verifies that all work package constraints are competed 312 through review of the constraint checklist 260. The frontline supervisor will be able to quickly and easily verify if any constraints in the constraint checklist 260 are not complete by review of the constraint status. If one or more of the constraints for the work package 212 is not competed, the frontline supervisor can then immediately notify the project manager of the issue and receive direction from him or her as to whether or not to proceed with construction for the day. [0214]-[0232]).
As per claim 13: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program that is stored on the memory and capable of running on the processor, the processor, when executing the program, implementing steps of the engineering facility scheduling method according to claim 1.
Examiner notes that claim(s) 13 recites substantially similar limitations as those addressed above in claim(s) 1, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 13 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim(s) 1, respectively.
As per claim 14: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
A computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored on the computer-readable storage medium, the computer program being used for performing steps of the engineering facility scheduling method according to any one of the claims claim 1.
Examiner notes that claim(s) 14 recites substantially similar limitations as those addressed above in claim(s) 1, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim(s) 1, respectively.
As per claim 15: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the scheduling policy comprises sequential scheduling and unmanned scheduling Regarding the claim limitations above, McKenzie shows “unmanned scheduling” at least in [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. McKenzie also shows “sequential scheduling” [0190]: The TLMS system 10 also calculates and displays on the dynamic user interface graphic 600 the current productivity related to the relevant work package 212 in progress. As set forth more fully in connection with FIGS. 25 through 90 below, for each dynamic user interface graphic 600 stored in the TLMS system 10, a series of sequential dynamic user interface graphics are also stored in the TLMS system 10, wherein each sequential user interface graphic is linked to a specific percentage of completion; and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work comprises:
generating, if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the sequential scheduling or the unmanned scheduling and the working condition information of the transportation facility is a no-load status, a sequential scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility to move to the excavating and loading facility in turn to perform loading work, and then move to an unloading platform specified by the scheduling group to perform unloading (McKenzie shows: [0156]-[0160]: Once all constraints are listed as completed 268, the project manager or project planner changes the work package status to ready 269 and releases the fully planned work package 212 to the frontline supervisor for construction. If approval of the fully planned work package by the project manager's or project planner's supervisor is required, said supervisor can status the work package 212 as approved. [0160] Once the process of selecting a work package 304 is complete, the frontline supervisor verifies that all work package constraints are competed 312 through review of the constraint checklist 260. The frontline supervisor will be able to quickly and easily verify if any constraints in the constraint checklist 260 are not complete by review of the constraint status. If one or more of the constraints for the work package 212 is not competed, the frontline supervisor can then immediately notify the project manager of the issue and receive direction from him or her as to whether or not to proceed with construction for the day. [0214]-[0232]).
As per claim 16: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the scheduling policy further comprises automatic scheduling Regarding the claim limitations above, McKenzie shows “unmanned scheduling” at least in [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. McKenzie also shows “sequential scheduling” [0190]: The TLMS system 10 also calculates and displays on the dynamic user interface graphic 600 the current productivity related to the relevant work package 212 in progress. As set forth more fully in connection with FIGS. 25 through 90 below, for each dynamic user interface graphic 600 stored in the TLMS system 10, a series of sequential dynamic user interface graphics are also stored in the TLMS system 10, wherein each sequential user interface graphic is linked to a specific percentage of completion; and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work further comprises:
searching for an excavating and loading facility with working condition information being a shortest idle time and generating a priority loading scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility in the no-load status to move to the excavating and loading facility with the shortest idle time to perform loading work, if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the automatic scheduling, the working condition information of the transportation facility is the no-load status, and the working condition information of the transportation facility is non-wait timeout (McKenzie shows: [0019] The TLMS system contemplates that project planning in the back office system will be conducted by project planner and or project manager users. The back office system is divided into a series of graphical interfaces that are each accessible through selection of corresponding tabs. The back office graphical interfaces are divided to correspond with specific aspects of project planning, including work package estimates, work package setup, short interval schedule, job safety analysis, and constraints checklist. The back office system of the TLMS system guides the user through each of these different planning tabs in order to plan individual work packages for a project prior to the construction of those work packages in the field. [0026] The constraints listed in the constraints checklist, once created, can then be marked completed in the TLMS back office system or the TLMS frontline system when the constraints are completed. The constraints checklist provides the project manager and frontline supervisor with an immediate list of items that need to be performed before commencing with construction and helps avoid the problems of idle labor time.).
As per claim 17: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the scheduling policy further comprises automatic scheduling Regarding the claim limitations above, McKenzie shows “unmanned scheduling” at least in [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. McKenzie also shows “sequential scheduling” [0190]: The TLMS system 10 also calculates and displays on the dynamic user interface graphic 600 the current productivity related to the relevant work package 212 in progress. As set forth more fully in connection with FIGS. 25 through 90 below, for each dynamic user interface graphic 600 stored in the TLMS system 10, a series of sequential dynamic user interface graphics are also stored in the TLMS system 10, wherein each sequential user interface graphic is linked to a specific percentage of completion; and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work further comprises:
regenerating a scheduling instruction if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the automatic scheduling, the working condition information of the transportation facility is the no-load status, and the working condition information of the transportation facility is wait timeout (McKenzie shows: [0019] The TLMS system contemplates that project planning in the back office system will be conducted by project planner and or project manager users. The back office system is divided into a series of graphical interfaces that are each accessible through selection of corresponding tabs. The back office graphical interfaces are divided to correspond with specific aspects of project planning, including work package estimates, work package setup, short interval schedule, job safety analysis, and constraints checklist. The back office system of the TLMS system guides the user through each of these different planning tabs in order to plan individual work packages for a project prior to the construction of those work packages in the field. [0026] The constraints listed in the constraints checklist, once created, can then be marked completed in the TLMS back office system or the TLMS frontline system when the constraints are completed. The constraints checklist provides the project manager and frontline supervisor with an immediate list of items that need to be performed before commencing with construction and helps avoid the problems of idle labor time.).
As per claim 18: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the scheduling policy comprises sequential scheduling and unmanned scheduling Regarding the claim limitations above, McKenzie shows “unmanned scheduling” at least in [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. McKenzie also shows “sequential scheduling” [0190]: The TLMS system 10 also calculates and displays on the dynamic user interface graphic 600 the current productivity related to the relevant work package 212 in progress. As set forth more fully in connection with FIGS. 25 through 90 below, for each dynamic user interface graphic 600 stored in the TLMS system 10, a series of sequential dynamic user interface graphics are also stored in the TLMS system 10, wherein each sequential user interface graphic is linked to a specific percentage of completion; and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work comprises:
generating, if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the sequential scheduling or the unmanned scheduling and the working condition information of the transportation facility is a no-load status, a sequential scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility to move to the excavating and loading facility in turn to perform loading work, and then move to an unloading platform specified by the scheduling group to perform unloading.
(McKenzie shows: [0019] The TLMS system contemplates that project planning in the back office system will be conducted by project planner and or project manager users. The back office system is divided into a series of graphical interfaces that are each accessible through selection of corresponding tabs. The back office graphical interfaces are divided to correspond with specific aspects of project planning, including work package estimates, work package setup, short interval schedule, job safety analysis, and constraints checklist. The back office system of the TLMS system guides the user through each of these different planning tabs in order to plan individual work packages for a project prior to the construction of those work packages in the field. [0026] The constraints listed in the constraints checklist, once created, can then be marked completed in the TLMS back office system or the TLMS frontline system when the constraints are completed. The constraints checklist provides the project manager and frontline supervisor with an immediate list of items that need to be performed before commencing with construction and helps avoid the problems of idle labor time.).
As per claim 19: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
wherein the scheduling policy further comprises automatic scheduling Regarding the claim limitations above, McKenzie shows “unmanned scheduling” at least in [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. McKenzie also shows “sequential scheduling” [0190]: The TLMS system 10 also calculates and displays on the dynamic user interface graphic 600 the current productivity related to the relevant work package 212 in progress. As set forth more fully in connection with FIGS. 25 through 90 below, for each dynamic user interface graphic 600 stored in the TLMS system 10, a series of sequential dynamic user interface graphics are also stored in the TLMS system 10, wherein each sequential user interface graphic is linked to a specific percentage of completion; and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work further comprises:
searching for an excavating and loading facility with working condition information being a shortest idle time and generating a priority loading scheduling instruction for instructing the transportation facility in the no-load status to move to the excavating and loading facility with the shortest idle time to perform loading work, if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the automatic scheduling, the working condition information of the transportation facility is the no-load status, and the working condition information of the transportation facility is non-wait timeout.
(McKenzie shows: [0019] The TLMS system contemplates that project planning in the back office system will be conducted by project planner and or project manager users. The back office system is divided into a series of graphical interfaces that are each accessible through selection of corresponding tabs. The back office graphical interfaces are divided to correspond with specific aspects of project planning, including work package estimates, work package setup, short interval schedule, job safety analysis, and constraints checklist. The back office system of the TLMS system guides the user through each of these different planning tabs in order to plan individual work packages for a project prior to the construction of those work packages in the field. [0026] The constraints listed in the constraints checklist, once created, can then be marked completed in the TLMS back office system or the TLMS frontline system when the constraints are completed. The constraints checklist provides the project manager and frontline supervisor with an immediate list of items that need to be performed before commencing with construction and helps avoid the problems of idle labor time.).
As per claim 20: Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
the scheduling policy further comprises automatic scheduling Regarding the claim limitations above, McKenzie shows “unmanned scheduling” at least in [0212] Referring next to FIG. 44, the estimate calculator 755 is displayed by the back office system 20 upon selection of create estimate 754. The estimate calculator 755 automatically creates the WP ID# 753(a), which in FIG. 44 is shown as “105”. The work package description 753(b) is then entered, which in FIG. 44 is shown as “Pump Foundation.” Next the user selects add new task 756 in order to create the various tasks 215 that need to be performed in connection with the work package 212 being estimated. McKenzie also shows “sequential scheduling” [0190]: The TLMS system 10 also calculates and displays on the dynamic user interface graphic 600 the current productivity related to the relevant work package 212 in progress. As set forth more fully in connection with FIGS. 25 through 90 below, for each dynamic user interface graphic 600 stored in the TLMS system 10, a series of sequential dynamic user interface graphics are also stored in the TLMS system 10, wherein each sequential user interface graphic is linked to a specific percentage of completion; and
Regarding the claim limitations below, McKenzie in view of Fairbanks shows:
the generating, based on the scheduling policy and the working condition information of the engineering facility, the scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work further comprises:
regenerating a scheduling instruction if the scheduling group where the transportation facility is located is the automatic scheduling, the working condition information of the transportation facility is the no-load status, and the working condition information of the transportation facility is wait timeout.
(McKenzie shows: [0019] The TLMS system contemplates that project planning in the back office system will be conducted by project planner and or project manager users. The back office system is divided into a series of graphical interfaces that are each accessible through selection of corresponding tabs. The back office graphical interfaces are divided to correspond with specific aspects of project planning, including work package estimates, work package setup, short interval schedule, job safety analysis, and constraints checklist. The back office system of the TLMS system guides the user through each of these different planning tabs in order to plan individual work packages for a project prior to the construction of those work packages in the field. [0026] The constraints listed in the constraints checklist, once created, can then be marked completed in the TLMS back office system or the TLMS frontline system when the constraints are completed. The constraints checklist provides the project manager and frontline supervisor with an immediate list of items that need to be performed before commencing with construction and helps avoid the problems of idle labor time.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicants argue on page(s) 1-2 of applicants remarks that “It is respectfully submitted that independent claims 1 and 11 does not recite any of “social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions”. Claim 1, for example, recites obtaining facility information and working condition information of an engineering facility, wherein the facility information comprises at least one of load data, facility type, latitude and longitude and historical working data of the engineering facility, and a scheduling group where the engineering facility is located, and the working condition information comprises at least one of idle status information of the engineering facility, waiting time information of the engineering facility, no-load status information of the engineering facility, full-load status information of the engineering facility, and information of a distance of the engineering facility from other engineering facilities, obtaining a scheduling and a scheduling policy, and generating a scheduling instruction for instructing the engineering facility to perform work. Therefore, the claimed features are directed to managing the engineering facility, instead of managing human activities by following rules or instructions. Additionally, none of the claims recite any rules or instructions for human to perform activities or recite any activities performed by human or any functions that cause the human to perform certain activities. Thus, the Examiner’s allegation that the claims are directed to organizing human activities is unreasonable.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #1
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations applicants are arguing about are simply limitations that discuss different types of data. For instance, the claim limitation “wherein the facility information comprises at least one of load data, facility type, latitude and longitude and historical working data of the engineering facility, and a scheduling group where the engineering facility is located” is simply describing the facility information.
The above claims do not improve the technology or the technological environment in any way. They are further describing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicants argue on page(s) 3-5 of applicants remarks that “In the rejection of claim 10, the Examiner also cites paragraph [0129] of McKenzie…. The Examiner also cites paragraph [0179] of McKenzie. In this paragraph, McKenzie discloses an eighth calculation 464, in which the TLMS averages the assigned values 463 for calculating schedule reliability of a work package 212. Paragraph [0178] discusses that the assigned value 463 is "1" for completed work packages and "0" for incomplete work package…The dependent claims set forth additional limitations not found in the prior art, and are also allowable based at least on their dependency from allowable independent claim 1.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #2
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, it should be noted that the limitations applicants are arguing are simply describing data types.
McKenzie shows in the background the problem they are solving: [0005] Productivity loss can result from a wide variety of common problems on a construction site, including idle time, rework time, and crew inefficiency. Idle time often results from crews simply waiting for material, equipment, tools, or direction on how to proceed. Idle work also can result from safety issues causing temporary work shut downs. Rework time results from the crew having to spend time correcting mistakes made by the crew or others, such as the designers of the project. Productivity is also often lost as a result of damages inflicted on preexisting structures. Often productivity is lost simply because the crew is not working efficiently. [0026] The constraints listed in the constraints checklist, once created, can then be marked completed in the TLMS back office system or the TLMS frontline system when the constraints are completed. The constraints checklist provides the project manager and frontline supervisor with an immediate list of items that need to be performed before commencing with construction and helps avoid the problems of idle labor time. [0033] The work package tab of the frontline system has a short interval schedule page and a constraints checklist page. The short interval schedule page has provides key metrics of the project planning for the work package, including applicable cost codes, tasks, scope, list of crew members, and total planned man hours. These key metrics provide the frontline supervisor with important work package plan details itemized down to the task level. The constraints checklist page provides the detailed information pertaining to the constraints for the work package, including whether or not the constraints are completed. [0124]-[0125], [0145]-[0157])).
McKenzie shows [0129] The non-project specific segments 112 are disclosed more completely in connection with FIG. 41. The non-project specific segments 112 are particularly important for larger construction companies with a corporate hierarchy, multiple divisions, and multiple geographic locations.
Applicants are only addressing one of the cited paragraphs, so applicants are not addressing examiner’s full rejection. The above cited paragraphs show idle time in the background as a problem the current application is looking to solve and then later on in the reference shows how the problem is solved by the methods proposed in the reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Reference:
Selvarasu, Elugai Palanichamy, and Eslah Ali Al Hammadi. "Improvement Realized Through Digitized Engineering Business Process." Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/208048-MS
Abstract: Engineering Division provides services & support to Operations and Projects. Division develops deliverable / report / recommendation for various studies, operation issues related to Engineering, root cause analysis, etc. Division receives an average of five request in a week. Division is handling 175+ studies at a time with support of multiple discipline Engineers within division and are in different stages. The division was handling the complete business process manually with dedicated resources to track the review, approval, execution and progress monitor. It was difficult to track all the steps since the information were scattered with many stakeholders and manual entries are not robust / fool proof. The manual control was insufficient to manage document movement, monitoring engineering activities and progress. This paper highlights the methodology used to digitalize the business process and also the improvement / benefit realized.
Jatinder N.D. Gupta, Sushil K. Gupta, Single facility scheduling with nonlinear processing times, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Volume 14, Issue 4, 1988, Pages 387-393, ISSN 0360-8352, https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-8352(88)90041-1. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360835288900411)
Abstract: This paper considers the static single facility scheduling problem where the processing times of jobs are a monotonically increasing function of their starting (waiting) times and the objective is to minimize the total elapsed time (called the makespan) in which all jobs complete their processing. Based on the combinatorial analysis of the problem, an exact optimization algorithm is developed for the general processing time function which is then specialized for the linear case. In view of the excessive computational burden of the exact optimization algorithm for the nonlinear processing time functions, heuristic algorithms are proposed. The effectiveness of these proposed alogrithms is empirically evaluated and found to indicate that these heuristic algorithms yield optimal or near optimal schedules in many cases.
Foreign Reference:
(CN 116010612 A) Fu, et al.
This reference discloses the invention claims a watershed flood-preventing knowledge graph constructing method, device and electronic device, based on a plurality of flood-control knowledge base pre-determined to establish a target drainage area, constructing a plurality of top model; wherein each flood prevention knowledge base comprises the association relation between each entity and entity; each entity and each association relationship have respective attributes; based on a plurality of top model, extracting the needed knowledge data from a plurality of pre-processed flood control data file; wherein the knowledge data comprises entity, the association relationship between entities and each entity and attribute of each association relationship, based on the preset graph database, generating the knowledge graph data; wherein, the node characterizing entity in the knowledge graph, the link between the nodes in the knowledge graph representing the association relationship between entities. The application of the invention can improve the efficiency and accuracy of constructing the knowledge graph, so as to satisfy related application requirements of flood prevention.
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 NANCY PRASAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3265. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.N.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights