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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is the first Non-Final Office Action in response to Application Serial Number: 18/452,436, filed on August 18, 2023. Applicant on May 09, 2024, filed a preliminary amendment canceling claims 1-20 and adding new claims 21-45. Claims 21-45 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Priority
The Examiner has noted this Application is claiming priority from Provisional Application No. 63/399,197 filed August 18, 2022 and is a Continuation in Part of Application No. 17/944,913 filed September 14, 2022, which is a Continuation of Application No. 17/351,982 filed June 18, 2021, which claims priority from Provisional Application No. 63/208,739 filed June 09, 2021 and 63/040,908 filed June 18, 2020.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 21-32 are directed towards a method, claims 33-44 are directed towards a system and claim 45 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 21-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite generating reports based on work performed at a worksite.
Claim 21 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, performing work at a worksite; extracting work information from a work message to adjust a work record, wherein the work information is about the work performed at the worksite; manipulating an activity record responsive to the work record and a rule comprising a plurality of rule attributes to set an activity value of the activity record, wherein a first one of the rule attributes comprises a first condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed on time; and processing the activity record to generate an activity report comprising the activity value constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a user interface does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 33 recite certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 21.
Claim 45 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, extracting work information from a work message to adjust a work record, wherein the work information is about work that was performed at a worksite; manipulating an activity record responsive to the work record and a rule comprising a plurality of rule attributes to set an activity value of the activity record, wherein a first one of the rule attributes comprises a first condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed on time, and wherein a second one of the rule attributes comprises a second condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed with no punch list items; processing the activity record to generate an activity report comprising the activity value constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a user interface does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 21 recites adjusting a user interface responsive to the activity report, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites a user interface at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a generic computer component used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The user interface disclosed in claim 21 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore claim 21 directed to an abstract idea. The system comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising an application executable by at least one processor recited in claim 33 and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer readable program code executed by a processor in claim 45 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 33 and 45 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 21.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including user interface, system comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising an application executable by at least on processor and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer readable program code executed by a processor amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) 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). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 27 and 39 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 27 and 39 recites wherein adjusting the user interface responsive to the activity report comprises: modifying a list view displaying a plurality of activity records which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 28-30 and 40-42 recites setting attributes with an administrator device, which amounts to no more than a generic computer component used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 22-32 and 34-44 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 22-32 and 34-44 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 21-24, 28-31, 33-36, 40-43 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Settino, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0290052 [hereinafter Settino], and further in view of Bernier et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0229225 [hereinafter Bernier].
Referring to Claim 21, Settino teaches:
A method comprising:
performing work at a worksite (Settino, [0185]), “renovation work is carried out by the appropriate personnel according to the generated schedule”; (Settino, [0096]), “managing renovation of any suitable property including, for example residential properties (e.g., apartments, condominiums, townhouses and detached houses, among others), commercial properties (e.g., office buildings) and any other suitable properties… the user(s) may be any personnel involved in the property and/or the renovation including, for example, a building super, a building higher authority, a contractor, a third-party inspector or any other such personnel”; (Settino, [0171]);
extracting work information from a work message to adjust a work record, wherein the work information is about the work performed at the worksite (Settino, [0116]), “Any input (e.g., status update information) received via the interface may be logged (e.g., time, date, type of transaction and identity of user) and stored for future reference”; (Settino, [0185]), “The interface may be used throughout the renovation work to update the completion status of tasks or task components. The interface may also be used to communicate notices, alerts or reminders, for example, to maintain the scheduled timeline”; (Settino, [0109]), “an interface is presented for updating status of completion of the renovation task(s)…The interface may receive status updates as input (e.g., a contractor or other user may enter the date of completion of certain task components)…”; (Settino, [0173]), “systems may allow for objective and/or traceable verification of job completeness and/or quality”; (Settino, [0111]; [0171]);
processing the activity record to generate an activity report comprising the activity value; and adjusting a user interface responsive to the activity report (Settino, [0190]-[0191]), “system may log and record all inputs, outputs and transactions, allowing reports (e.g., event logs) to show what happened in a particular property, in time-sequence order, for example… The interface may serve as access control and/or a web-based portal to view the state of work in one or more properties”; (Settino, [0124]), “a report is generated for the renovation task(s). The report may be a completion report (e.g., reporting on final costs and work done), a status report (e.g., reporting on the completion status of the task(s)), a milestone report (e.g., reporting on the completion of a component of the task(s) or reporting on the status upon reaching a milestone such as the end of the preferred time period) or any other suitable report. The report may be generated to be displayed on the interface (e.g., on the screen of a computer monitor) or as a physical document (e.g., a printed report), for example.
Settino teaches the system may allow for monitoring schedule compliance (see par. 0188), and policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
manipulating an activity record responsive to the work record and a rule comprising a plurality of rule attributes to set an activity value of the activity record, wherein a first one of the rule attributes comprises a first condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed on time.
However Bernier teaches:
manipulating an activity record responsive to the work record and a rule comprising a plurality of rule attributes to set an activity value of the activity record, wherein a first one of the rule attributes comprises a first condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed on time (Bernier, [0032]), “suggestion determination module 122 may be configured to determine a score for an activity value factor associated with an activity based on one or more parameters. For example, the parameters may include… regulatory requirements associated with the activity…”; (Bernier, [0140]), “suggestion determination module 122 may be configured to determine a score for a timing factor associated with an activity based on one or more parameters. For example, the parameters may include time since activity of same type last performed, time since activity in workflow last performed, time until next activity in workflow planned, optimal timing for activity (e.g., based on workflow, based on feedback provided by workers, based on data stored at storage 105, and/or based on other information obtained via the system 10), amount of time past optimal timing, probability of success associated with activity (e.g., based on feedback provided by workers, based on data at storage 105, and/or based on other information obtained via the system 10) and/or other parameters”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring and policies in Settino to include the manipulating limitation as taught by Bernier. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to include the results of expected efficiency gain associated with the usage of the pre-set combination of criteria (see Bernier par. 0238).
Referring to Claim 22, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino teaches the system may allow for monitoring schedule compliance (see par. 0188), and policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
wherein a second one of the rule attributes comprises a second condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed with no punch list items.
However Bernier teaches:
wherein a second one of the rule attributes comprises a second condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed with no punch list items (Bernier, [0133]), “The suggestion determination module 122 may determine scores for activities to be performed in one or more workflows that have not yet been scheduled by the worker. The suggestion determination module 122 may determine scores for activities to be performed in one or more workflows that have not yet been scheduled and that are due to occur within a predetermined time period”; (Bernier, [0241]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring in Settino to include the rule limitation as taught by Bernier. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of optimizing individual workflow activity (see Bernier par. 0004).
Referring to Claim 23, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino teaches policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
wherein a second one of the rule attributes comprises a threshold number of punch list items and a second condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed with a number of punch list items that is less than the threshold number.
However Bernier teaches:
wherein a second one of the rule attributes comprises a threshold number of punch list items and a second condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed with a number of punch list items that is less than the threshold number (Bernier, [0120]), “the workflow management module 116 may be configured to display progress of execution of a workflow through display of, for example, a toolbar, a percentage of workflow executed, whether a threshold amount of activity associated with the workflow has been executed, and/or by other visual indicators”; (Bernier, [0130]; [0150]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring in Settino to include the rule limitation as taught by Bernier. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of optimizing individual workflow activity (see Bernier par. 0004).
Referring to Claim 24, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino teaches the system may allow for monitoring schedule compliance (see par. 0188), and policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
wherein manipulating the activity record responsive to the rule comprises:
identifying a trigger event defined by the rule; and setting the activity value defined by the plurality of rule attributes of the rule.
However Bernier teaches:
wherein manipulating the activity record responsive to the rule comprises:
identifying a trigger event defined by the rule; and setting the activity value defined by the plurality of rule attributes of the rule (Bernier, [0125]), “A rationale for a suggestion may be based, for example, on a score associated with… a factor and/or parameter that most influenced the score for the suggestion, and/or other information related to the scoring of the activity. Information related to factors and/or parameters associated with the suggestion may comprise, for example… a trigger associated with the suggestion, and/or other information”; (Bernier, [0154]; [0209]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring in Settino to include the trigger limitation as taught by Bernier. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of optimizing individual workflow activity (see Bernier par. 0004).
Referring to Claim 28, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino teaches the system may allow for monitoring schedule compliance (see par. 0188), and policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of rule attributes are set with an administrator device, and wherein each of the plurality of rule attributes comprises a work type, a work trigger event, an activity amount, and an activity percentage.
However Bernier teaches:
wherein the plurality of rule attributes are set with an administrator device, and wherein each of the plurality of rule attributes comprises a work type, a work trigger event, an activity amount, and an activity percentage (Bernier, [0138]), “Weights, penalties, bonuses, and/or other scoring effects… may be based on input received from managers”; (Bernier, [0176]-[0177]), “role-based permissions”; (Bernier, [0127]), “the suggestion determination module 122 may store one or more rules relating to relevant information to provide based on the criteria used to determine suggestions, a level of abstraction associated with the suggestions being provided, the worker for whom suggestions are being provided, whether a trigger is associated with the suggestion, and/or other information related to providing suggestions”; (Bernier, [0139]), “suggestion determination module 122 may be configured to determine a score for an activity value factor associated with an activity based on one or more parameters. For example, the parameters may include performance execution (e.g., comparison of how many activities have been completed and total number of activities for the workflow, types of activities to be completed for the workflow, comparison of the number of activities of the same type of activity to be completed for the workflow and total number of activities of that type, and/or other information related to performance execution), number of activities of the same type performed and/or planned, value of product associated with activity, regulatory requirements associated with the activity”; (Bernier, [0128])
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring and policies in Settino to include the rule limitations as taught by Bernier. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to include the results of expected efficiency gain associated with the usage of the pre-set combination of criteria (see Bernier par. 0238).
Referring to Claim 29, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino teaches the system may allow for monitoring schedule compliance (see par. 0188), and policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
wherein each of the plurality of rule attributes comprises a rule attribute set with an administrator device, and wherein the rule attribute comprises an activity record type to identify a type of the activity record.
However Bernier teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of rule attributes comprises a rule attribute set with an administrator device, and wherein the rule attribute comprises an activity record type to identify a type of the activity record (Bernier, [0237]), “pre-set combinations of criteria may be selectable via configuration panel portion 2202. The pre-set combinations of criteria may be associated with pre-set values associated with the respective criteria. A pre-set combination of criteria may be identified by one or more of: a corresponding name, a set of factors, an indicator that indicates an expected type of performance associated with the pre-set combination of criteria, a type of worker associated with the pre-set combination of criteria, a type of territory, type of customer, a type of strategy associated with the pre-set combination of criteria, and/or other identifier… A type of strategy may comprise, for example, a combination of one or more of type of worker, type of performance, type of territory, type of customer, and/or other information related to a strategy. Configuration panel 202 may also facilitate the creation of a new pre-set combination of criteria”; (Bernier, [0273]), “The database may store a plurality of types of data and/or files and associated data or file descriptions, administrative information, or any other data”; (Bernier, [0248]; [0206]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring and policies in Settino to include the rule limitations as taught by Bernier. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to include the results of expected efficiency gain associated with the usage of the pre-set combination of criteria (see Bernier par. 0238).
Referring to Claim 30, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino teaches the system may allow for monitoring schedule compliance (see par. 0188), and policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
wherein each of the plurality of rule attributes comprises a rule attribute set with an administrator device, and wherein the rule attribute comprises a flat amount value.
However Bernier teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of rule attributes comprises a rule attribute set with an administrator device, and wherein the rule attribute comprises a flat amount value (Bernier, [0130]), “relevant information may include information based on one or more scores calculated when determining a score for the suggestion. The information included as relevant information may be based on scores that had a significant impact on the score for the suggestion…”; (Bernier, [0137]-[0142]), “determine a score”; (Bernier, [0135]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring and policies in Settino to include the rule limitations as taught by Bernier. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to include the results of expected efficiency gain associated with the usage of the pre-set combination of criteria (see Bernier par. 0238).
Referring to Claim 31, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino further teaches:
wherein the activity record corresponds to a user identified in a user profile, the user profile comprising an additional value field for generating the activity report (Settino, [0110]), “the user may be required to log in … Such log in may be used to verify the identity of the user, for example to ensure that the user has the appropriate authority level for certain interface options. In some examples, based on the user information provided at log in, different interfaces may be presented (e.g., the super may be provided with a more detailed global interface and the contractor may be provided with an interface related only to one specific renovation task). The interface may also provide different users with different options, based on the user information provided at log in. For example, a user with higher authority may be provided with more options (e.g., a building authority may be provided with an option to approve a quote) than a user with less authority (e.g., a contractor may only be able to view whether a quote has been approved”; (Settino, [0114]), “The interface may present user(s) with data (e.g., reports), whether stored or newly generated, in raw or aggregated forms. Such data may be restricted to certain authorized personnel, where appropriate”; (Settino, [0125]), “The report may be stored in a report database for future reference (e.g., for liability purposes), may be duplicated and propagated as appropriate, may be accessible only by authorized personnel (e.g., only the super and higher authority may view the report via a secure login) and/or may be transmitted physically and/or electronically (e.g., as an email communication)”; (Settino, [0029]; [0115]; [0132]; [0189]).
Referring to Claim 33, Settino teaches:
A system comprising:
at least one processor (Settino, [0130]); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising an application, which when executed by the at least one processor, performs (Settino, [0130]):
Claim 33 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 21, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 34 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 22, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 35 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 23, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 36 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 24, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 40 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 28, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 41 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 29, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 42 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 30, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 43 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 31, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Referring to Claim 45, Settino teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer readable program code which, when executed by a processor, performs a computer-implemented method comprising (Settino, [0130]):
Claim 45 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 21, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Settino teaches the system may allow for monitoring schedule compliance (see par. 0188), and policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
wherein a second one of the rule attributes comprises a second condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed with no punch list items.
However Bernier teaches:
wherein a second one of the rule attributes comprises a second condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed with no punch list items (Bernier, [0133]), “The suggestion determination module 122 may determine scores for activities to be performed in one or more workflows that have not yet been scheduled by the worker. The suggestion determination module 122 may determine scores for activities to be performed in one or more workflows that have not yet been scheduled and that are due to occur within a predetermined time period”; (Bernier, [0241]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring in Settino to include the rule limitation as taught by Bernier. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of optimizing individual workflow activity (see Bernier par. 0004).
Claims 25 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Settino, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0290052 [hereinafter Settino], in view of Bernier et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0229225 [hereinafter Bernier], and further in view of Sabo, U.S. Patent No. 11,568,366 [hereinafter Sabo].
Referring to Claim 25, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino teaches the system may allow for monitoring schedule compliance (see par. 0188), and policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: receiving a request to dispute the activity value; and adjusting the activity record responsive to the request.
However Sabo teaches:
further comprising: receiving a request to dispute the activity value; and adjusting the activity record responsive to the request (Sabo, [col. 6, ln. 28-44]), “… An incorrect status value for status parameter may include a status value that has not been updated and/or a status value that does not accurately reflect the status of the unit of work.…”; (Sabo, [col. 7, ln. 23-40]), “Status request component 112 may be configured to generate status requests prompting user input to update the potentially incorrect status values for the one or more work unit records identified… status requests may be initiated and/or triggered by another user (e.g., a manager, a project manager, a supervisor, assigning user, and/or other user). Status requests may include notifications and/or prompts for user input used to update the statuses the associated units of work. The user input may include a response to the status request indicating selection of the correct status for a given unit of work, approval of a suggested status update, and/or other user input”; (Sabo, [col. 11, ln. 60-66]), “An operation 606 may include generating status requests prompting user input to update the potentially incorrect status values for the one or more work unit records identified. The status requests may include a first status request prompting user input from a first user associated with the first unit of work to update the potentially incorrect first status value”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring in Settino to include the dispute limitation as taught by Sabo. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of determining one or more suggested status updates for a given unit of work (see Sabo col. 8, ln. 2-3).
Claim 37 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 25, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claims 26 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Settino, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0290052 [hereinafter Settino], in view of Bernier et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0229225 [hereinafter Bernier], and further in view of Zass et al., U.S. Publication No. 2020/0413011 [hereinafter Zass].
Referring to Claim 26, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino teaches the system may allow for monitoring schedule compliance (see par. 0188), and policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
extracting adjustment information from an adjustment message received responsive to adjusting the user interface, wherein the adjustment information comprises an explanation that the work was unable to be performed on time, wherein the adjustment information further comprises an adjustment image, and wherein the adjustment image captures a state of the worksite; and adjusting the activity record responsive to the adjustment information.
However Zass teaches:
extracting adjustment information from an adjustment message received responsive to adjusting the user interface, wherein the adjustment information comprises an explanation that the work was unable to be performed on time, wherein the adjustment information further comprises an adjustment image, and wherein the adjustment image captures a state of the worksite (Zass, [0218]), “in response to a determination that the particular task is incomplete, Step 1220 may select a second capturing parameter (the second capturing parameter may differ from the first capturing parameter), Step 1230 may cause capturing of the at least one image of the object using the selected capturing parameter”; (Zass, [0292]), “the information indicative of the state of at least part of the construction site at the second point in time… may be based on information reported by a human user, may be based on a progress record associated with the construction site… In some examples, Step 1722C may comprise analyzing the image obtained by Step 1710 to identify an inconsistency between the indicated state of the at least part of the construction site at the second point in time and the visual content of the image based on the image being associated with the first point in time”; (Zass, [0269]; [0274]); and
adjusting the activity record responsive to the adjustment information (Zass, [0275]), “in response to a determination that the indicated at least one purported parameter of the capturing of the image is consistent with the visual content of the image, causing a first update to an electronic record associated with the construction site based on an analysis of the image (Step 1730)”
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring in Settino to include the adjustment limitations as taught by Zass. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to include the results of automatic creation of tasks according to the actual state of the construction site may reduce this burden and improve efficiency (see Zass par. 0296).
Claim 38 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 26, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 27 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Settino, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0290052 [hereinafter Settino], in view of Bernier et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0229225 [hereinafter Bernier], and further in view of Choi, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0092518 [hereinafter Choi].
Referring to Claim 27, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino teaches the system may allow for monitoring schedule compliance (see par. 0188), and policies may be determined that are applicable to renovation tasks (see par. 0102), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
wherein adjusting the user interface responsive to the activity report comprises:
modifying a list view displaying a plurality of activity records, the activity records comprising the activity record, wherein modifying the list view comprises one or more of resizing the list view, adjusting a font size, and adjusting a font color responsive to the activity record.
However Choi teaches:
wherein adjusting the user interface responsive to the activity report comprises:
modifying a list view displaying a plurality of activity records, the activity records comprising the activity record, wherein modifying the list view comprises one or more of resizing the list view, adjusting a font size, and adjusting a font color responsive to the activity record (Choi, [0094]-[0096]), “the work progress status processing part 350 may set colors for each phase of work progress when setting phases of work progress for a task associated with a task object, and may select how to display the task, such as in a color corresponding to the current phase of work progress of the task, and present the task on the user's display accordingly…Also, these different ways of display, such as using different colors, may always apply when the task object is displayed…. the work progress status processing part 350 may display each task in a color corresponding to their phase of work progress and create it as work progress status summary information, and the work chat room processing apparatus 130 may provide the work progress status summary information along with a list of tasks… Displaying a task in different ways according to the phase of work progress may involve displaying an icon, task name, file name, and document name corresponding to the task, a message for forwarding or sharing the task, a notification box, a reminder associated with the task, and so on in different ways corresponding to the phase of work progress. Also, the different ways of display may include applying different colors, sizes, brightnesses, background colors, edge colors, fonts, shades, depths, flickers, and so on to an icon, a task name, a file name, etc.”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compliance monitoring in Settino to include the activity report limitations as taught by Choi. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to include the results of enabling members of a company, organization, or group to work collaboratively with more efficiency within a computer-networked workplace (see Choi par. 0003).
Claim 39 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 27, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claims 32 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Settino, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0290052 [hereinafter Settino], in view of Bernier et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0229225 [hereinafter Bernier], and further in view of Cami et al., U.S. Publication No. 2023/0229986 [hereinafter Cami].
Referring to Claim 32, Settino in view of Bernier teaches the method of claim 21. Settino teaches activities may be logged in a time stamped log (see par. 0089), but Settino does not explicitly teach:
wherein processing the activity record to generate the activity report comprises:
identifying a plurality of activity records, the activity records comprising the activity record, the activity records corresponding to a time period, wherein the activity report comprises a plurality of job values corresponding to a set of job records from the plurality of activity records and comprising an activity value corresponding to a set of activity records consolidated from the plurality of activity records, wherein the activity value is set to a value of zero when determined to be a negative number from the set of activity records for the time period.
However Cami teaches:
wherein processing the activity record to generate the activity report comprises:
identifying a plurality of activity records, the activity records comprising the activity record, the activity records corresponding to a time period, wherein the activity report comprises a plurality of job values corresponding to a set of job records from the plurality of activity records and comprising an activity value corresponding to a set of activity records consolidated from the plurality of activity records (Cami, [0029]-[0030]), “A construction activity can be, for example, a completion of a room, a building, a series of buildings, or another discrete construction activity, such as installation of a gate. A scheduled sequence of tasks can be a sequence of tasks wherein each task can be related to another task or be independent of another tasks, and each task is assigned to a particular time in which it is to be completed or expected to be completed. The tasks can collectively form the steps required to finish the project. Any arbitrary granularity of tasks is possible and any task can be divided into sub-tasks. For example, if tiling a floor is a task, each tile to be inserted on the floor to complete the tiling of the floor can be a sub-task… A status of a task can be a quantitative or qualitative description of the task. In some examples, a status of a task can be provided by a human operator reviewing a task such as a supervisor on a construction site. The supervisor can indicate that a particular task (e.g., complete bathroom) is complete. In some examples, the supervisor can provide natural language comments such as “bathroom complete except for finish on sink” and the language can be interpreted by a language interpretation algorithm to provide an indication of what is left, what sub-task is not yet completed (e.g., “sink installation,”) and also quantify what percentage of the task (e.g., complete bathroom) is left. The quantification can be based on any algorithm. For instance, the expected number of hours left to complete the task versus the total number of hours allocated or expected for the task can be used to determine what percentage of the “complete bathroom” task is left”; (Cami, [0037]), “a project that involves multiple tasks (as discussed above) that must be completed by a given time and for a given budget. The project may involve a starting point (e.g., pour the foundation) and a start date. Once the foundation is poured, coordination of multiple tasks involving multiple resources must be accounted for and sequenced so that the projection completion time and/or costs are met. The multiple or possible tasks may comprise all the tasks involved in a construction project, e.g., pouring the foundation, getting a crane on site, building the frame, putting in sheetrock, plumbing, floors, etc. However, interrelationship between different tasks may impact completion time and costs. As the number of tasks increase, tracking them and how they may impact each other gets beyond human capability and state of the art known computing tools. An aspect of the disclosed technology takes the information related to tasks and other parameters as input and dynamically tracks the progress of the project and updates the completion costs, time or other metrics that may be used to monitor progress or goals…”; (Cami, [0032]),
wherein the activity value is set to a value of zero when determined to be a negative number from the set of activity records for the time period (Cami, [0092]), “…In some examples, if UOMr is negative, then it is set to zero. If Hr is negative then the task is over budget and can be marked as such for the learning machine. Hr is set to the predicted value of the learning machine (HRp) minus the completed hours…”
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the activity log in Settino to include the activity record limitations as taught by Cami. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing renovation of a property in Settino (see par. 0001) to efficiently include the results of dynamically tracking the progress of the project and updates the completion costs, time or other metrics that may be used to monitor progress or goals (see Cami par. 0037).
Claim 44 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 32, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spanton, JR et al. (US 20100198652 A1) – A computer-based system for managing construction repair project that includes an input device coupled to a processor, an output device coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is programmed to perform certain actions based on user input. The processor is programmed to determine material requirements for the repair project, determine the labor requirement for the repair project, and to generate a cost estimate for the repair project. The processor is also programmed to generate purchase orders for materials based on the material requirements, generate a work crew schedule base on the labor requirements, generate a project schedule that provides a timeline for work to be performed on the repair project, while regularly providing status updates to the user regarding the work performed on the repair project.
Fujitomi et al. (US 9971980 B2) – The purpose of the invention is to provide a standard work time updating method and system in which a work time is declared by a worker without requiring an observer or the like and the reliability of the updated data of standard work time can be prevented from being degraded due to a worker's false or erroneous declaration. To achieve this purpose, for example, the standard work time updating system is configured as follows. When a reliability determination unit determines that a work time required for work and declared by a worker is not departed from a predetermined range in the work time data distribution of the work stored in a database, a standard work time for the work is updated to a standard work time calculated from the declared work time, and otherwise, the standard work time is not updated. In addition, when it is determined that a work area estimated by a work area estimation unit matches a work area declared by a worker, a standard work time for the work is updated to the calculated standard work time, and otherwise, the standard work time is not updated.
Mueller (US 8688596 B2) – A project management and activity recording system defines project tasks, project positions, and assigns personnel to the project positions. As the assigned personnel perform project tasks from a remote location, they may periodically record their activities in the project software. The recorded activity information is used to update the project to keep records such as time, cost, expenses, and task completion current, even when offsite personnel or contractors are used. A reporting user interface may be selected based on the reporting device, and data entry may be performed by updating historical or default values.
O’Callaghan et al. (WO 2015157792 A1) - A method and system are provided for real-time monitoring and management of a construction project. The system includes a host server for receiving and processing data, a plurality of remote computer devices configured to facilitate communication with the host server, each of the devices being capable of obtaining data from a construction site in relation to workers and equipment usage and to transmit the data to the host server for processing. The host server comprises an interface configured to communicate with each remote computer device so as to coordinate the receipt of said data therefrom and for processing and storing said data.
Vilkko et al. (Mobile Fieldwork Solution for the Construction Industry) - In order to stay within schedule and budget limits, large construction projects require fluent communication and information exchange between the collaborating enterprises. Unnecessary project delays and rework is mostly caused by missing or outdated information. Easily available, accurate and up-to-date information on the project status can improve work efficiency and quality. Such information can be efficiently shared between project partners in electronic form, and extending the information flow to on-site workers requires mobile devices and wireless communication. This paper describes the development of a mobile solution for construction industry fieldwork. The mobile application enables the collection and access to relevant information at the point of activity, i.e., the construction site. The collected information is shared with all concerned project partners in real time. The solution was tested in a construction environment, and the results are presented and discussed. Aside from a few technical problems, the results were promising.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624