DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 1/9/26, the following is a final office action. Claims 1, 8, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title,
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a
judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly
more.
With regard to the present claims 1-20, these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a
process, and ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite a method of
"Mental Processes". The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and
communication of electronic proposal records. The claim also allows for coordinating, evaluating, selecting and scheduling project proposals using collected data, which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the methods of the "Mental Processes" grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole
merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and
communicating proposal information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components
are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing proposal
records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical
application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. As noted previously, the claim as a whole
merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and
communicating information related to proposal records in a computer environment. Thus, even when
viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the
abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
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) 1-4, 6-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
KAJAKHARA (RU 2400814 C2), and further in view of KALLEN (RU 2329538 C2), and further in view of HEATH et al (AU 2015203175 A1).
As per claim 1, KAJAKHARA discloses:
a memory and one or more processors in electrical communication with the memory and to
receive and transmit data via a network interface to communicate over a network, the one or more
processors to execute instructions to cause the system to, (KAJAKHARA (RU 2400814 C2): The
architecture of the computing device depicted in figure 1, illustrates a conventional personal computer
containing a Central processor 4 (CPU, "CPU"), system memory 6, which includes random access
memory 8 (RAM, "RAM") and read-only memory (ROM, "ROM") 10, and the system bus 12, which
connects the memory to the CPU 4. The basic input / output system containing the basic procedures
that facilitate the transfer of information between elements inside the computer; The personal
computer 2 can be connected to the TCP / IP network 18 through a network interface module 20
connected to the bus 12. It should be clear that the network interface module 20 can also be used to
connect to other types of networks and remote computing systems);
receive via the network interface, digital plan data for a plan for a project to be accomplished, the plan data including information for a plurality of subprojects of the project, each subproject associated with a plurality of fields including location-specific constraints, material requirements, and task dependencies; create a plan record in the memory, the plan record including the plan data, (KAJAKHARA (RU 2400814 C2): Claims 1. A computer-implemented method for transmitting planning changes in terms of project management, which includes stages in which: save on the project server device in accordance with the project application software of this project server device, the plan of the main project assigned to the owner of the main project, and this plan of the main project includes at least one independently managed subproject plan assigned to the owner of the subproject, with at least at least one independently managed subproject plan includes a specified date, depending on the plan of the main project, on the device of the project server hey receive from the owner of the subproject the at least one independently managed subproject plan submission for consideration of the proposed changes in relation to this at least one independently managed subproject plan, by means of the project server device,
receive, via the network interface a plurality of electronic proposals for each of the plurality of subprojects the proposal including value data for completing the subproject and timing data that includes at least one of a duration for completing the subproject and a schedule of tasks for completing the subproject,
(KAJAKHARA (RU 2400814 C2): Claim 1: they receive from the owner of the subproject the at least one
independently managed subproject plan submission for consideration of the proposed changes in
relation to this at least one independently managed subproject plan, by means of the project server
device, it is determined whether this proposed change with respect to said at least one independently
managed subproject plan causes a change in said specified date in this at least one independently
managed subproject plan, which depends on the plan of the main project);
create a proposal record in the memory for each of the one or more proposals, wherein the
proposal record is associated with the plan record, (KAJAKHARA: Planning for changes submitted from
the parent project plan or subproject plan to the subproject plan that has a child relationship with the
plan of the submitting project can be approved by the owner / manager of the receiving subproject, or a
counter proposal can be submitted back up the hierarchical structure to the representing parent project
or subproject. If the change adopted by the owner / manager of the subproject is approved, then this
change is automatically made to the data contained in the plan of the receiving and approving
subproject);
transmit, via the network interface to a project implementation user, at least one of the project or the plan for presentation to and selection by the project implementation user, (KAJAKHARA (RU 2400814 C2): automatically transmit a notification of the proposed change from the project server device to the owner of the main project, and this notification of the proposed change indicates the proposed change in relation to the specified date);
receive, via the network interface, project selection input from the project implementation user indicating the at least one of the project or the plan corresponding to the project, (KAJAKHARA (RU 2400814 C2): Such a method and system for transferring planning changes in the project management plan can be effectively used to select and control the actions of the contractor involved in the implementation of a particular project);
KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following limitations, however KALLEN discloses:
each proposal provided by an intended performer to complete the corresponding subproject of
the project, (KALLEN (RU 2329538 C2): After that, the seller selects specific resources (contractors) for
the project, and if the project conditions require the approval of the resources by the buyer, the buyer
approves all the allocated resources before the project is implemented (step 555), as described in more
detail below in connection with Fig. 38);
transmit, via the network interface to the project implementation user, proposal records ponding to the plan record; receive, via the network interface a proposal selection input from the project implementation user indicating a set of proposals to accomplish the project according to the plan, the set of proposals including a proposal for each subproject of the plurality of subprojects of the project, (KALLEN (RU 2329538 C2): Figure 1 shows a high-level functional image of the process of the proposal included in the present invention. Proposal request data 210 associated with a particular proposal request 200 is supplied from buyer 50 to project proposal management system 30. The buyer 50 may be an individual, an object of business (or enterprise), or any other type of buyer 50, which requires the implementation of the project. Proposal request data 210 received on the project proposal management system 30 is in a form predetermined by buyer 50. For example, the form may include one or more proposal elements selected from a configurable predefined list of proposal elements for a particular project type, and request data 210 offers may relate to one or more of these selected offer elements; Each selection of proposal elements can be saved as a separate entry in "tblRFXSelectedBidItems" 802, in which each record contains all the fields shown in Table 39);
generate project implementation data comprising the implementation schedule and an aggregated cost estimate based on selected proposals, (KALLEN (RU 2329538 C2): Figure 1 shows a high-level functional image of the process of the proposal included in the present invention. Proposal request data 210 associated with a particular proposal request 200 is supplied from buyer 50 to project proposal
management system 30. The buyer 50 may be an individual, an object of business (or enterprise), or any
other type of buyer 50, which requires the implementation of the project. Proposal request data 210
received on the project proposal management system 30 is in a form predetermined by buyer 50. For
example, the form may include one or more proposal elements selected from a configurable predefined
list of proposal elements for a particular project type, and request data 210 offers may relate to one or
more of these selected offer elements; ALSO SEE: TABLE 26: Deployment_Plan (Implementation Plan)... (Sum of other project costs); ALSO SEE: “However, if the terms and conditions of the contract are agreed (step 3735), then the buyer and the designated seller can upload various project tracking parameters to the system (step 3745), such as the project start date, project completion dates, expected project costs (application amount), distributed resources, a schedule with definitions of the phases of the project, a schedule for making payments on the project, project delivery / delivery, costs of project materials and project costs to create a purchase requisition for the project”);
optimizing for resource availability and cost constraints across the plurality of subprojects, (Project_Expenses_Comments (Comments on other project costs) No Yes 16 Text 1000 55 Longtext 5000 67 Miscellaneous_Project_Expenses_Amount (Sum of other project costs)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following limitations, however, HEATH et al (AU 2015203175 A1) discloses:
invoke, responsive to receiving the proposal selection input, a construction plans parsing module (CPM), to analyze the plan data, identify dependencies, material requirements, and code requirements for each subproject, and validate compatibility of the plan data with property data, (HEATH et al (AU 2015203175 A1), The system should perform a check on the validity of the parameters used in setting up the project to ensure that the project has at least one valid scheduling solution e g. all rasks/task bundles in the project must have at least on vMid resource combination that matches the location, task profile and category experience required to complete the task);
execute a scheduling algorithm to dynamically generate an implementation schedule by populating a schedule matrix, wherein the schedule matrix is populated by resolving task dependencies and optimizing for resource availability, (HEATH et al (AU 2015203175 A1): The scheduling algorithm evaluates, for example, a score value for each process, once all of its tasks are assigned to a set of resources. The calculation of the score value may be different for each process depending on the process group; In one example implementation, the schedule parameter represents said time interval. This time internal may be measured in months, weeks. days, hours, minutes, seconds, or any other appropriate unit of time; Table 9 below is an example task estimate matrix used to determine standard processing time and the standard elapsed time based on task complexity...Each task may have a preferred location selected where the task should be completed and an indication as to whether or not category experience is required to complete the task. Defining a project by a set of tasks, by lOatior by S category experience is how demand is defined so it can be matched to available resources on the selected location, with the necessary skill profit and category experience If a resource profile is not available for an entity to perform the task, it may be assumed that an infinite amount of capacity exists at the entity to complete the task. This enables tasks due for completion by the entity to be scheduled as part 10 of the overall project and for the scheduled start and end dates. and task dependencies to be communicated to the entity Demand management 300 may also include the functionality of forced resource assignments for a specific resource to be manual assigned to a specific task. This functionality may be used in exceptional cases where a specific resource 15 must complete a task, as manually forcing the assignment of resources to specific tasks will reduce the optimization potential of the scheduling algorithm by reducing the potential number of task to resource combinations Demand management 300 may also induce the functionality of setting task dependences to allow dependencies between tasks within a single project to be 20 setup so the tasks are able to be scheduled with consideration to other dependent tasks within the project A task dependency exists between one or more tasks, and a dependent tasks cannot be scheduled to start until after the scheduled end date of all predecessor tasks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by HEATH et al in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following, however, KALLEN disclose: the one
or more processors further to: receive, over the network from the project implementation user,
acceptance data indicating acceptance of the project implementation data; and provide, over the
network to the intended performer of each subproject of the set of subprojects, one or more of
indication of the acceptance of the proposal for the subproject and at least a portion of the
implementation schedule corresponding to the subproject, (KALLEN (RU 2329538 C2): After that, the
seller selects specific resources (contractors) for the project, and if the project conditions require the
approval of the resources by the buyer, the buyer approves all the allocated resources before the
project is implemented (step 555), as described in more detail below in connection with Fig. 38);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, KAJAKHARA discloses:
the one or more processors further to: for each subproject of the plurality of subprojects:
receive, over the network, completion data providing indication that the performer completed the
subproject; receive, over the network, an acceptance of the subproject from the project implementation
user; alert, over the network, a next performer that a next subproject is set to begin; receive a clear path
approval from the next performer that the subproject is complete; and initiate a payment based on the
proposal of the performer, (KAJAKHARA (RU 2400814 C2): In block 415, the set start and end dates of
the individual phases or tasks that make up the plan of the main project are set, which go to the owners
/ managers of the subprojects required to complete one or more phases or tasks that make up the main
project. In block 420, the owners / managers of one or more subprojects create plans 320, 340 of
individual subprojects, shown in FIG. 3, which are required to complete the phases and tasks required by
each subproject to ultimately complete the main project. When prepared plans for individual
subprojects, these project plans are published on the server / in the database 210 of the project
management, as described above according to figure 2; Instead, according to embodiments of the
present invention, changes to the data in the foreground of the project result in the notification to the
owner / manager of the second project plan to enable the owner / manager of the second project plan
to approve the change, reject the change, or submit another change. Accordingly, changes made to the
data in the first project plan are not automatically reflected in the data in the second project plan
without warning the owner / manager of the second project plan. For example, it is assumed that the
main project plan includes three phases associated with housing, where Phase 1 includes general
construction, Phase 2 includes electrical work, and Phase 3 includes plumbing. It is assumed that the
first plan 320 of the subproject includes planning data associated with the three tasks required to
complete Phase 2 in the main project plan (electrical work). Additionally, it is assumed that the second
plan of the subproject 340 includes three subtasks associated with the implementation of Task 2 of the
first plan of the subproject, for example, three subtasks associated with the implementation of part of
the electrical work).
As per claim 4, KAJAKHARA discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further to: for each subproject of the plurality of
subprojects: determine the next subproject and a corresponding next performer, based on the
implementation schedule, (KAJAKHARA (RU 2400814 C2): Instead, according to embodiments of the
present invention, changes to the data in the foreground of the project result in the notification to the
owner / manager of the second project plan to enable the owner / manager of the second project plan
to approve the change, reject the change, or submit another change. Accordingly, changes made to the
data in the first project plan are not automatically reflected in the data in the second project plan
without warning the owner / manager of the second project plan. For example, it is assumed that the
main project plan includes three phases associated with housing, where Phase 1 includes general
construction, Phase 2 includes electrical work, and Phase 3 includes plumbing. It is assumed that the
first plan 320 of the subproject includes planning data associated with the three tasks required to
complete Phase 2 in the main project plan (electrical work). Additionally, it is assumed that the second
plan of the subproject 340 includes three subtasks associated with the implementation of Task 2 of the
first plan of the subproject, for example, three subtasks associated with the implementation of part of
the electrical work).
As per claim 6, KAJAKHARA does not disclose:
wherein the implementation schedule coordinates performer availability.
However, KALLEN (RU 2329538 C2) discloses: (FIG. 4C illustrates an example contractor homepage 61c
containing a number of system features available to the contractor. For example, for the first time a
user-contractor accesses the homepage 61c of the contractor, the user-contractor may be asked to
agree to various agreements of a non-employee employee before accessing any other information in the
system. Each of the non-employee employee agreements may be displayed to the user contractor, and
the user contractor may be asked to agree to the terms or otherwise accept the terms of the
agreements before proceeding. Once the contractor user has completed all agreements, the contractor
user can access the time tracking system to enter the contractor's working hours, update the
qualification profile, or provide re-allocation preferences. In addition, ongoing activities related to the
contractor user can also be displayed on the contractor user on the contractor's home page 61c, for
example, the number of interviews or interviews requested by the schedule for additional projects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 7, KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following, however KALLEN discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further to: receive site data providing information
about a site at which the project is to be accomplished; generate site feedback information based on the
plan data; and provide, over the network, the site feedback information for the site, (KALLEN (RU
2329538 C2): After all the ranking elements of the proposal are selected and a weight coefficient is
assigned, the ranger is provided with a list of seller's answers to the request for proposal (step 3320),
and the ranger selects one of the seller's answers to the request for proposal for ranking (step 3325).
After that, the ranking officer selects one of the ranked offer elements (step 3330) to rank the seller's
response data to the request for proposal included in the ranked offer elements (step 3335). The ranger
may rank the seller's response to the request for quotation using any means available to the ranger. In
one embodiment, the ranking provider may pre-set ranking criteria for a particular ranking proposal
item to enable the system to automatically rank seller response data. For example, to rank price
information, a ranger can pre-assign ranks to specific price ranges, and the system can automatically
provide a rank for determining the price of a ranked offer item based on the price presented in the
seller's response to the request for proposal. In other embodiments, the ranger may compare all seller's
offer response data for a particular ranked offer element initially before ranking based on the relative
differences between seller's response data to the request for proposal. In other embodiments, the
ranger may pre-set a checklist or threshold for each rank that will be assigned to a particular ranked
offer item).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in claims 1-3 and is
therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 9, KAJAKHARA discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further to receive an estimated required date and to
generate project implementation data based on the proposals and the estimated required date, (In the
case of choosing the solution "Close the project" with a tool 281, the automated system displays a
screen for entering project estimates (Fig. 29), which technically provides the input of the following data
(entered in the form of text or numbers: - Field 290 Results and Functionality- Field 291 Schedule
Execution - Field 292 Budget Execution - Field 293 Level of interaction in the project team - Field 294
Quality of work and professionalism of the project manager - Field 295 Professionalism and quality of
work of contractors - Field 296 Project End Date Actual).
As per claim 10, KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following, however KALLEN discloses:
wherein the memory and processors are further to receive an estimated a target total value of the
project, (KALLEN: Fig shows three different examples of estimated future project costs for the sector /
family, although only one of them can be displayed at a given time, depending on the request and filters
entered by the user. At the top of the web page 61, analytic data 270 contains estimated monthly future
expenses, which are combined in accordance with the sector / family of the project. In the middle of the
web page, analytic data 270 contains statistics related to estimated future expenses for a particular
project family, for example, an estimated percentage of the total costs that will be made for a specific
project family on a monthly basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 12, KAJAKHARA discloses:
wherein the processors are further to determine the next subproject and a corresponding next
performer, based on the implementation schedule, (KAJAKHARA (RU 2400814 C2): In block 415, the set
start and end dates of the individual phases or tasks that make up the plan of the main project are set,
which go to the owners / managers of the subprojects required to complete one or more phases or tasks
that make up the main project. In block 420, the owners / managers of one or more subprojects create
plans 320, 340 of individual subprojects, shown in FIG. 3, which are required to complete the phases and
tasks required by each subproject to ultimately complete the main project. When prepared plans for
individual subprojects, these project plans are published on the server / in the database 210 of the
project management, as described above according to figure 2; Instead, according to embodiments of
the present invention, changes to the data in the foreground of the project result in the notification to
the owner / manager of the second project plan to enable the owner / manager of the second project
plan to approve the change, reject the change, or submit another change. Accordingly, changes made to
the data in the first project plan are not automatically reflected in the data in the second project plan
without warning the owner / manager of the second project plan. For example, it is assumed that the
main project plan includes three phases associated with housing, where Phase 1 includes general
construction, Phase 2 includes electrical work, and Phase 3 includes plumbing. It is assumed that the
first plan 320 of the subproject includes planning data associated with the three tasks required to
complete Phase 2 in the main project plan (electrical work). Additionally, it is assumed that the second
plan of the subproject 340 includes three subtasks associated with the implementation of Task 2 of the
first plan of the subproject, for example, three subtasks associated with the implementation of part of
the electrical work).
As per claim 13, KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following, however KALLEN discloses:
wherein the memory and processors are further to:
determine, based on timing for performing the plurality of subprojects, one or more of an
implementation schedule and an estimated required date; and access performer data of the performer
of each of the proposals to determine performer availability, (KALLEN (RU 2329538 C2): FIG. 4C
illustrates an example contractor homepage 61c containing a number of system features available to the
contractor. For example, for the first time a user-contractor accesses the homepage 61c of the
contractor, the user-contractor may be asked to agree to various agreements of a non-employee
employee before accessing any other information in the system. Each of the non-employee employee
agreements may be displayed to the user contractor, and the user contractor may be asked to agree to
the terms or otherwise accept the terms of the agreements before proceeding. Once the contractor user
has completed all agreements, the contractor user can access the time tracking system to enter the
contractor's working hours, update the qualification profile, or provide re-allocation preferences. In
addition, ongoing activities related to the contractor user can also be displayed on the contractor user
on the contractor's home page 61c, for example, the number of interviews or interviews requested by
the schedule for additional projects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 14 KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following, however KALLEN discloses:
wherein the performer availability is determined relative to one or more of a timeframe of the project,
the estimated required date, an implementation schedule, and a target total value of the project,
(KALLEN (RU 2329538 C2): FIG. 4C illustrates an example contractor homepage 61c containing a number
of system features available to the contractor. For example, for the first time a user-contractor accesses
the homepage 61c of the contractor, the user-contractor may be asked to agree to various agreements
of a non-employee employee before accessing any other information in the system. Each of the non-
employee agreements may be displayed to the user contractor, and the user contractor may
be asked to agree to the terms or otherwise accept the terms of the agreements before proceeding.
Once the contractor user has completed all agreements, the contractor user can access the time
tracking system to enter the contractor's working hours, update the qualification profile, or provide re-
allocation preferences. In addition, ongoing activities related to the contractor user can also be
displayed on the contractor user on the contractor's home page 61c, for example, the number of
interviews or interviews requested by the schedule for additional projects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 15, KAJAKHARA discloses:
wherein the proposals are each provided by a performer that intends to complete the
subproject and each include value data for completing the subproject and timing data that includes at
least one of a duration for completing the subproject and a schedule of tasks for completing the
corresponding subproject, ((Claim 1: they receive from the owner of the subproject the at least one
independently managed subproject plan submission for consideration of the proposed changes in
relation to this at least one independently managed subproject plan, by means of the project server
device, it is determined whether this proposed change with respect to said at least one independently
managed subproject plan causes a change in said specified date in this at least one independently
managed subproject plan, which depends on the plan of the main project);
As per claim 16, KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following, however KALLEN discloses:
wherein the memory and processors are further to: receive site data providing information about a site
at which the project is to be accomplished; and provide, over the network, site feedback information for
the site, (KALLEN (RU 2329538 C2): After all the ranking elements of the proposal are selected and a
weight coefficient is assigned, the ranger is provided with a list of seller's answers to the request for
proposal (step 3320), and the ranger selects one of the seller's answers to the request for proposal for
ranking (step 3325). After that, the ranking officer selects one of the ranked offer elements (step 3330)
to rank the seller's response data to the request for proposal included in the ranked offer elements (step
3335). The ranger may rank the seller's response to the request for quotation using any means available
to the ranger. In one embodiment, the ranking provider may pre-set ranking criteria for a particular
ranking proposal item to enable the system to automatically rank seller response data. For example, to
rank price information, a ranger can pre-assign ranks to specific price ranges, and the system can
automatically provide a rank for determining the price of a ranked offer item based on the price
presented in the seller's response to the request for proposal. In other embodiments, the ranger may
compare all seller's offer response data for a particular ranked offer element initially before ranking
based on the relative differences between seller's response data to the request for proposal. In other
embodiments, the ranger may pre-set a checklist or threshold for each rank that will be assigned to a
particular ranked offer item).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 17, KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following, however KALLEN discloses:
wherein the site feedback information comprises one or more of: compatibility information for the site,
purchase information for the site, and ownership evidence for the site, (KALLEN: If the designated seller
and buyer cannot agree on the terms and conditions of the project (step 3735), the buyer can re-open
the proposal process to select a new seller based on the seller's points and / or on the basis of the
seller's new responses to requests for proposals (step 3740) However, if the terms and conditions of
the contract are agreed (step 3735), then the buyer and the designated seller can upload various project
tracking parameters to the system (step 3745), such as the project start date, project completion dates,
expected project costs (application amount), distributed resources, a schedule with definitions of the
phases of the project, a schedule for making payments on the project, project delivery / delivery, costs
of project materials and project costs to create a purchase requisition for the project.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the
above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed invention is
merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
As per claim 18, KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following, however KALLEN discloses:
receive financing data providing information about financing for the project, the financing data
including a financing budget for the project; and determine compatibility of the financing budget and
the project, (KALLEN: If the designated seller and buyer cannot agree on the terms and conditions of the
project (step 3735), the buyer can re-open the proposal process to select a new seller based on the
seller's points and / or on the basis of the seller's new responses to requests for proposals (step 3740)
However, if the terms and conditions of the contract are agreed (step 3735), then the buyer and the
designated seller can upload various project tracking parameters to the system (step 3745), such as the
project start date, project completion dates, expected project costs (application amount), distributed
resources, a schedule with definitions of the phases of the project, a schedule for making payments on
the project, project delivery / delivery, costs of project materials and project costs to create a purchase
requisition for the project.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 19, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1,
and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As pr claim 20, KAJAKHARA discloses:
the one or more processors further to: for each subproject of the plurality of subprojects:
receive, over the network, an indication that the performer completed the subproject; receive, over the
network, an acceptance of the completion of the subproject; communicate to a next performer, over
the network, an indication that a next subproject is cleared to begin; receive a clear path approval from
the next performer that the subproject is complete; and initiate a payment for the subproject based on
the proposal of the performer, (KAJAKHARA (RU 2400814 C2): In block 415, the set start and end dates
of the individual phases or tasks that make up the plan of the main project are set, which go to the
owners / managers of the subprojects required to complete one or more phases or tasks that make up
the main project. In block 420, the owners / managers of one or more subprojects create plans 320, 340
of individual subprojects, shown in FIG. 3, which are required to complete the phases and tasks required
by each subproject to ultimately complete the main project. When prepared plans for individual
subprojects, these project plans are published on the server / in the database 210 of the project
management, as described above according to figure 2; Instead, according to embodiments of the
present invention, changes to the data in the foreground of the project result in the notification to the
owner / manager of the second project plan to enable the owner / manager of the second project plan
to approve the change, reject the change, or submit another change. Accordingly, changes made to the
data in the first project plan are not automatically reflected in the data in the second project plan
without warning the owner / manager of the second project plan. For example, it is assumed that the
main project plan includes three phases associated with housing, where Phase 1 includes general
construction, Phase 2 includes electrical work, and Phase 3 includes plumbing. It is assumed that the
first plan 320 of the subproject includes planning data associated with the three tasks required to
complete Phase 2 in the main project plan (electrical work). Additionally, it is assumed that the second
plan of the subproject 340 includes three subtasks associated with the implementation of Task 2 of the
first plan of the subproject, for example, three subtasks associated with the implementation of part of
the electrical work).
Claim(s) 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAJAKHARA (RU
2400814 C2), and further in view of KALLEN (RU 2329538 C2), and further in view of HEATH et al (AU 2015203175 A1), and further in view of RYU (KR 20110123455 A).
As per claim 5, KAJAKHARA does not disclose the following, however, RYU discloses: wherein the
one or more processors are further to: determine if an inspection by an independent inspector is
required; transmit, over the network, an inspection request to the independent inspector; and receive
inspector acceptance of the subproject, (RYU: Preliminary client DB in the same way as the preliminary
proponent DB (1003) Acquisition of each economic organizations and institutions of corporate
information and the information of the particular companies and organizations are exposed to the
media or through a network link, in business partnerships (1002) The building, client registration for
acceptance of the proposals suggested Inspector accept requests from the steps of the proposed
accommodate requests accommodate requests for specific suggestions if any of the information in the
preliminary search client DB on the server by selecting a pre-client is expected to accommodate the
proposed registration of the request by the client DB (1005), received, classified in the same manner as
pre-registered client, DB (1002) registration is being transferred to the client, DB (1005) through an
embodied process of registration information, the registration of pre-Client DB The data will be deleted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by KALLEN in the systems of KAJAKHARA, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, please see the rejection for claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 101 rejection, Applicant traverses this rejection, and requests reconsideration in view of the amendments to the claims and remarks. Applicant specifically argues that amended claim 1 does not disclose a mental process or any other judicial exception. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites several limitations that put it in the “Mental Processes” category. In the present claim, receiving plan data with subprojects and constraints amount to the mental process of reviewing a project; receiving proposals for subprojects amount to the mental process of collecting bids from contractors; associating proposals with a plan amounts to the mental process of showing options to a decision maker; receiving a selections of proposals amounts to the mental process of choosing preferred contractors; analyzing dependencies ad requirements amounts to the mental process of reason through order and constraints; validating compatibility amounts to the mental process of checking rules, codes and feasibility; generating a schedule amounts to the mental process of creating a timeline; aggregating costs amounts to the mental process of adding up prices, and presenting implementation data amounts to the mental process of showing a final plan. Each of these steps is something a human project manager can do mentally or with paper. In addition, although the claims use a “Scheduling algorithm” and a “Schedule matrix”, these are both generic. In addition, the “Schedule matrix” is no more than an organizational aid similar to a table or a spreadsheet. Examiner therefore maintains the claim limitation is a “Mental Process”.
In addition, Applicant argues that the amendments to the claim are directed to a technologically routed, real-time coordination process that cannot be performed in the human mind, including the CPM and its operations, the execution of a scheduling algorithm to dynamically generate an implementation schedule by populating a blank schedule matrix, and generating project implementation data comprising the implementation schedule and aggregated cost estimate. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is still reasonably interpreted as automating project coordination, which is a mental process using generic computing components. As already described in the preceding paragraph, the claim limitations can be performed by a human using mental judgement or pen and paper.
Applicant further argues that the claim include elements that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. However, Examiner maintains her stance for similar reasons stated above in preceding paragraphs.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite a practical application since they recite a real-world, computer-implemented solution to the problem of fragmented and inefficient project coordination. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant identifies a real-world problem, identifying a problem in a particular field does not render a claim non-abstract absent technological solution recited in the claims. Reciting “computer-implemented” does not render the claims as practical. In fact, the present claims merely recite an implementation of the abstract idea using generic computer components such as a processor, memory and network interface. In addition, the claims recite the desired result of coordinating project proposals and generating schedules without reciting how the system achieves a result in a technologically improved manner. Instead of improving the functioning of a computer or another technology, it merely uses the computer as a tool to perform project coordination tasks. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, with regard to Applicant’s argument concerning, Ex parte Desjardins and the December 5th 2025 memorandum, these references are noted, however misplaced. In Ex parte Desjardins, the Board emphasized that eligibility depends on whether the claims themselves recite a specific technological solution. The present claims do not include such limitations. With regard to the Memorandum of December 5th 2025 from Charles Kim, the Examiner’s rejection is consistent with evaluating eligibility based on claim language rather than conclusory characterization of technology or real-world benefit. Applicant characterizes the claims as technologically rooted, however the claims recite generic computing components performing coordination and scheduling functions. In addition, unlike the claims found eligible in Desjardins, the present claims do not improve computer functionality or another technology. The present claims recite the coordination of proposals and generation of schedules, however, these limitations still fall under mental processes as discussed in preceding paragraphs. Furthermore, the memorandum does not remove the requirement that claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer. Therefore, the memorandum is not persuasive since the claims remain directed to an abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include an inventive concept.
Applicant argues that the elements of claim 1 amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Improving conventional project management by automating or unifying tasks constitutes the use of a computer as a tool to perform a known activity more efficiently , which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer technology, but instead applies generic computing components to coordinate project activities. The claimed steps are recited at a high level of generality and describe desired results rather than specific technical means for achieving those results.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed 1/9/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of HEATH et al (AU 2015203175 A1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
January 26, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628