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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of amended application S/N 18/745,856 filed on May 21, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 to 12, and 14 to 23 are currently pending with the application.
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 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickinson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0095447), in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,424,545), and further in view of Mukherjee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0365856) hereinafter Mukherjee.
As to claim 1:
Dickinson discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving a candidate event to be stored on a cloud database, wherein the candidate event is provided by a remote data source, and wherein the remote data source generated the candidate event during an offline period when communication between the cloud database and the remote data source was unavailable [Paragraph 0006 teaches changes to data are performed in a local site during an offline session; Paragraph 0007 teaches receiving the edited data at a remote data source for synchronization upon initiation of a subsequent online session];
reconciling the candidate event against the cloud database by determining one of: that no conflicting event was stored on the data bucket during the offline period, or that a conflicting event was stored on the data bucket during the offline period [Paragraph 0007 teaches comparing the edited data with data presently stored at the remote storage site to detect errors; Paragraph 0016 teaches resolving conflicts and errors associated with publication of data to a data source; Paragraph 0086 teaches a conflict is reported when there is a mismatch between the version and the current row version on the data source, therefore, determining that a conflicting event was stored; Paragraph 0104 teaches determining conflicts with modifications made to the same data immediately before the attempted publication, where the user may have performed modifications to the data in an offline session followed by an attempt to publish the data in a subsequent online communication, therefore, determining that a conflicting event was stored];
in response to determining that no conflicting event was stored on the data bucket during the offline period, committing the candidate event to the data bucket (Note: This limitation is not required by the claim, because there is no limitation recited in the claim that requires “determining that no conflicting event was stored…”, only determining, in the alternative, one of: that no conflicting event was stored, or that a conflicting event was stored).
Dickinson does not appear to expressly disclose a cloud database in a data bucket associated with a project; determining that the candidate event impacts one or more of an equipment schedule for an equipment assigned to the project or a personnel schedule for a personnel assigned to the project; in response to determining that the candidate event impacts the equipment schedule, automatically performing one or more of: updating a future availability for the equipment across a plurality of projects or identifying a replacement for the equipment; in response to determining that the candidate event impacts the personnel schedule, automatically performing one or more of: updating a future availability for the personnel across a plurality of projects or identifying a new personnel to be assigned to the project; and automatically updating a projected schedule for the project based upon one or more of the candidate event, the equipment schedule, or the personnel schedule; wherein the projected schedule comprises an estimated completion date for the project.
Lee discloses:
a cloud database [Column 8, lines 34 to 38 teach a cloud database that stores a schedule including a timeline for completing each task of a project];
automatically updating a projected schedule for the project based upon one or more of the candidate event, the equipment schedule, or the personnel schedule [Column 5, lines 41 to 48 teach the updated information may be integrated into the master database to update the schedule of the project with the updated data; Column 11, lines 28 to 35 teach determining whether the data server has received an update regarding the progress of a task of the project from the device, and if so, updating the construction project’s schedule in the cloud database; Column 19, lines 32 to 37 teach once the information is received, the construction project schedule is updated using the updated information in the cloud database]; and
wherein the projected schedule comprises an estimated completion date for the project [Column 4, lines 1 to 8 teach a construction schedule for constructing a building or other structure at a construction site may include numerous tasks and specify specific times when a particular task is to be started and completed (e.g., a start date and a completion date); Column 11, lines 28 to 35 teach updating the construction project’s schedule in the cloud database, based on updates regarding the progress of a task of the project].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Dickinson, by incorporating a cloud database automatically updating a projected schedule for the project based upon one or more of the candidate event, the equipment schedule, or the personnel schedule; and wherein the projected schedule comprises an estimated completion date for the project, as taught by Lee [Column 4, 5, 11, 19], because both applications are directed to data management and synchronization between systems; providing the schedule in a cloud database, and updating a projected schedule based on received updates facilitates the identification of particular tasks sequences, critical paths and longest paths, as well as reveal spatial and temporal relationships of scheduled tasks, allowing a construction worker or construction manager to easily understand what tasks are to be completed during a specified time frame (See Lee Column [8]).
Neither Dickinson nor Lee appear to expressly disclose a data bucket associated with a project; determining that the candidate event impacts one or more of an equipment schedule for an equipment assigned to the project or a personnel schedule for a personnel assigned to the project; in response to determining that the candidate event impacts the equipment schedule, automatically performing one or more of: updating a future availability for the equipment across a plurality of projects or identifying a replacement for the equipment; in response to determining that the candidate event impacts the personnel schedule, automatically performing one or more of: updating a future availability for the personnel across a plurality of projects or identifying a new personnel to be assigned to the project.
Mukherjee discloses:
a data bucket associated with a project [Paragraph 0049 teaches storing user, employee information of employees staffed on a project, project compositions, etc., storing project compositions to various levels of granularity, e.g., multiple ranks within each job function, levels of seniority, all included in the project compositions associated with the project, project specification, e.g., timeline, objectives, etc.];
determining that the candidate event impacts one or more of an equipment schedule for an equipment assigned to the project or a personnel schedule for a personnel assigned to the project [Paragraph 0004 teaches detect a resource modification flag based on dynamically monitoring the project management application; Paragraph 0067 teaches receive information indicating that an employee is sick, on vacation, unable to commute due to inclement weather, or otherwise unable to attend work, as input to the server by a project manager of the project (representing the candidate event), and setting a modification flag indicating a modification to project resources; Paragraph 0068 teaches detecting a resource modification flag];
in response to determining that the candidate event impacts the equipment schedule, automatically performing one or more of: updating a future availability for the equipment across a plurality of projects or identifying a replacement for the equipment; in response to determining that the candidate event impacts the personnel schedule, automatically performing one or more of: updating a future availability for the personnel across a plurality of projects or identifying a new personnel to be assigned to the project (Note: Only one of the alternatives is required, since the determination limitation only requires one of the equipment schedule or the personnel schedule)[Paragraph 0004 teaches in response to detecting the resource modification flag, the computing platform may apply the resource management model to dynamically identify resource reassignments for the first project; Paragraph 0029 teaches team and work assignments may be updated in real time if a member becomes unavailable for unforeseen or other circumstances; Paragraph 0057 teaches performing on the fly resource re-allocation (e.g., allocate a substitute resource due to an absence or other unanticipated event, or the like); Paragraph 0068 teaches in response to detecting the resource modification flag, identifying a resource to reassign to the tasks, by, i.e., identifying one or more resources not previously assigned to the project, hence, identifying a new personnel to be assigned to the project].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Dickinson, by a data bucket associated with a project; determining that the candidate event impacts one or more of an equipment schedule for an equipment assigned to the project or a personnel schedule for a personnel assigned to the project; in response to determining that the candidate event impacts the equipment schedule, automatically performing one or more of: updating a future availability for the equipment across a plurality of projects or identifying a replacement for the equipment; in response to determining that the candidate event impacts the personnel schedule, automatically performing one or more of: updating a future availability for the personnel across a plurality of projects or identifying a new personnel to be assigned to the project, as taught by Mukherjee [Paragraphs 0004, 0029, 0049, 0067, 0068, ], because the applications are directed to data management and synchronization between systems; enabling the identification of events and automatic, real time adjustments of resources in a project enables the identification of optimal resource combinations for projects without the need of manual intervention, as well the optimal adjustment in the event that a previously selected resource becomes temporarily or permanently unavailable, providing thereby conservation of resources in project management, and further, the conservation of processing resources, resulting in reduced costs, delays, and errors across various tasks, projects, and enterprise organizations (See Mukherjee Paras [0003, 0031]).
As to claim 2:
Dickinson discloses:
wherein reconciling the candidate event against the cloud database comprises determining that the conflicting event was stored on the data bucket during the offline period [Paragraph 0104 teaches determining conflicts with modifications made to the same data immediately before the attempted publication, where the user may have performed modifications to the data in an offline session followed by an attempt to publish the data in a subsequent online communication]; and wherein the method further comprises, in response to determining that the conflicting event was stored on the data bucket during the offline period, providing the candidate event to a user account and receiving from the user account an approval or denial to commit the candidate event to the data bucket [Paragraph 0104 teaches determining conflicts with modifications made to the same data immediately before the attempted publication, where the user may have performed modifications to the data in an offline session followed by an attempt to publish the data in a subsequent online communication, where, when a conflict is recognized, a conflict resolution dialog is presented to the user, and determine which data input should be maintained; Paragraph 0105 teaches allowing the user to resolve a conflict in the data by deciding which changes should be persisted, where the user may select to discard the changes (the candidate event) and allow the conflicting event to be persisted in the database, or to approve the changes].
As to claim 8:
Dickinson discloses:
wherein the remote data source comprises a local database instance comprising a copy of at least a portion of information stored on the cloud database, and wherein the method further comprises: the remote data source storing a local copy of the candidate event on the local database instance in response to determining that the communication between the cloud database and the remote data source is unavailable (Note: This limitation is not required by the claim, because a limitation “determining that the communication between the cloud database and the remote data source is unavailable”, is not recited in the claim as presently presented. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the conditions precedent are not met (See MPEP 2111.04(II)). However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation has been addressed in the method claim as if the conditions precedent have been positively recited) [Paragraph 0128 teaches upon detection of an intended or unintended loss of connection between the client database application and the remote data source, the client database application parses the local data storage for the data stored from the remote data source]; and
the remote data source automatically providing the candidate event to a server in response to the communication between the cloud database and the remote data source being restored [Paragraph 0129 teaches data, and the associated change log are automatically published to the remote data source upon detection by the client application that a connection between the client application and the remote data source has been reestablished].
As to claim 10:
Dickinson discloses:
prior to committing the candidate event to the data bucket, cross-checking permissions on the cloud database to determine that a user account associated with the remote data source has permission to amend data on the cloud database [Paragraph 0094 teaches a “permissions” error may be presented to the user if the user’s permissions for exporting data to the specified data source have been revoked or otherwise modified such that the user is no longer allowed to publish data to the specified data source; Paragraph 0111 teaches determining whether any data conflicts will arise, including reviewing properties such as permissions].
Same rationale applies to claims 11, 12, 17, 19, and 20, since they recite similar limitations and are therefore, similarly rejected.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickinson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0095447), in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,424,545), in view of Mukherjee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0365856) hereinafter Mukherjee, and further in view of Burnett et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,824,930) hereinafter Burnett.
As to claim 4:
Dickinson does not appear to expressly disclose identifying a candidate user account associated with submitting the candidate event; identifying a conflicting user account associated with submitting the conflicting event; and determining whether the candidate user account or the conflicting user account comprises greater permissions to write data to the cloud database.
Burnett discloses:
wherein reconciling the candidate event against the cloud database comprises determining that the conflicting event was stored on the data bucket during the offline period; wherein the method further comprises, in response to determining that the conflicting event was stored on the data bucket during the offline period: identifying a candidate user account associated with submitting the candidate event; identifying a conflicting user account associated with submitting the conflicting event; and determining whether the candidate user account or the conflicting user account comprises greater permissions to write data to the cloud database [Column 5, lines 44 to 57 teach the system may determine whether the edits made in the same data file at the fixed cloud-based server system and/or the client device should be accepted based on one or more set of hierarchy rules defining a ranking hierarchy of users operating the fixed cloud-based server system and/or the client device making the edits, where, when a first user at the fixed cloud-based server system deletes a first data file and a second user at the client device updates the same first data file at the same or different time, then the system upon determining whether the first user or the second user has a higher ranking authority based on the hierarchy rules to make any changes to the first data file, changes made by either the first user or the second user to the first data file may be accepted].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Dickinson, by identifying a candidate user account associated with submitting the candidate event; identifying a conflicting user account associated with submitting the conflicting event; and determining whether the candidate user account or the conflicting user account comprises greater permissions to write data to the cloud database, as taught by Burnett [Column 5], because the applications are directed to data management and synchronization between systems; providing conflict resolution based on user accounts’ permissions, and further prioritization techniques, enables bi-directional synchronization of the data between the cloud-based server systems and the client devices in disconnected, intermittent, and limited availability communications environments of the client devices, thereby improving the user’s experience (See Burnett Column 7).
As to claim 5:
Dickinson as modified by Burnett discloses:
determining that the candidate user account comprises the greater permissions to write the data to the cloud database [Column 5, lines 44 to 57 teach determining whether the first user or the second user has a higher ranking authority based on the hierarchy rules to make any changes to the first data file]; and
in response to determining that the candidate user account comprises the greater permissions to write the data to the cloud database, committing the candidate event to the data bucket; wherein the cloud database is an append-only database [Column 5, lines 44 to 57 teach the system may determine whether the edits made in the same data file at the fixed cloud-based server system and/or the client device should be accepted based on one or more set of hierarchy rules defining a ranking hierarchy of users operating the fixed cloud-based server system and/or the client device making the edits, where, when a first user at the fixed cloud-based server system deletes a first data file and a second user at the client device updates the same first data file at the same or different time, then the system upon determining whether the first user or the second user has a higher ranking authority based on the hierarchy rules to make any changes to the first data file, changes made by either the first user or the second user to the first data file may be accepted].
Same rationale applies to claims 14 and 15, since they recite similar limitations and are therefore, similarly rejected.
Claims 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickinson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0095447), in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,424,545), in view of Mukherjee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0365856) hereinafter Mukherjee, and further in view of Soldo et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0342784) hereinafter Soldo.
As to claim 7:
Dickinson discloses:
wherein the candidate event comprises a first update; wherein the method is such that reconciling the candidate event against the cloud database comprises determining that the conflicting event was stored on the data bucket during the offline period; wherein the conflicting event comprises a second update; and wherein determining which of the candidate event or the conflicting event should be stored on the cloud database comprises determining which the first update or the second update has an earlier timestamp [Paragraph 0107 teaches conflicting data between data changes of a subsequent user and data changes of a previous user may be resolved by accepting the most recent data change in time].
Dickinson does not appear to expressly disclose a first timekeeping update for a first personnel associated with the project; and a second timekeeping update.
Soldo discloses:
the candidate event comprises the timecard entry and more specifically comprises a first timekeeping update for a first personnel associated with the project; and a second timekeeping update [Paragraph 0010 teaches supporting a project management enterprise, providing time keeping data for employees, and uploading and storing project data; Paragraph 0016 teaches providing the user with time keeping data for the at least one employee for the project including launching a time sheet module viewable to the user via the graphical user interface; Paragraph 0019 teaches updating employee data for the enterprise including at least time keeping data for the employees and a database programmed to store the project data; Paragraph 0120 teaches a cloud based data tracking system].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Dickinson, by incorporating a first timekeeping update for a first personnel associated with the project; and a second timekeeping update, as taught by Soldo [Paragraph 0010, 0016, 0019, 0120], because the applications are directed to data management and synchronization between systems; incorporating timecard entries and timekeeping updates as additional data types is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Same rationale applies to claim 16, since it recites similar limitations.
Claims 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickinson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0095447), in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,424,545), in view of Mukherjee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0365856) hereinafter Mukherjee, and further in view of Vivadelli et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0278594) hereinafter Vivadelli.
As to claim 9:
Dickinson as modified by Lee discloses:
a cloud database [Column 8, lines 34 to 38 teach a cloud database that stores a schedule including a timeline for completing each task of a project].
Neither Dickinson nor Lee appear to expressly disclose aggregating data from a plurality of different data sources, wherein the data comprises equipment data and personnel data pertaining to the project; generating the data bucket to track the equipment data and the personnel data over time; and assigning permissions to different types of data stored in the data bucket such that a plurality of users of the cloud database have personalized read and write permissions to the equipment data and the personnel data.
Vivadelli discloses:
aggregating data from a plurality of different data sources, wherein the data comprises equipment data and personnel data pertaining to the project [Paragraph 0017 teaches gathering data from a plurality of workplace infrastructure systems, and compiling the data in such a way as to create an insightful composite picture of the actual use of space by workspace and by person; Paragraph 0158 teaches collecting and aggregating information from sensors; Paragraph 0096 teaches inventory component, including integration component, which can store and access information about every reservable resource, whether that resource is (1) physical workspace , such as a cubicle, conference room or training room; (2) a physical item, computer, telephone, writing implements; or (3) services, and information related to each employee];
generating the data bucket to track the equipment data and the personnel data over time [Paragraph 0014 teaches workplace management tools can be used to manipulate resources in real-time, automate inefficient processes, and track and analyze usage patterns, in order to make wise short- and long-term space and resource decisions; Paragraph 0132 teaches resources can be added, viewed, identified, modified and removed; Paragraph 0133 teaches creating allocation groups, which can further incorporate users and resources, where the groups can be representative of projects, i.e., “Project Finance group spaces”]; and
assigning permissions to different types of data stored in the data bucket such that a plurality of users of the cloud database have personalized read and write permissions to the equipment data and the personnel data [Paragraph 0098 teaches employee’s permission designates what the user can access (i.e., read/write), and can be determined on a default basis by the user’s role, or can be customized, and also includes information about specific associations or groups to which the user belongs].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Dickinson, by incorporating aggregating data from a plurality of different data sources, wherein the data comprises equipment data and personnel data pertaining to a project; generating a data bucket comprising information associated with the project for tracking the equipment data and the personnel data over time; storing the data bucket on the cloud database; and assigning permissions to different types of data stored in the data bucket such that a plurality of users of the cloud database have personalized read and write permissions to the equipment data and the personnel data, as taught by Vivadelli [Paragraphs 0014, 0017, 0095, 0096, 0132], because the applications are directed to data management and synchronization between collaboration systems; adapting the use of collaboration systems to integrate project, equipment and employee data, allows businesses to improve inefficient resource distribution methods while providing a facility and/or enterprise-wide view of all its real estate assets, including permanently assigned, collaboration and shared, thereby providing the mechanisms necessary to continually monitor the actual use of space in a transparent and ubiquitous manner (See Vivadelli Paras [0016], [0017]).
Same rationale applies to claim 18, since it recites similar limitations.
Claims 21 to 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickinson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0095447), in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,424,545), in view of Mukherjee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0365856) hereinafter Mukherjee, and further in view of TELATAR et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0350989) hereinafter Telatar.
As to claim 21:
Dickinson does not appear to expressly disclose the candidate event comprises an indication of one or more of a location of equipment assigned to the project, a condition of the equipment assigned to the project, or a personnel assignment of the equipment assigned to the project; and wherein the method further comprises determining if the estimated completion date for the project is shortened, lengthened, or unchanged based upon the equipment status.
Telatar discloses:
the candidate event comprises an indication of one or more of a location of equipment assigned to the project, a condition of the equipment assigned to the project, or a personnel assignment of the equipment assigned to the project [Paragraph 0021 teaches collecting and factoring criteria such as equipment condition]; and wherein the method further comprises determining if the estimated completion date for the project is shortened, lengthened, or unchanged based upon the equipment status [Paragraph 0037 teaches calculate an estimated amount of time to complete the project that can be used to generate the schedule, based on evaluation of tasks, equipment, etc.; Paragraph 0043 teaches generating a project schedule based on received or collected data including resource data, project data, etc.; Paragraph 0032 teaches adjusting the generated schedule in real-time based on received data, and including a projected end date of the project, e.g., running late or behind schedule, etc.; Paragraph 0035 teaches real-time component can receive indicators that can trigger an adjustment or modification to the schedule, or the timeline (e.g., start date, end date, date of completion, etc.) of the project].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Dickinson, by incorporating a candidate event comprising an indication of one or more of a location of equipment assigned to the project, a condition of the equipment assigned to the project, or a personnel assignment of the equipment assigned to the project; and wherein the method further comprises determining if the estimated completion date for the project is shortened, lengthened, or unchanged based upon the equipment status, as taught by Telatar [Paragraphs 0032, 0035, 0037, 0043], because the applications are directed to data management and synchronization between collaboration systems; incorporating equipment or personnel information as additional data types is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
As to claim 22:
Dickinson as modified by Mukherjee discloses:
the candidate event comprises an indication of one or more of a working location of a personnel assigned to the project, a working schedule for the personnel assigned to the project, an availability status of the personnel assigned to the project [Paragraph 0067 teaches receive information indicating that an employee is sick, on vacation, unable to commute due to inclement weather, or otherwise unable to attend work, as input to the server by a project manager of the project].
Neither Dickinson nor Mukherjee appear to expressly disclose determining if the estimated completion date for the project is shortened, lengthened, or unchanged based upon the personnel status.
Telatar discloses:
determining if the estimated completion date for the project is shortened,
lengthened, or unchanged based upon the personnel status [Paragraph 0026 teaches project data can include resource data such as a worker, an employee, equipment, employee information relating to a shift schedule of the employee, an expertise of the employee, a geographic location of the employee, etc.; Paragraph 0043 teaches generating a project schedule based on received or collected data including resource data, project data, etc.; Paragraph 0032 teaches adjusting the generated schedule in real-time based on received data, and including a projected end date of the project, e.g., running late or behind schedule, etc.; Paragraph 0035 teaches real-time component can receive indicators that can trigger an adjustment or modification to the schedule, or the timeline (e.g., start date, end date, date of completion, etc.) of the project].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Dickinson, by determining if the estimated completion date for the project is shortened, lengthened, or unchanged based upon the personnel status, as taught by Telatar [Paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0035, 0043], because the applications are directed to data management and synchronization between collaboration systems; incorporating personnel information as additional data types is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
As to claim 23:
Dickinson as modified by Lee discloses:
the candidate event comprises a task progress [Column 11, lines 28 to 35 teach determining whether the data server has received an update regarding the progress of a task of the project from the device, and if so, updating the construction project’s schedule in the cloud database; Column 19, lines 32 to 37 teach once the information is received, the construction project schedule is updated using the updated information in the cloud database].
Dickinson does not appear to expressly disclose determining if the estimated completion date for the project is shortened, lengthened, or unchanged based upon the task progress.
Telatar discloses:
determining if the estimated completion date for the project is shortened, lengthened, or unchanged based upon the task progress [Paragraph 0029 teaches adjusting the generated schedule based on real-time collected information; Paragraph 0032 teaches adjusting the generated schedule in real-time based on received data, and including a projected end date of the project, e.g., running late or behind schedule, etc.; Paragraph 0035 teaches real-time component can receive indicators that can trigger an adjustment or modification to the schedule, or the timeline (e.g., start date, end date, date of completion, etc.) of the project; Paragraph 0036 teaches tracking progress of tasks or procedures].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Dickinson, by determining if the estimated completion date for the project is shortened, lengthened, or unchanged based upon the task progress, as taught by Telatar [Paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0035, 0036], because the applications are directed to data management and synchronization between collaboration systems; updating the schedule of the project based on additional data enables the system to improve project scheduling (See Telatar Para [0024]).
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to arguments filed on May 21, 2026. Arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered, but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections, as necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
