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 .
Claims 3 and 17 have been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/18/2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 4-16, 18-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. Claim 15 recites a system (apparatus/machine) and claim 1 recites a method (process) which all fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claim 15 for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 15: An improvement to the way that…using a critical path method (CPM) schedule to allow a user to schedule a construction project having one or more phases based on dates and durations of construction activities, interdependencies among the construction activities, and milestones associated with the construction project, comprising: a. storing information regarding one or more milestones associated with the construction project; b. storing, information regarding one or more phases associated with the construction project; c. storing, information regarding one or more construction activities associated with the construction project, wherein said construction activity information includes: i. interdependency information associated with the construction activity, and ii. carbon emissions information associated with the construction activity; d. calculating, based on said construction project milestone information, said construction project phase information, and said construction activity information, one or more of: i. a schedule of said construction project; ii. an identity of one or more key construction activities; iii. duration information associated with said key construction activity; iv. date information associated with said key construction activity; v. carbon emission information associated with said key construction activity; vi. duration information associated with said phase; vii. date information associated with said phase; viii. carbon emission information associated with said phase; ix. date information associated with said milestone; and x. carbon emission information associated with said milestone, and constructing based on said schedule of said construction project, said construction project, and constructing based on said schedule of said construction project, said construction project; wherein said carbon emissions information associated with the construction activity is a metric that reflects the environmental impact of the construction activity; and wherein said metric is CO2-equivalent Global Warming Potential.
The underlined claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) for project management. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people because the claimed steps recite managing a construction project to allow a user to optimize scheduling and construction activities. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Alternatively, the underlined claim limitations recite “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, which can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation. The limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea as they can be accomplished by including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion based on using a critical path method (CPM) schedule to allow a user to schedule a construction project having one or more phases based on dates and durations of construction activities, interdependencies among the construction activities, and milestones associated with the construction project.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). Claims 1 and 15 include the following generic additional elements:
a computer system having a memory and processor
A computer program stored in memory and adapted to run on the processor
store (in said memory) information (data)
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and comparing data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Additionally, the limitations pertaining to storing (in said memory) various information (data) amounts to data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, thus does not add any meaningful limitations, and since receiving, storing and transmitting data is considered one of the most basic functions of a computer, these additional elements are deemed as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The legal precedent in Electric Power Group and Ultramercial cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis and display, and requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, are all insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Additionally, re-evaluating the insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, it is determined that they are also well-understood, routine, and conventional, as well. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Ultramercial, Versata, Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory, as well as receipt and transmission of information over a computer network, and updating an activity log are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities) and also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive”).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for dependent claims 2-14, and 16- 30, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and analyzing data, with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in Claims 1-30 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Note: 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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-16, 18-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 11531943) in view of HESS (US 20250112462).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15,
Kumar discloses:
An improvement to the way that computer systems operate [claim 1] and computing system [claim 15] having a memory and processor (Col.9 [62-67] the server computer and each databased implemented using memory) using a critical path method (CPM) schedule to allow a user to schedule a construction project having one or more phases based on dates and durations of construction activities, interdependencies among the construction activities, and milestones associated with the construction project, the improvement comprising a computer-implemented CPM scheduling method that integrates carbon emissions associated with the activities and permitting a user to schedule the project and integrate the carbon emissions of the construction activities (Abstract; optimized schedule for a construction activity to meet a construction objective(s) of a construction project based on carbon footprint considerations, Summary, Figs. 1-5), comprising:
a. storing, by said computer system, information regarding one or more milestones associated with the construction project; b. information regarding one or more phases associated with the construction project; c. information regarding one or more construction activities associated with the construction project, wherein said construction activity information includes: i. interdependency information associated with the construction activity, and ii. carbon emissions information associated with the construction activity (Col.8 [52-67] Construction objectives database stores construction objective, project requirements, activities, Data definition includes, for example, storing parameters for optimization of construction schedule to meet time objectives, optimization for cost objectives, optimization for Carbon footprint objectives, Col.13[5-10] The Supply Chain Analysis Module 214 receives one or more input data sets for analysis of task maps (listing of tasks/schedules), estimated procurement time, historical efficacy analysis, time to value, cost and carbon footprint objectives identified as part of a schedule request for a construction activity of a construction project);
d. calculating, based on said construction project milestone information, said construction project phase information, and said construction activity information: i. a schedule of said construction project; ii. an identity of one or more key construction activities; iii. duration information associated with said key construction activity; iv. date information associated with said key construction activity; v. carbon emission information; vi and vii. duration and date information associated with said phase; viii. carbon emission information associated with said phase; ix. date information associated said milestone and x. carbon emission information associated with said milestone; (Col.8 [62-67] Data definition of construction objectives defines Carbon footprint objectives, Col.14 [22-45] using self-learning multi factor predictive and stochastic analysis to predict the data sets, including carbon footprint and carbon considerations, Col.13 [5-30] The Supply Chain Analysis Module 214 for analysis of task maps (listing of tasks/schedules), estimated procurement time, historical efficacy analysis, time to value, cost and carbon footprint objectives identified as part of a schedule request for a construction activity of a construction project Col.5 [11-33] Artificial intelligence system determines task data and calculates based on task milestones/data an optimized schedule for each construction activity of the project, Col.12 [1-10] Construction progress is monitored and evaluated to determine task and work progress and estimate the percentage of completion of activities/tasks, Col.21 [15-16] each construction activity of a project includes one or more tasks with its start date and duration, and graphical timeline showing completed tasks, and details); and
constructing based on said schedule of said construction project, said construction project (Col.12 [1-10] Construction progress is monitored and evaluated to determine task and work progress and estimate the percentage of completion of activities/tasks, Col.3 [57-60] analyze project timeliness based on requirements from input data set, Col.3 [20-23] generating, based on the task data, a schedule for the construction activity, the schedule achieving the at least one construction objective).
While Kumar discloses all of the limitations above, including carbon emission information associated with construction activity as values and impact on the environment (Col.8 [62-67] Data definition of construction objectives defines Carbon footprint objectives, Col.13 [13-17] Supply Chain Analysis Module 214 identifies an optimum value to procure materials and the optimum time to procure them. The place and time may be optimized to meet construction objectives, cost, and sustainability, see also Col.15 [1-10] efficacy metrics), it may not explicitly disclose, however, HESS discloses:
wherein said carbon emissions information is a metric that reflects the environmental impact of the construction activity; and wherein said metric is CO2-equivalent Global Warming Potential ([0031-0032] the system may identify a carbon impact (e.g., a carbon dioxide output, energy consumption, carbon footprint, and emissions standards such as global emissions factors, and carbon impact may comprise a quantitative or qualitative measure based on carbon dioxide output, energy consumption, carbon footprint, such emission standards such as global emissions factors (e.g., emission factors in grams CO.sub.2e per kilowatt-hour), [0037] the system may present current metrics on power consumption, carbon emissions, [0054-0055] system uses global emissions factors per location to calculate carbon emission values , [0113] system may then determine processing metric, carbon impact, energy consumption metric, [0101] system uses global emissions factors per location to calculate carbon emission values).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the invention, to modify Kumar and incorporate the features above as taught by Hess. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include Hess for the benefit to “enable the system to track energy consumption at the application level, which is useful for optimizing power usage, cost efficiency, and environmental impact in distributed computing environments.” (Hess; [0191]).
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Kumar discloses: wherein the critical path method (CPM) schedule further allows the user to schedule the construction project based on resources, materials, and costs associated with the construction activities, wherein: a. said storing step further includes: i. resource information associated with the construction activity; ii. cost information associated with the construction activity; and iii. material information associated with the construction activity; and b. said calculating step further includes calculating one or more of: i. resource information associated with said key construction activity, said phase, and said milestone; ii. cost information associated with said key construction activity, said phase, and said milestone; and iii. material information associated with said key construction activity, said phase, and said milestone and further including the step of providing resources, materials, and costs associated with the construction activities (Col.5 [11-33] Artificial intelligence system determines task data and calculates based on task milestones/data an optimized schedule for each construction activity of the project, incorporating construction objectives such as budget and cost objectives, Col.2 [33-38] material optimization and sustainability factors are received into the AI system for generating an optimized schedule, Col.5 [44-51] AI system is further configured to determine a variance between actual construction progression and expected construction progression based on AI guidance and to formulate further refinements in the schedule and resourcing for the construction activities based on the determined variance. A revised formulation factors in the variance and looks ahead to the next number of predetermined weeks, (Col. 8 [62-67] Data definition of construction objectives defines Carbon footprint, Col.13 [13-17] Supply Chain Analysis Module 214 identifies an optimum to procure materials ).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Kumar discloses: wherein said metric is 100-year CO2-equivalent Global Warming Potential (Examiner notes this metric data is nonfunctional descriptive label and fails to distinguish over the prior art, Col. 8 [62-67] Data definition of construction objectives defines Carbon footprint data).
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Kumar discloses: the steps of: a. storing industry standard environmental information relating to the construction project; and b. comparing said industry standard environmental information to one or more of said total carbon emission information associated with said key construction activity, total carbon emission information associated with said phase, and total carbon emission information associated with said milestone (Col.14-15 [65-67; 1-10] Accumulated knowledge for comparative analysis inferences algorithms involve computing a schedule performance index, which is a measure of historic and current schedules and comparing it to a current task progression percentage of tasks, and efficacy metrics is one aspect of the system that helps improve efficiencies in a construction process, Col. 8 [62-67] Data definition of construction objectives defines Carbon footprint, Col.14 [3-8] Controller 114 acts as a supervisory controller algorithm that combines all the module outputs (e.g., first intermediary data sets) and optimizes an overall schedule to achieve the intended construction objectives including the carbon considerations data).
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Kumar discloses: wherein the industry standard is one or more of a standard promulgated by a government entity, an industry organization, or an advisory body (Col.12 [43-50] there may be local or federal regulations that may impact the construction, for example, requirements with respect to emission standards. The Regulatory Module 210 analyzes applicable regulations, and other requirements to monitor construction progression in order to ensure compliance).
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Kumar discloses: calculating total carbon emission information as a function of the date (Col. 8 [62-67] Data definition of construction objectives defines Carbon footprint, Col.14-15 [65-67; 1-10] Accumulated knowledge for comparative analysis inferences algorithms involve computing a schedule performance index, which is a measure of historic and current schedules and comparing it to a current task progression percentage of tasks, and efficacy metrics is one aspect of the system that helps improve efficiencies in a construction process,).
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Kumar discloses: wherein the resource information associated with the construction activity includes one or more of staff and energy use (Col.3 [10-15] if incoming data feeds indicate construction completion date may exceed stated end date, then the system analysis, through smart agents, may indicate adding additional construction workers and procuring materials from a nearby supplier at a higher cost to minimize shipping time can help meet the completion date. The system can recommend adding additional workers or procuring material from a nearby supplier to honor the construction schedule).
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Kumar discloses: wherein said carbon emissions information associated with the construction activity includes information associated with said staff's commutation distance and node of transport (Col.3 [10-15] if incoming data feeds indicate construction completion date may exceed stated end date, then the system analysis, through smart agents, may indicate adding additional construction workers and procuring materials from a nearby supplier at a higher cost to minimize shipping time can help meet the completion date. The system can recommend adding additional workers or procuring material from a nearby supplier to honor the construction schedule).
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Kumar discloses: wherein said carbon emissions information associated with the construction activity includes information associated with energy use of level-of-effort activities (Col.4 [1-4] An equipment health metric analysis module configured to analyze equipment needs and procurement factors from at least one input data set of the plurality of input data sets, and a labor efficiency module configured to analyze labor availability).
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Kumar discloses: wherein said carbon emissions information associated with the construction activity includes information associated with the materials used in said construction activity (Col.3 [10-15] if incoming data feeds indicate construction completion date may exceed stated end date, then the system analysis, through smart agents, may indicate adding additional construction workers and procuring materials from a nearby supplier at a higher cost to minimize shipping time can help meet the completion date. The system can recommend adding additional workers or procuring material from a nearby supplier to honor the construction schedule).
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Kumar discloses: wherein said carbon emissions information associated with the construction activity includes information associated with energy use of equipment (Col.4 [1-4] An equipment health metric analysis module configured to analyze equipment needs and procurement factors from at least one input data set of the plurality of input data sets, and a labor efficiency module configured to analyze labor availability).
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Kumar discloses: a. proceeding with said schedule of said construction project, including performing one or more planned construction activities; b. calculating, as of a date on said schedule, total carbon emission information based on said planned construction activity; c. measuring, for an actual construction activity, one or more of duration information associated with said actual construction activity and date information associated with said actual construction activity; d. calculating, based on said construction activity information and said measured date and duration information, total carbon emission information associated with said actual construction activity as of said date on said schedule; e. calculating a sustainability variance equal to the difference between said total carbon emission information based on said planned construction activity and said total carbon emission information associated with said actual construction activity (Col.14-15 [65-67; 1-10] Accumulated knowledge for comparative analysis inferences algorithms involve computing a schedule performance index, which is a measure of historic and current schedules and comparing it to a current task progression percentage of tasks, and efficacy metrics is one aspect of the system that helps improve efficiencies in a construction process).
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Kumar discloses: optimizing sustainability by calculating based on said sustainability variance, said construction project milestone information, said construction project phase information, and said construction activity information, an optimized schedule for said construction project (Col.3 [43-46] generating a schedule comprises: determining a variance data between actual construction and expected construction based on the schedule; using the variance data to refine the schedule, and Col.2 [33-38] material optimization and sustainability factors are received into the AI system for generating an optimized schedule, and Col.5 [44-51]).
Regarding Claim 29,
Modified Kumar discloses: the method permits the user to schedule a plurality of different construction projects and integrate the carbon emissions of the construction activities and the user is one or more of an agency, owner, construction manager, and contractor (Col.8 [52-67] Construction objectives database stores construction objective, project requirements, activities, Data definition includes, for example, storing parameters for optimization of construction schedule to meet time objectives, optimization for cost objectives, optimization for Carbon footprint objectives, Col.13[5-10] The Supply Chain Analysis Module 214 receives one or more input data sets for analysis of task maps (listing of tasks/schedules), estimated procurement time, historical efficacy analysis, time to value, cost and carbon footprint objectives identified as part of a schedule request for a construction activity of a construction project).
Claims 16, 18-28 and 30 are rejected with the same reasoning and rationale encompassed in respective Claims 2-14 and 29 above.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been considered however they are found to be unpersuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, the Applicant’s assertion that the claimed invention integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further argues based on submitted amendment:
PNG
media_image1.png
206
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, 2025 WL 3095778 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025) (Appeals Review Panel decision) (precedential), the Board vacated a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Appeals Review Panel determined the claims reflected “an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates” and, therefore, integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. Desjardins, 2025 WL 2095778, at *4. In Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit held “claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment” are not patent eligible. Id. at 1211. In Recentive, the patent owner conceded “‘the patents do not claim the machine learning technique itself,’ . . . but instead ‘claim[] the application of the machine learning technique to the specific context[s]’ of event scheduling and network map creation.” Id. at 1210. As stated in Ex parte Desjardins, “the Specification alone is insufficient to support a patent eligibility determination, absent a subsequent determination that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, 2025 WL 3095778, at *4 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025). The focus of the claims is the abstract idea of processing information—turning user-provided input into user-tailored output—and not any improved concrete tools or methods by which that processing functionality is achieved. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Thus here, as in Electric Power, ‘the focus of the claims is not on . . . an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354)). Here, claim 1 is not similar to the claim at issue in Desjardins, which was directed to an “improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates” that would make it patent eligible.
The claimed additional elements recited above amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Regarding the prior art rejection, Applicant asserts that carbon emission information disclosed in Kumar is not exclusively focusing on the sustainability, however Examiner disagrees. The claimed invention merely provides this information as the type of data being carbon emission information for a construction project, without specifying how the carbon emission is being implemented to manage and track the environmental impact of the project, other than being used alongside other types of data being listed as a laundry list of data which fails to alter implicitly or explicitly the functionality of how to calculate construction phase information using different types of information, therefore based on the new amendment all of this information is being used based on said schedule of said construction project, and no specific manner of implementing carbon emission data to tangibly track or execute the analysis of any sustainability or environmental impact other than incorporating all various data factors into the critical path method schedule. Furthermore, the rejection has been updated to address the amendments. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive and does not overcome the prior art rejections.
Conclusion
Soccorsy US 20250088495 ([0119] activity metric, which can correspond to a magnitude (e.g., an amount of environmental impact) corresponding to that activity. [0124] consumption values and the carbon footprint values can be provided to the user on a per-activity basis).
Swierc (US 20200082289) Carbon emission predictor to estimate the quantity of carbon emissions.
Pink (US 20140350985) Systems for providing integrated critical path method schedule management & data analytics.
Clark (US 20110060614) System and Method for Managing Sustainability for an Organization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights