DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS section must be updated. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12094014 (‘014).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Independent claims 1, 11 and 19 of the current application correspond to independent claims 1, 12, and 18 of ’014, respectively. Independent claims 1, 11 and 19 of the current application are merely broader versions of the corresponding independent claims in ‘014, therefore the claims under examination are anticipated by the reference claims. Additionally, dependent claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20 recite elements found in the independent and/or dependent claims of ‘014.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, computing platform claims 1-10 are directed to a network interface; at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer-readable medium claims 11-18 are directed to program instructions, and method claims 19 and 20 are directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a machine, manufacture, and process, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite Dynamic Pull Planning, including identifying, providing, receiving, and generating steps.
The limitations of identifying, providing, receiving, and generating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite identify project tasks that can be commenced earlier than scheduled, and for each identified task, (i) recommend a new start date, and (ii) predict a schedule impact on a master project schedule if the task is commenced on the new start date; provide data defining an update to a master schedule for a given construction project, wherein the master schedule comprises a plurality of tasks each having an initial start date; receive data indicating (i) one or more candidate tasks that have each been identified, as a result of the update, as available to be nominated for commencement earlier than scheduled, (ii) for each candidate task, a suggested new start date that is earlier than the initial start date, and (ii) for each candidate task, a predicted schedule impact on the master schedule if the candidate task is commenced on the new start date instead of the initial start date; and generate a recommendation that is to be displayed to a user, the recommendation comprising: a representation of each candidate task that is selectable to nominate the candidate task for commencement earlier than scheduled; and for each candidate task, an indication of (i) the initial start date, (ii) the suggested new start date for commencing the candidate task earlier than scheduled, and (iii) the predicted schedule impact on the master schedule if the candidate task is commenced on the new start date instead of the initial start date.
That is, other than reciting a network interface, at least one processor, and a machine learning model, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a network interface, at least one processor, and a machine learning model. The network interface, at least one processor, and machine learning model in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a network interface, at least one processor, and a machine learning model amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, and importantly, while the independent claims recite “recurrently train[ing] a machine learning model”, there is no initial training of the machine learning model, nor any claim language directed to any purported improvement of the recurrently trained machine learning model, based on, as an example, specific feedback.
Moreover, and also importantly, method claims 19 and 20 fail to recite any computing component (e.g., at least one processor) implementing the method steps in the body of the claim.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-4 recite additional determining steps. Claims 5-7 recite additional receiving, updating, displaying, generating, and updating steps. Claims 8-10 recite additional displaying, receiving, determining, and generating steps Similarly, dependent claims 12-18 and 20 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a network interface, at least one processor, and a machine learning model.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0041 of the specification, “computing platform 200 may generally comprise one or more computer systems (e.g., one or more servers), and these one or more computer systems may collectively include at least a processor 202, data storage 204, and a communication interface 206, all of which may be communicatively linked by a communication link 208 that may take the form of a system bus, a communication network such as a public, private, or hybrid cloud, or some other connection mechanism.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Conclusion
With respect to independent claims 1, 11 and 19, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach inter alia, based on historical data including schedule data and schedule update data, recurrently train a machine learning model that functions to identify project tasks that can be commenced earlier than scheduled, and for each identified task, (i) recommend a new start date, and (ii) predict a schedule impact on a master project schedule if the task is commenced on the new start date; provide, as input to the machine learning model, data defining an update to a master schedule for a given construction project, wherein the master schedule comprises a plurality of tasks each having an initial start date; receive, as output from the machine learning model, data indicating (i) one or more candidate tasks that have each been identified, as a result of the update, as available to be nominated for commencement earlier than scheduled, (ii) for each candidate task, a suggested new start date that is earlier than the initial start date, and (ii) for each candidate task, a predicted schedule impact on the master schedule if the candidate task is commenced on the new start date instead of the initial start date; and based on the output provided by the machine learning model, generate a recommendation that is to be displayed to a user, the recommendation comprising a representation of each candidate task that is selectable to nominate the candidate task for commencement earlier than scheduled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 April 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights