The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 09/19/2024, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 18890240.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 09/19/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed 02/11/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 18890240 filed 09/19/2024 is a Continuation of 17682663, filed 02/28/2022, now U.S. Patent # 12099946 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein; 17682663 is a Continuation of 16878339, filed 05/19/2020, now U.S. Patent # 11263565.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12099946 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite substantially similar limitations as follows: receive, from a client station, (i) a first request to create a lookahead schedule for a construction project and (ii) timeline information for the lookahead schedule; based on (i) the first request and (ii) a master schedule for the construction project comprising a set of master-schedule tasks, create the lookahead schedule that comprises a set of tasks that are, based on the timeline information, selected from the set of master- schedule tasks; receive, from the client station, a second request to modify the lookahead schedule, the second request comprising an indication to edit a given task of the set of tasks; after receiving the second request, edit a data record for the given task to thereby modify the lookahead schedule to a modified lookahead schedule; compare the modified lookahead schedule to the master schedule; and cause the client station to present a user-interface view that provides a representation of the modified lookahead schedule, the representation comprising (i) a first visual representation of schedule information for the given task that is based on a data record of the given task in the master schedule and (ii) a second visual representation for the given task that is based on the edited data record for the given task in the modified lookahead schedule.
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 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In adhering to the 2019 PEG, Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, the claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
A computing system comprising: at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; at least one processor; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to: receive, from a client station, (i) a first request to create a lookahead schedule for a construction project and (ii) timeline information for the lookahead schedule; based on (i) the first request and (ii) a master schedule for the construction project comprising a set of master-schedule tasks, create the lookahead schedule that comprises a set of tasks that are, based on the timeline information, selected from the set of master- schedule tasks; receive, from the client station, a second request to modify the lookahead schedule, the second request comprising an indication to edit a given task of the set of tasks; after receiving the second request, edit a data record for the given task to thereby modify the lookahead schedule to a modified lookahead schedule; compare the modified lookahead schedule to the master schedule; and cause the client station to present a user-interface view that provides a representation of the modified lookahead schedule, the representation comprising (i) a first visual representation of schedule information for the given task that is based on a data record of the given task in the master schedule and (ii) a second visual representation for the given task that is based on the edited data record for the given task in the modified lookahead schedule.
[or]
A non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer- readable medium is provisioned with program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing system to: receive, from a client station, (i) a first request to create a lookahead schedule for a construction project and (ii) timeline information for the lookahead schedule; based on (i) the first request and (ii) a master schedule for the construction project comprising a set of master-schedule tasks, create the lookahead schedule that comprises a set of tasks that are, based on the timeline information, selected from the set of master-schedule tasks; receive, from the client station, a second request to modify the lookahead schedule, the second request comprising an indication to edit a given task of the set of tasks; after receiving the second request, edit a data record for the given task to thereby modify the lookahead schedule to a modified lookahead schedule; compare the modified lookahead schedule to the master schedule; and cause the client station to present a user-interface view that provides a representation of the modified lookahead schedule, the representation comprising (i) a first visual representation of schedule information for the given task that is based on a data record of the given task in the master schedule and (ii) a second visual representation for the given task that is based on the edited data record for the given task in the modified lookahead schedule.
[or]
A method carried out by a client device, the method comprising: receiving, from a client station, (i) a first request to create a lookahead schedule for a construction project and (ii) timeline information for the lookahead schedule; based on (i) the first request and (ii) a master schedule for the construction project comprising a set of master-schedule tasks, creating the lookahead schedule that comprises a set of tasks that are, based on the timeline information, selected from the set of master-schedule tasks; receiving, from the client station, a second request to modify the lookahead schedule, the second request comprising an indication to edit a given task of the set of tasks; after receiving the second request, editing a data record for the given task to thereby modify the lookahead schedule to a modified lookahead schedule; comparing the modified lookahead schedule to the master schedule; and causing the client station to present a user-interface view that provides a representation of the modified lookahead schedule, the representation comprising (i) a first visual representation of schedule information for the given task that is based on a data record of the given task in the master schedule and (ii) a second visual representation for the given task that is based on the edited data record for the given task in the modified lookahead schedule.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions). Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor and/or memory medium is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic processor and/or memory medium limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, cause the client station to present a first user-interface view that provides a representation of the lookahead schedule by a processor and/or memory medium is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B.
Per Step 2B, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: processor and memory medium. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, cause the client station to present a first user-interface view that provides a representation of the lookahead schedule by a processor and/or memory medium is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶46 wherein “Processor 202 may comprise one or more processor components, such as general-purpose processors (e.g., a single- or multi-core microprocessor), special-purpose processors”. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, 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.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mar et al. (US 20020078236 A1) hereinafter referred to as Mar in view of Korupolu et al. (US 20080262890 A1) hereinafter referred to as Korupolu.
Mar teaches:
Claim 1. A computing system comprising:at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium;at least one processor; andprogram instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to (Fig. 1 and ¶0114 Software instructions which cause a date processor to perform sub-method 300, together with the date processor on which they are run may be called a means for collapsing a plurality of mini-schedules into a master schedule. The software instructions themselves may be termed software means for collapsing a plurality of mini-schedules into a master schedule):
receive, from a client station, (i) a first request to create a lookahead schedule for a construction project and (ii) timeline information for the lookahead schedule (¶0086-0087 An event data record can only be referenced in a TPDR if the event data record's overall start time is earlier or the same as the TPDR's start time. Similarly, an event data record can only be referenced in a TPDR if the event data record's overall end time is later or the same as the TPDR's end time. Those individuals skilled in the art will appreciate that other data record formats can be defined without changing the essential nature of the invention. As shown in FIG. 4, a method 100 according to the invention starts by taking all mini-schedules associated with each of N resources and collapsing those mini-schedules into a master schedule for each resource (sub-method 300). The method continues by collapsing the N resource master schedules into a single universal master schedule (sub-method 400). The method concludes by iterating through each time period in the universal master schedule to identify sets of concurrent events (sub-method 500);
based on (i) the first request and (ii) a master schedule for the construction project comprising a set of master-schedule tasks, create the lookahead schedule that comprises a set of tasks that are, based on the timeline information, selected from the set of master- schedule tasks (¶0103 In this situation, the current TPDR is replaced with two modified versions of the current TPDR. The first modified version differs from the current TPDR in that its end time is set to the overall start time of the event. The second modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that its start time is set to the overall start time of the event. This may be implemented, for example, by cloning the current TPDR, modifying the current TPDR and the cloned copy of the TPDR to yield the first and second modified versions of the current TPDR and then inserting the modified clone copy of the current TPDR is inserted into the resource's master schedule data structure. The second modified version of the current TPDR is made to reference the event data record as described below);
receive, from the client station, a second request to modify the lookahead schedule,the second request comprising an indication to edit a given task of the set of tasks (¶0094 In this situation, two modified versions of the current TPDR are created and saved in the master schedule data record for the resource in place of the current TPDR. A first modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that its end time is set to the overall end time of the event. A second modified version of the current TPDR differs from the original in that its start time is set to the overall end time of the event. In practice, this can be done by cloning (i.e. making a copy of) the current TPDR, modifying the current TPDR and the copy of the current TPDR to yield the first and second modified versions of the current TPDR and then saving the modified copy in the master schedule data structure. The first modified version of the TPDR is made to reference the event data record as described below);
after receiving the second request, edit a data record for the given task to thereby modify the lookahead schedule to a modified lookahead schedule compare the modified lookahead schedule to the master schedule (¶0092 For each event, the master schedule data structure for the resource is accessed using the start time of the event to retrieve the TPDR whose period includes the event's overall start time (the current TPDR). The event's overall start time is compared to the current TPDR's start time. The event's overall end time is compared to the current TPDR's end time. One of six situations can occur as follows: 1. The event's overall start time is identical to the start time of the current TPDR and the event's overall end time is earlier than the end time of the current TPDR. In this case, as shown in FIG. 5A, the overall time period of the event corresponds to a leading part of the current TPDR's time period. In this situation, two modified versions of the current TPDR are created and saved in the master schedule data record for the resource in place of the current TPDR. A first modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that its end time is set to the overall end time of the event. A second modified version of the current TPDR differs from the original in that its start time is set to the overall end time of the event.); and
cause the client station to present a user-interface view that provides a representation of the modified lookahead schedule, the representation comprising (i) a first visual representation of schedule information for the given task that is based on a data record of the given task in the master schedule and (ii) a second visual representation for the given task that is based on the edited data record for the given task in the modified lookahead schedule (Figs. 5A-F and ¶0104 6. The event's overall start time is later than the TPDR's start time and the event's overall end time is later than the TPDR's end time. In this case, as shown in FIG. 5F, the overall time period of the event partially overlaps the trailing edge of the time period of the current TPDR. In this situation, the current TPDR is replaced with first and second modified versions of the current TPDR. The first modified version of the current TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that its end time is set to the overall start time of the event. The second modified version of the original TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that its start time is set to the overall start time of the event. This may be implemented, for example, by making a clone of the current TPDR, modifying bothe the current TPDR and the clone to yield the first and second modified versions of the current TPDR and then inserting the clone copy of the TPDR into the resource's master schedule data structure. The second modified version of the current TPDR is made to reference the event data record as described below. In all six situations, each time an event is processed, a TPDR is modified to include a reference to the event.).
Although not explicitly taught by Mar, Korupolu teaches in the analogous art of system for selecting and scheduling corrective actions for automated storage management:
create a lookahead schedule (¶0070 The wrapper 130 and, specifically, a risk-utility calculator 136 incorporated into the wrapper 130 calculates the risk value of selecting a recommended action plan based on the accuracy of the time-series predictions, size of the data moved (in the case of migration) or the dollar amount for additional hardware (in the case of provisioning), and the current system utilization (selecting conservative low-benefit action choices versus speculative high-benefit at 11 am of a weekday, and the inverse at 8 pm of a weekend). Finally, the control engine 110 short-lists the corrective action plans 151-153 with utility benefits proportional to their risk, selects one or more of the action plans 151-153 for each lookahead window, and creates an invocation schedule 161 of the selected action plans based on an estimate of the activation time for the action.).
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 system for selecting and scheduling corrective actions for automated storage management of Korupolu with the system for the enumeration of sets of concurrently scheduled events of Mar for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Mar ¶0031 teaches that there is a need for some method for enumerating sets of concurrent events from schedules for N resources;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Mar Abstract teaches enumerating sets of concurrent events handles single-shot events and recurring events, and Korupolu Abstract teaches a storage management framework that integrates corrective action plans output from multiple different types of planning tools, sorts the different corrective action plans based on utility and risk values and outputs a time-based schedule for implementing one or more of the corrective action plans to resolve identified current and anticipated workload service level objective (SLO) violations; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Mar at least the above cited paragraphs, and Korupolu at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the system for selecting and scheduling corrective actions for automated storage management of Korupolu with the system for the enumeration of sets of concurrently scheduled events of Mar. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Mar teaches:
Claim 2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to create the lookahead schedule that comprises the set of master-schedule tasks that fall within the timeline defined by the timeline information comprises:identifying a subset of the set of master-schedule tasks from the master schedule, wherein each master-schedule task of the subset falls within a timeline defined by the timeline information;andcopying the identified set of master-schedule tasks into the lookahead schedule (¶0101 In this situation, the current TPDR is replaced with three modified versions of the current TPDR. A first modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that the end time is set to the overall start time of the event. A second modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that the start time is set to the overall start time of the event and the end time is set to the overall end time of the event. A third modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that the start time is set to the overall end time of the event. This may be achieved, for example, by cloning the current TPDR twice, changing each of the original and the two cloned copies to create the first, second and third modified versions of the TPDR. The two modified clone copies of the TPDR are then inserted into the resource master schedule data structure. The second modified version of the TPDR is made to reference the event data record as described below ¶0103 In this situation, the current TPDR is replaced with two modified versions of the current TPDR. The first modified version differs from the current TPDR in that its end time is set to the overall start time of the event. The second modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that its start time is set to the overall start time of the event. This may be implemented, for example, by cloning the current TPDR, modifying the current TPDR and the cloned copy of the TPDR to yield the first and second modified versions of the current TPDR and then inserting the modified clone copy of the current TPDR is inserted into the resource's master schedule data structure. The second modified version of the current TPDR is made to reference the event data record as described below).
Mar teaches:
Claim 3. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to edit a data record for the given task comprises:based on the indication to edit the given task, identifying the data record for the given task;and modifying the data record for the given task (¶0094 In this situation, two modified versions of the current TPDR are created and saved in the master schedule data record for the resource in place of the current TPDR. A first modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that its end time is set to the overall end time of the event. A second modified version of the current TPDR differs from the original in that its start time is set to the overall end time of the event. In practice, this can be done by cloning (i.e. making a copy of) the current TPDR, modifying the current TPDR and the copy of the current TPDR to yield the first and second modified versions of the current TPDR and then saving the modified copy in the master schedule data structure. The first modified version of the TPDR is made to reference the event data record as described below ¶0103 In this situation, the current TPDR is replaced with two modified versions of the current TPDR. The first modified version differs from the current TPDR in that its end time is set to the overall start time of the event. The second modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that its start time is set to the overall start time of the event. This may be implemented, for example, by cloning the current TPDR, modifying the current TPDR and the cloned copy of the TPDR to yield the first and second modified versions of the current TPDR and then inserting the modified clone copy of the current TPDR is inserted into the resource's master schedule data structure. The second modified version of the current TPDR is made to reference the event data record as described below).
Mar teaches:
Claim 4. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the indication to edit the given task of the set of tasks comprises an indication to modify a duration of the given task, andwherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to edit a data record for the given task comprises:based on the indication to edit the given task, identifying the data record for the given task; andmodifying the data record for the given task by editing a data field for the duration of the given task based on the indication to modify a duration of the given task (¶0103 In this situation, the current TPDR is replaced with two modified versions of the current TPDR. The first modified version differs from the current TPDR in that its end time is set to the overall start time of the event. The second modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that its start time is set to the overall start time of the event. This may be implemented, for example, by cloning the current TPDR, modifying the current TPDR and the cloned copy of the TPDR to yield the first and second modified versions of the current TPDR and then inserting the modified clone copy of the current TPDR is inserted into the resource's master schedule data structure. The second modified version of the current TPDR is made to reference the event data record as described below).
Mar teaches:
Claim 5. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to compare the modified lookahead schedule to the master schedule comprises:identifying differences in data fields of a data record for the master schedule and data fields of a data record for the lookahead schedule (¶0059 In a complex set of N master schedules, each schedule consisting of prioritized preempting mini-schedules, there will be many different sets of concurrent events that must be validated. Validation is used to detect concurrently scheduled events that are incompatible. A validation method is fed a set of concurrent events. The set of events is analyzed to detect events that are incompatible.).
Mar teaches:
Claim 6. The computing system of claim 1, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to:cause the client station to present a second user-interface view that enables a user to input the first request (¶0094 In this situation, two modified versions of the current TPDR are created and saved in the master schedule data record for the resource in place of the current TPDR. A first modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that its end time is set to the overall end time of the event. A second modified version of the current TPDR differs from the original in that its start time is set to the overall end time of the event. In practice, this can be done by cloning (i.e. making a copy of) the current TPDR, modifying the current TPDR and the copy of the current TPDR to yield the first and second modified versions of the current TPDR and then saving the modified copy in the master schedule data structure. The first modified version of the TPDR is made to reference the event data record as described below ¶0088 In sub-method 300, if a resource has only a single schedule, that schedule is treated as if it is the only mini-schedule for that resource. A separate master schedule is created for each resource. The resulting resource master schedule comprises a sequence of TPDRs ordered by their start dates and times. The periods covered by the TPDRs do not overlap. Each TPDR references those event data records of events that can occur within the time period covered by the TPDR. ¶0093 1. The event's overall start time is identical to the start time of the current TPDR and the event's overall end time is earlier than the end time of the current TPDR. In this case, as shown in FIG. 5A, the overall time period of the event corresponds to a leading part of the current TPDR's time period).
Mar teaches:
Claim 7. The computing system of claim 6, further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to:cause the client station to present a third user-interface view that (i) comprises a representation of the lookahead schedule and (ii) enables the user to input a third request to compare the modified lookahead schedule to the master schedule; and wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to compare the modified lookahead schedule to the master schedule: based on the third request, comparing the modified lookahead schedule to the master schedule (¶0101 In this situation, the current TPDR is replaced with three modified versions of the current TPDR. A first modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that the end time is set to the overall start time of the event. A second modified version of the TPDR differs from the current TPDR in that the start time is set to the overall start time of the event and the end time is set to the overall end time of the event. ... ¶0116 Each one of the remaining N-1 master schedule data structures is processed by taking each of its TPDRs, in order. The current TPDR can be designated as "TPDR A". Each TPDR A is collapsed into the universal master schedule data structure as follows. The universal master schedule data structure is accessed in order to retrieve the TPDR whose time period includes the start time of TPDR A. This TPDR may be called "TPDR B". The start time of TPDR A is compared to the start time of TPDR B. The end time of TPDR A is compared to the end time of TPDR B. Once again, one of six situations can occur as follows..).
Mar teaches:
Claim 8. The computing system of claim 7, wherein the second user-interface view comprises a compare control button that enables a user to input the third request (¶0116 Each one of the remaining N-1 master schedule data structures is processed by taking each of its TPDRs, in order. The current TPDR can be designated as "TPDR A". Each TPDR A is collapsed into the universal master schedule data structure as follows. The universal master schedule data structure is accessed in order to retrieve the TPDR whose time period includes the start time of TPDR A. This TPDR may be called "TPDR B". The start time of TPDR A is compared to the start time of TPDR B. The end time of TPDR A is compared to the end time of TPDR B. Once again, one of six situations can occur as follows).
Mar teaches:
Claim 9. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the timeline information comprises a start date for the lookahead schedule and a duration for the lookahead schedule (¶0043 Another aspect of the invention provides a universal master schedule data structure for use in a computerized system for enumerating sets of concurrent events between a dawn of time and an end of time. The universal master schedule data structure comprises a plurality of time period data records (TPDRs), each comprising a start time of a corresponding time period; an end time of a corresponding time period; and, references to zero or more events capable of occurring within the time period, the events having overall start times and overall end times. The time periods of the time period data records are non-overlapping and continuous between the dawn of time and the end of time. All of the overall start times and all of the overall end times correspond to the dawn of time, the end of time or one of the start times ¶0086-0087 An event data record can only be referenced in a TPDR if the event data record's overall start time is earlier or the same as the TPDR's start time. Similarly, an event data record can only be referenced in a TPDR if the event data record's overall end time is later or the same as the TPDR's end time. Those individuals skilled in the art will appreciate that other data record formats can be defined without changing the essential nature of the invention. As shown in FIG. 4, a method 100 according to the invention starts by taking all mini-schedules associated with each of N resources and collapsing those mini-schedules into a master schedule for each resource (sub-method 300). The method continues by collapsing the N resource master schedules into a single universal master schedule (sub-method 400). The method concludes by iterating through each time period in the universal master schedule to identify sets of concurrent events (sub-method 500).
As per claims 10-16 and 17-20, the non-transitory computer-readable medium and method tracks the system of claims 1-7 and 1-4, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1-7 and 1-4 are applied to claims 10-16 and 17-20, respectively. Mar discloses that the embodiment may be found as a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190325089 A1
Golparvar-Fard; Mani et al.
COMPUTATION OF POINT CLOUDS AND JOINT DISPLAY OF POINT CLOUDS AND BUILDING INFORMATION MODELS WITH PROJECT SCHEDULES FOR MONITORING CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS, PRODUCTIVITY, AND RISK FOR DELAYS
US 20140278639 A1
MacGillivray; Sandra Lynne et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTERFACE MANAGEMENT
US 20200233662 A1
Bissonette; Michael M. et al.
SOFTWARE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD
US 20200226305 A1
Trivelpiece; Craig et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING SIMULATIONS OF UNCERTAIN FUTURE EVENTS
US 10510029 B2
Sun; David et al.
Multi-interval dispatch system tools for enabling dispatchers in power grid control centers to manage changes
US 20120215574 A1
Driessnack; John D. et al.
SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR ENHANCED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
US 20100318392 A1
Cassels; Troy et al.
Industrial status viewer system and method
US 7813993 B1
Barto; Larry D. et al.
Method and apparatus for scheduling a resource
US 7499453 B2
Carlson; William S. et al.
Apparatus and methods for incorporating bandwidth forecasting and dynamic bandwidth allocation into a broadband communication system
US 20050222881 A1
Booker, Garry
Management work system and method
US 20050160084 A1
Barrett, Kevin R.
Apparatuses and methods for dynamic creation of phase gantt charts
CHAN A et al.
Management system for mobile device, e.g. mobile phone, has client scheduler module which monitors schedule and performs software configuration action associated with event to configure software on mobile device
NPL
Glenn Ballard
LOOKAHEAD PLANNING: THE MISSING LINK IN PRODUCTION CONTROL
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 PM.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624