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 .
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 10/14/2024, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 18914455.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 10/14/2024 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: 18914455 filed 10/14/2024 is a Continuation of 17887888 , filed 08/15/2022 ,now U.S. Patent # 12118485 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein; 17887888 is a Continuation of 16740069, filed 01/10/2020 ,now U.S. Patent # 11416793.
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. U.S. Patent #11416793. 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: detect a change to a first data record associated with a construction project;based on the change to the first data record, determine that a latest cost for a first line item of a second data record that represents a given change event of the construction project should be updated, the second data record indicating (i) an estimated revenue for the first line item of the given change event and (ii) that the estimated revenue for the first line item of the given change event is to be dynamically updated to track the latest cost for the first line item, wherein the latest cost represents a currently available, most-firm cost for the first line item;identify a new latest cost for the first line item of the given change event;based on identifying the new latest cost for the first line item of the given change event:dynamically update the latest cost for the first line item to reflect the new latest cost; anddynamically update the estimated revenue for the first line item to track the latest cost; andcause a client station to display, via a user interface, a visualization of the given change event that includes at least an updated estimated revenue and an updated latest cost.
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 platform comprising:at least one processor;at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; 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 platform to:detect a change to a first data record associated with a construction project;based on the change to the first data record, determine that a latest cost for a first line item of a second data record that represents a given change event of the construction project should be updated, the second data record indicating (i) an estimated revenue for the first line item of the given change event and (ii) that the estimated revenue for the first line item of the given change event is to be dynamically updated to track the latest cost for the first line item, wherein the latest cost represents a currently available, most-firm cost for the first line item;identify a new latest cost for the first line item of the given change event;based on identifying the new latest cost for the first line item of the given change event:dynamically update the latest cost for the first line item to reflect the new latest cost; anddynamically update the estimated revenue for the first line item to track the latest cost; andcause a client station to display, via a user interface, a visualization of the given change event that includes at least an updated estimated revenue and an updated latest cost.
[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 platformto:detect a change to a first data record associated with a construction project;based on the change to the first data record, determine that a latest cost for a first line item of a second data record that represents a given change event of the construction project should be updated, the second data record indicating (i) an estimated revenue for the first line item of the given change event and (ii) that the estimated revenue for the first line item of the given change event is to be dynamically updated to track the latest cost for the first line item, wherein the latest cost represents a currently available, most-firm cost for the first line item;identify a new latest cost for the first line item of the given change event;based on identifying the new latest cost for the first line item of the given change event:dynamically update the latest cost for the first line item to reflect the new latest cost; anddynamically update the estimated revenue for the first line item to track the latest cost; andcause a client station to display, via a user interface, a visualization of the given change event that includes at least an updated estimated revenue and an updated latest cost.
[or]
A method carried out by a computing platform,themethod comprising:detecting a change to a first data record associated with a construction project;based on the change to the first data record, determining that a latest cost for a first line item of a second data record that represents a given change event of the construction project should be updated, the second data record indicating (i) an estimated revenue for the first line item of the given change event and (ii) that the estimated revenue for the first line item of thegiven change event is to be dynamically updated to track the latest cost for the first line item, wherein the latest cost represents a currently available, most-firm cost for the first line item;identifying a new latest cost for the first line item of the given change event;based on identifying the new latest cost for the first line item of the given change event:dynamically updating the latest cost for the first line item to reflect the new latest cost; anddynamically updating the estimated revenue for the first line item to track the latest cost; andcausing a client station to display, via a user interface, a visualization of the given change event that includes at least an updated estimated revenue and an updated latest cost.
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 non-transitory computer-readable 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 non-transitory computer-readable medium limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, display a second interface view by a processor and/or non-transitory computer-readable 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. Therein, 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 non-transitory computer-readable medium. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, display a second interface view by a processor and/or non-transitory computer-readable 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 ¶44 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellini et al. (US 20160162829 A1) hereinafter referred to as Bellini in view of DiTomasso et al. (US 20160132907 A1) hereinafter referred to as DiTomasso.
Bellini teaches:
Claim 1. A computing platform comprising:
at least one processor;at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; 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 platform to (¶0077 The system and its components, such as a server 101, interface 102, schedule engine 103, sales management system 104, and project planning system 105, may include hardware elements, such as one or more processors, logic devices, or circuits…The system may further include a read only memory (ROM) or other static storage device coupled to the bus for storing static information and instructions for the processor. A storage device, such as a solid state device, magnetic disk or optical disk, can be coupled to the bus for persistently storing information and instructions):
detect a change to a first data record associated with a construction project (¶0006 Systems and methods of the present disclosure provide an interface configured to integrate the sales management system with the project planning system. The interface is configured to reflect changes in one system in the other system. In an illustrative example, sales staff at the service provider may sell a variety of options, and provide accurate schedules and quotes, without ever knowing the details of how the schedules and quotes are derived. ¶0194 FIG. 39B is an illustrative block diagram of an example embodiment of updating a project management system with a change resulting from a modification of a quote. An estimation engine 3909 running on the server 3901 can prepare a quote 3911 based on a schedule component 3914. An end user (not depicted in FIG. 39B) can use a user interface 3910 on the server 3901 to change the quote 3911, which can generate a modification 3912. The scheduling engine 3908 on the server 3901 can use the modification 3912 to generate an update 3913. The scheduling engine 3908 may be able to generate the update 3913 using information from the modification 3912, or the scheduling engine 3908 may additionally use information from the schedule component 3914 in order to compare with information from the modification 3912 to generate the update 3913. The interface 3904 can transmit the update 3913 to the sales management system 3902.);
based on the change to the first data record, determine that a latest cost for a first line item of a second data record that represents a given change event of the construction project should be updated, the second data record indicating (i) an estimated revenue for the first line item of the given change event and (ii) that the estimated revenue for the first line item of the given change event is to be dynamically updated to track the latest cost for the first line item, wherein the latest cost represents a currently available, most-firm cost for the first line item (¶0006 Systems and methods of the present disclosure provide an interface configured to integrate the sales management system with the project planning system. The interface is configured to reflect changes in one system in the other system. ¶0194 FIG. 39B is an illustrative block diagram of an example embodiment of updating a project management system with a change resulting from a modification of a quote. …the modification 3912 can contain an indication that a line item has been removed from the quote 3911. The scheduling engine 3908 can create an update 3913 indicating which project task corresponds to the line item that was removed from the quote, and an indication to remove that project task. The interface 3904 can transmit the update 3913 to the sales management system 3902, which may update the sales order to indicate the removal of the task. This may, in turn, affect the invoicing of the task, or update other areas of the sales management system 3902);
identify a new latest cost for the first line item of the given change event (¶0192 FIG. 39A is an illustrative block diagram of an example embodiment of updating a sales management system with a change from a project planning system. A project planning system 3903 can generate a change 3905. The interface 3904 running on the server 3901 can use the change 3905 to generate an update 3907. The interface 3904 may be able to generate the update 3907 using information from the change 3905, or the interface 3904 may additionally use information from the sales order 3906 from a sales management system 3902 in order to compare with information from the change 3905 to generate the update 3907… The interface 3904 can transmit an update 3907 to the sales management system 3902, which may update the sales order to indicate the completion of the task. This may, in turn, enable invoicing of the task, or update other areas of the sales management system 3902. In another illustrative example, the change 3905 can contain an updated schedule. The interface 3904 can compare the updated schedule to the schedule in the sales order 3906 and may discover that a new task has been added on the project planning system 3903);
based on identifying the new latest cost for the first line item of the given change event:dynamically update the latest cost for the first line item to reflect the new latest cost (¶0192 FIG. 39A is an illustrative block diagram of an example embodiment of updating a sales management system with a change from a project planning system. A project planning system 3903 can generate a change 3905. The interface 3904 running on the server 3901 can use the change 3905 to generate an update 3907. The interface 3904 may be able to generate the update 3907 using information from the change 3905, or the interface 3904 may additionally use information from the sales order 3906 from a sales management system 3902 in order to compare with information from the change 3905 to generate the update 3907… The interface 3904 can transmit an update 3907 to the sales management system 3902, which may update the sales order to indicate the completion of the task. This may, in turn, enable invoicing of the task, or update other areas of the sales management system 3902. In another illustrative example, the change 3905 can contain an updated schedule. The interface 3904 can compare the updated schedule to the schedule in the sales order 3906 and may discover that a new task has been added on the project planning system 3903); and
dynamically update the estimated revenue for the first line item to track the latest cost;and cause a client station to display, via a user interface, a visualization of the given change event that includes at least an updated estimated revenue and an updated latest cost (¶0194 FIG. 39B is an illustrative block diagram of an example embodiment of updating a project management system with a change resulting from a modification of a quote. An estimation engine 3909 running on the server 3901 can prepare a quote 3911 based on a schedule component 3914. An end user (not depicted in FIG. 39B) can use a user interface 3910 on the server 3901 to change the quote 3911, which can generate a modification 3912. The scheduling engine 3908 on the server 3901 can use the modification 3912 to generate an update 3913. The scheduling engine 3908 may be able to generate the update 3913 using information from the modification 3912, or the scheduling engine 3908 may additionally use information from the schedule component 3914 in order to compare with information from the modification 3912 to generate the update 3913).
Although not explicitly taught by Bellini, DiTomasso teaches in the analogous art of generating a business forecast:
that the estimated revenue for the first line item of the given change event is to be dynamically updated to track the latest cost for the first line item (¶0025 The described forecasting technology may be useful in a variety of industries, including the services industry and high-tech industries, and may be used to, for example, manage cash to ensure business viability and to, for example, track cash for the planning of future investments. Benefits may include an accurate representation of future cash positions, a removal of latency and promotion of visibility of cash-related transactions, a removal of redundant manual inputs across multiple systems, and real-time analytics based on a level of precision ¶0027 the forecast may start from a foundation of planned events. For example, in a consulting service where services are billed at an hourly rate, a forecast with a low level of accuracy may be generated at a time of contract based on the terms of the contract. The contractual events defined in the contract, such as defined work items, may result in a preliminary (low precision) estimate of potential revenue for the firm. As work on the contract progresses, the forecast may be updated and may become more precise. The forecasting may be automatically updated during the life of the contract, during a specified time period, periodically, and/or in response to an event. 0048 Semantics and machine learning may be applied in determining the amount, timing and appropriate line item for the forecast).
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 generating a business forecast of DiTomasso with the system for interfacing between a sales management system and a project planning system of Bellini 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. Bellini ¶0002 teaches that it is desirable to to ensure that the information in sales management system corresponds to the information in the project planning system;
(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. Bellini ¶0194 teaches updating a project management system with a change resulting from a modification of a quote, and DiTomasso ¶0027 teaches estimates and updates thereof of potential revenue; 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. Bellini at least the above cited paragraphs, and DiTomasso 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 generating a business forecast of DiTomasso with the system for interfacing between a sales management system and a project planning system of Bellini. 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).
Bellini teaches:
Claim 2. The computing platform of claim 1, further comprising 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 platform to:before detecting the change to the first data record:cause the client station to display, via the user interface, one or more data fields for creating a new change event associated with the construction project;based on user input provided via the user interface, receive from the client station an indication of data defining the given change event; andbased on the data defining the given change event, cause storage of the second data record that represents the given change event (¶0158 FIG. 14 is an illustrative example of an example embodiment of a user interface for displaying and modifying a single item of product data. The display 1401 is shown by selecting one of the products 1302 in the display 1301 described previously with respect to FIG. 13. Entry 1402 allows the product ID, which is displayed in column 1303 in FIG. 13, to be modified. Entry 1403 allows the product class, which is displayed in column 1311 in FIG. 13, to be modified. Entry 1404 allows the product price, which is displayed in column 1305 in FIG. 13, to be modified. Entry 1405 allows the product cost, which is displayed in column 1306 in FIG. 13, to be modified.).
Bellini teaches:
Claim 3. The computing platform of claim 2, wherein the data defining the given change event designates the given change event as out of scope, the computing platform further comprising 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 platform to:dynamically update the estimated revenue to track the latest cost for the first line item based on designation of the given change event as out of scope (¶0194 FIG. 39B is an illustrative block diagram of an example embodiment of updating a project management system with a change resulting from a modification of a quote. An estimation engine 3909 running on the server 3901 can prepare a quote 3911 based on a schedule component 3914. An end user (not depicted in FIG. 39B) can use a user interface 3910 on the server 3901 to change the quote 3911, which can generate a modification 3912. The scheduling engine 3908 on the server 3901 can use the modification 3912 to generate an update 3913. The scheduling engine 3908 may be able to generate the update 3913 using information from the modification 3912, or the scheduling engine 3908 may additionally use information from the schedule component 3914 in order to compare with information from the modification 3912 to generate the update 3913).
Bellini teaches:
Claim 4. The computing platform of claim 1, further comprising 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 platform to:determine an estimated markup amount for each respective type of markup fee that applies to the given change event by:identifying a markup rule that is specific to the respective type of markup fee;and applying the markup rule to a respective estimated revenue for each line item of the given change event that meets criteria of the markup rule in order to derive the estimated markup amount for the respective type of markup fee (¶0127 The project planning business process 303e creates a project plan 601h in which every task corresponds to a product from the product data 301. The task uses information from the labor product data 501 to fill in, among other things, the description, budgeted time, billing type, resource type (skill level) required, and arbitrary notes for the task. ¶0157 FIG. 13 is an illustrative example of an example embodiment of a user interface for displaying and modifying product data. The display 1301 shows a list of the product data, with a single line for each product 1302. The columns 1303-1311 display information about each product. Column 1303 displays the product ID. Column 1304 displays the description of the product. Column 1305 displays the price of the product to the customer 206. Column 1306 displays the cost of the product from the vendor 205. Column 1307 displays whether or not the product is taxable. Column 1308 displays the type of the product, column 1309 displays the category of the product. and column 1310 displays the sub-category of the product. Together, the type, category, and sub-category of the product displayed by columns 1308-1310 affect the way the product is treated by the rest of the resource planning system 204. Column 1311 displays the class of the product as described previously with respect to FIG. 5).
Bellini teaches:
Claim 5. The computing platform of claim 4, wherein the markup rule comprises a given markup percentage that is to be applied to the respective estimated revenue for each line item of the given change event that includes a given cost type that identifies a type of cost to be incurred when performing work activity that is a subject of the line item (¶0127 The project planning business process 303e creates a project plan 601h in which every task corresponds to a product from the product data 301. The task uses information from the labor product data 501 to fill in, among other things, the description, budgeted time, billing type, resource type (skill level) required, and arbitrary notes for the task. ¶0157 FIG. 13 is an illustrative example of an example embodiment of a user interface for displaying and modifying product data. The display 1301 shows a list of the product data, with a single line for each product 1302. The columns 1303-1311 display information about each product. Column 1303 displays the product ID. Column 1304 displays the description of the product. Column 1305 displays the price of the product to the customer 206. Column 1306 displays the cost of the product from the vendor 205. Column 1307 displays whether or not the product is taxable. Column 1308 displays the type of the product, column 1309 displays the category of the product. and column 1310 displays the sub-category of the product. Together, the type, category, and sub-category of the product displayed by columns 1308-1310 affect the way the product is treated by the rest of the resource planning system 204. Column 1311 displays the class of the product as described previously with respect to FIG. 5).
Bellini teaches:
Claim 6. The computing platform of claim 1, further comprising 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 platform to:determine a change order markup amount for each respective type of markup fee that applies to the given change event by:identifying a markup rule that is specific to the respective type of markup fee and a given change order that includes one or more line items of the given change event;andapplying the markup rule to a respective change order revenue for each line item included in the given change order and thereby deriving the change order markup amount for the respective type of markup fee (¶0106 In some embodiments, product data 301 can include a third class for agreements 503, which describes products that are repeated or periodic services. Repeated or periodic services can refer to actions taken by a person on a regular basis, and can be covered by service agreements that are entered into between the service provider 201 and the customer 206. Examples of agreements 503 can include agreements to periodically clean a piece of equipment at the site of the customer 206; install updates for a commercial third party software application as they are released; and provide a network routing solution to meet a written specification, and continually update the network to meet the written specification as the environment changes. Agreements products 503 are can be invoiced at a fixed fee for a given time period, such as monthly or yearly).
Bellini teaches:
Claim 7. The computing platform of claim 1, further comprising 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 platform to:determine a latest markup amount for each respective type of markup fee that applies to the given change event by:identifying a respective latest markup amount for each line item included in the given change event, wherein the respective latest markup amount for each line item comprises either (1) a change order markup amount for the line item, or (2) an estimated markup amount for the line item; andaggregate the respective latest markup amounts for the line items included in the given change event and thereby derive the latest markup amount for the respective type of markup fee (¶0105 Inventory parts 504 can be parts 502 that the service provider 201 orders ahead of time and keeps in stock, which can make it convenient and quick to deliver the inventory parts 505 to a customer 206. Non-inventory parts 505 can be parts 502 that the service provider orders from a vendor 205 on an as-needed basis. The vendor 205 can delivers the parts 502 directly to the customer 206. The vendor 205 can also deliver the parts 502 to the service provider 201, who can then deliver them to the customer 206. Inventory parts 504 can be invoiced with a larger markup than non-inventory parts 505, because the service provider may need to pay the inventory and carrying costs associated with the inventory parts 504).
Bellini teaches:
Claim 8. The computing platform of claim 1, wherein the new latest cost for the first line item comprises a quoted cost to complete work activity that is a subject of the first line item, and wherein the updated latest cost for the first line item comprises an amount corresponding to the quoted cost (¶0005 The sales management system and project planning system may also facilitate generating quotes for customers with accurate estimates. The cost estimates can include costs for parts, service, and agreements. The parts costs can be quoted as a bill of materials. The agreements costs can be quoted as service level agreements with periodic costs. The service costs can depend on the schedule and can be quoted a number of ways, such as hourly costs, fixed job costs, salary plus overtime, and so on. ¶0092 The quoting process 303a provides a quote to a customer 206 with the cost of a specific set of goods and services to be provided by the service provider 201. The sales management process 303b helps the marketing/sales department 302a to organize their activities efficiently and manage their activities with the customers 206. The procurement process 303c orders, receives, and processes goods and services from the vendors 205).
Bellini teaches:
Claim 9. The computing platform of claim 1, wherein the new latest cost for the first line item comprises a commitment cost associated with a subcontract for completing work activity that is a subject of the first line item, and wherein the updated latest cost for the first line item comprises an amount corresponding to the commitment cost (¶0092 The contract management process 303h can negotiate the terms of agreements between the service provider 201 and the customers 206, and can also negotiate the terms of agreements between the service provider 201 and the vendors 205. The maintenance process 303i facilitates the process that includes completing, by the service provider 201 in a timely manner, periodic tasks required by the customers 206. ¶0129 The contract management business process 303h creates agreements 601g when a labor product 501 is delivered by an outside vendor 205 rather than a staff member 202 of the service provider 201. In this case, the contract management is to set up an agreement 601g with the vendor 205 specifying the terms for the delivery of the labor product 501).
Bellini teaches:
Claim 10. The computing platform of claim 1, wherein data defining the given change event includes an estimated cost to complete work activity that is a subject of the first line item, and wherein the latest cost for the first line item comprises the estimated cost for the first line item (¶0071 By organizing the schedule phases in this manner to represent the schedule within the project planning system, the project planning system can generate estimates of time and cost while integrating functions, data, and propagating updates between the sales management system and the project planning system).
Bellini teaches:
Claim 11. The computing platform of claim 1, further comprising 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 platform to: receive, from the client station, an indication that a latest revenue for the first line item is to be dynamically updated to track the estimated revenue; based on dynamically updating the estimated revenue for the first line item to track the latest cost, determine that a new latest revenue is available for the first line item; and based on determining that the new latest revenue is available for the first line item, dynamically update the latest revenue for the first line item to track the new latest revenue (¶0011 In some embodiments, the interface is further configured to receive, from the project planning system, an indication of a change to the schedule component. The interface can be configured to transmit to the sales management system, responsive to the indication, information about the change to the schedule component to initiate an update to the sales order ¶0102 FIG. 4H illustrates an exemplary interaction between corporate management 302h and various business processes including, e.g., at least one of the business processes 303a-303k. Corporate management 302h can use information from business processes 303a-303k to track and understand the operation of the business of the service provider 201 as a whole).
As per claims 12-19 and 20, the non-transitory computer-readable medium and method tracks the computing platform of claims 1-7,11 and 1, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1-7,11 and 1 are applied to claims 12-19 and 20, respectively. Bellini discloses that the embodiment may be found as a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 1 and ¶0024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200042938 A1
Goncalves; Joao P. et al.
Computational Efficiency in Providing a Price Quotation for a Transportation Service
US 20170308064 A1
PLATT; George
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONSUMER HOME PROJECTS ORDERING AND FABRICATION
US 20170011318 A1
Vigano; Simone et al.
AUTOMATED MONITORING AND SERVICE PROVIDER RECOMMENDATION PLATFORM FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT
US 20160210572 A1
Shaaban; Ahmed Farouk et al.
System and method for budgeting and cash flow forecasting
WO 2016004132 A1
SHAABAN A et al.
Billing system for providing standard billing for professionals in e.g. professional firms, has data storage for providing entry of time worked data by timekeeper, where system generates periodic note to customer in currencies
US 20140229213 A1
Matthews; Adam John et al.
AUTOMATED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR JOB ESTIMATING, SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATION
US 20100191611 A1
Biro; Janos
PORTABLE ELECTRONIC CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATOR
US 20080270256 A1
Caballero; Richard Joseph et al.
User Interface For A Complex Order Processing System
NPL
ABIOYE, Sofiat O. et al.
Artificial Intelligence in the Construction Industry
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