DETAILED ACTION
The following is responsive to original communications filed on November 5, 2024 and subsequent communications filed on January 13, 2025. Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–2, 7, 13–14, and 18–19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 13, and 18 recite “based on the determination [[that]] that the first user is authorized”. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “based on the determination that that the first user is authorized” in order to address the inadvertent typographical error.
Claims 1, 13, and 18 further recite an element to “create the project-level WBS, wherein the created project-level WBS comprises”. However, the claims previously and subsequently recite “the project-level WBS”. As a result, Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite an element to “create the project-level WBS, wherein the
Claims 2, 14, and 19 recite “the created organization-level WBS” as the final element in each claim. However, the claims previously recite “an organization-level WBS” and “the organization-level WBS”. As a result, Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “the created organization-level WBS” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 7 does not end in a period. MPEP 608.01(m) indicates that “[e]ach claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.” In view of MPEP 608.01(m), Examiner recommends amending the claim to end in a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 13, and 18 recite “the determination” in the element reciting “based on the determination that that the first user is authorized”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the objection raised above, the claims are interpreted as reciting “based on determining that the first user is authorized”.
In view of the above, claims 1, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–12, 14–17, and 19–20, which depend from claims 1, 13, and 18, inherit the deficiencies described above with respect to claims 1, 13, and 18. As a result, claims 2–12, 14–17, and 19–20 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 further recites “the available WBS codes in the set”. Although claim 6 previously recites “the set of available WBS codes”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the available WBS codes in the set”.
For purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as reciting “based on the access permission data, determine that the second user is authorized to access a subset of the set of available WBS codes
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements to “receive a request to create a project-level Work Breakdown Structure ("WBS") for a given construction project”; “determine that the first user is authorized to create the project-level WBS for the given construction project”; “based on the determination that that the first user is authorized to create the project-level WBS: generate (i) an initial version of a WBS code structure for the project- level WBS that comprises a sequence of two or more WBS variables that are concatenated together, and (ii) respective initial sets of available values for WBS variables in the sequence of two or more WBS variables”; “enable[] the first user to provide user inputs for modifying the initial version of the WBS code structure and the respective initial sets of available values for the WBS variables in the sequence of two or more WBS variables”; “based on the user inputs provided by the first user, receive data defining modifications to the initial version of the WBS code structure and the respective initial sets of available values for the WBS variables in the sequence of two or more WBS variables”; “create the project-level WBS, wherein the created project-level WBS comprises:(i) a modified version of the WBS code structure for the project- level WBS, (ii) respective modified sets of available values for a first subset of the WBS variables in the sequence of two or more WBS variables, and (iii) the respective initial sets of available values for a second subset of the WBS variables in the sequence of two or more WBS variables, wherein the modified version of the WBS code structure, the respective modified sets of available values for the first subset of the WBS variables, and the respective initial sets of available values for the second subset of the WBS variables collectively define a set of available WBS codes for the given construction project”; and “after creating the project-level WBS, assign, to a given line item associated with a given task related to the given construction project, a given WBS code that is selected from the set of available WBS codes for the given construction project.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for managing a work breakdown structure associated with a project. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 13 and 18 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 13 and 18 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–12, 14–17, and 19–20 further describe the process for managing a work breakdown structure associated with a project and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–12, 14–17, and 19–20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing platform, a network interface, at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, program instructions, a first client station, a display, a user interface, and functionality to “update a display”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 13 and 18 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Further, claims 13 and 18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 13 and 18 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 4, 16, and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a second client station and a second user interface. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 4, 16, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–3, 5–12, 14–15, 17, and 19 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3, 5–12, 14–15, 17, and 19 depend. As a result, claims 2–3, 5–12, 14–15, 17, and 19 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing platform, a network interface, at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, program instructions, a first client station, a display, a user interface, and functionality to “update a display”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 13 and 18 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Further, claims 13 and 18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 13 and 18 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 4, 16, and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a second client station and a second user interface. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 4, 16, and 20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–3, 5–12, 14–15, 17, and 19 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3, 5–12, 14–15, 17, and 19 depend. As a result, claims 2–3, 5–12, 14–15, 17, and 19 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–11 and 13–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, and 20 of parent U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 in view of PENG (PENG, Marie-Helene Biffi. "Linking the Estimate, the Schedule and the Cost Control through a Standardized WBS." AACE International Transactions (2008): TC21.).
Claims 1, 20, and 14 of parent U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 disclose every element of pending claims 1, 13, and 18, respectively, except for the elements to “create the project-level WBS” and “after creating the project-level WBS, assign, to a given line item associated with a given task related to the given construction project, a given WBS code that is selected from the set of available WBS codes for the given construction project”.
Peng discloses functionality to create the project-level WBS (See TCM.02.4–TCM.02.6, wherein a four level WBS is created for a given project); and
after creating the project-level WBS, assign, to a given line item associated with a given task related to the given construction project, a given WBS code that is selected from the set of available WBS codes for the given construction project (See TCM.02.8, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes at each level of a project).
Claims 1, 20, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 disclose a system directed to managing and modifying a work breakdown structure. Peng discloses a system directed to managing a project using a standardized work breakdown structure. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure. The technique of creating a project-level WBS and assigning codes to line items is applicable to the system of U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Peng to the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate project management using a work breakdown structure into similar systems. Further, applying project-level WBS creation and code assignments to U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to pending claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 19, claims 1, 1, 11, 1, 4, 5, 20, 20, and 14 of parent U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376, respectively, disclose every element of each claim.
With respect to pending claims 4, 16, and 20, U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 does not expressly disclose the element that enables the second user to input a user selection of the given WBS code to assign to the given line item, wherein the given WBS code is thereafter assigned to the given line item based on the user selection.
However, Peng discloses the element that enables the second user to input a user selection of the given WBS code to assign to the given line item, wherein the given WBS code is thereafter assigned to the given line item based on the user selection (See TCM.02.8 and FIG. 4, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes at each level of a project).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to pending claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 does not expressly disclose the claimed elements.
However, Peng discloses functionality to assign, to the given line item, one or more of (i) an actual expenditure amount associated with the given construction project, or (ii) a budget amount associated with the given construction project (See TCM.02.8, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes at each level of a project, and wherein costs are grouped and monitored with respect to each WBS level).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to pending claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 does not expressly disclose the claimed elements.
However, Peng discloses functionality to generate the initial version of the WBS code structure based on one or more of (i) an analysis of WBS variables that were used for other construction projects associated with the first user, (ii) an analysis of WBS variables used for other construction projects that are determined to be similar to the given construction project, or (iii) a standard project-level template used for a type of construction project (See TCM.02.8, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes for each defined type of activity, and wherein different agents are identified and associated with each estimation activity).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
Finally, with respect to pending claims 11 and 17, parent U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 does not expressly disclose an addition of a given WBS variable to the sequence of two or more WBS variables that are concatenated together.
However, Peng discloses an addition of a given WBS variable to the sequence of two or more WBS variables that are concatenated together (See TCM.02.4, wherein the system concatenates WBS codes for each level).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
Claims 1–11 and 13–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 8–12, and 17–18 of parent U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 in view of PENG (PENG, Marie-Helene Biffi. "Linking the Estimate, the Schedule and the Cost Control through a Standardized WBS." AACE International Transactions (2008): TC21.).
Claims 1, 11, and 17 of parent U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 disclose every element of pending claims 1, 13, and 18, respectively, except for the elements to “create the project-level WBS” and “after creating the project-level WBS, assign, to a given line item associated with a given task related to the given construction project, a given WBS code that is selected from the set of available WBS codes for the given construction project”.
Peng discloses functionality to create the project-level WBS (See TCM.02.4–TCM.02.6, wherein a four level WBS is created for a given project); and
after creating the project-level WBS, assign, to a given line item associated with a given task related to the given construction project, a given WBS code that is selected from the set of available WBS codes for the given construction project (See TCM.02.8, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes at each level of a project).
Claims 1, 11, and 17 of parent U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 disclose a system directed to managing and modifying a work breakdown structure. Peng discloses a system directed to managing a project using a standardized work breakdown structure. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure. The technique of creating a project-level WBS and assigning codes to line items is applicable to the system of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Peng to the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate project management using a work breakdown structure into similar systems. Further, applying project-level WBS creation and code assignments to U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to pending claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 19, claims 2, 1, 4, 1, 8, 9, 12, 11, and 18 of parent U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961, respectively, disclose every element of each claim.
With respect to pending claims 4, 16, and 20, parent U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 does not expressly disclose the element that enables the second user to input a user selection of the given WBS code to assign to the given line item, wherein the given WBS code is thereafter assigned to the given line item based on the user selection.
However, Peng discloses the element that enables the second user to input a user selection of the given WBS code to assign to the given line item, wherein the given WBS code is thereafter assigned to the given line item based on the user selection (See TCM.02.8 and FIG. 4, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes at each level of a project).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to pending claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 does not expressly disclose the claimed elements.
However, Peng discloses functionality to assign, to the given line item, one or more of (i) an actual expenditure amount associated with the given construction project, or (ii) a budget amount associated with the given construction project (See TCM.02.8, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes at each level of a project, and wherein costs are grouped and monitored with respect to each WBS level).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to pending claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 does not expressly disclose the claimed elements.
However, Peng discloses functionality to generate the initial version of the WBS code structure based on one or more of (i) an analysis of WBS variables that were used for other construction projects associated with the first user, (ii) an analysis of WBS variables used for other construction projects that are determined to be similar to the given construction project, or (iii) a standard project-level template used for a type of construction project (See TCM.02.8, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes for each defined type of activity, and wherein different agents are identified and associated with each estimation activity).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
Finally, with respect to pending claims 11 and 17, parent U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 does not expressly disclose an addition of a given WBS variable to the sequence of two or more WBS variables that are concatenated together.
However, Peng discloses an addition of a given WBS variable to the sequence of two or more WBS variables that are concatenated together (See TCM.02.4, wherein the system concatenates WBS codes for each level).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
Claims 1–11 and 13–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2–3, 9–14, and 18–19 of parent U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 in view of PENG (PENG, Marie-Helene Biffi. "Linking the Estimate, the Schedule and the Cost Control through a Standardized WBS." AACE International Transactions (2008): TC21.).
Claims 2, 13, and 18 of parent U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 disclose every element of pending claims 1, 13, and 18, respectively, except for the elements to “create the project-level WBS” and “after creating the project-level WBS, assign, to a given line item associated with a given task related to the given construction project, a given WBS code that is selected from the set of available WBS codes for the given construction project”.
Peng discloses functionality to create the project-level WBS (See TCM.02.4–TCM.02.6, wherein a four level WBS is created for a given project); and
after creating the project-level WBS, assign, to a given line item associated with a given task related to the given construction project, a given WBS code that is selected from the set of available WBS codes for the given construction project (See TCM.02.8, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes at each level of a project).
Claims 2, 13, and 18 of parent U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 disclose a system directed to managing and modifying a work breakdown structure. Peng discloses a system directed to managing a project using a standardized work breakdown structure. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure. The technique of creating a project-level WBS and assigning codes to line items is applicable to the system of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Peng to the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate project management using a work breakdown structure into similar systems. Further, applying project-level WBS creation and code assignments to U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to pending claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 19, claims 3, 2, 5, 2, 9, 10, 14, 12, and 19 of parent U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801, respectively, disclose every element of each claim.
With respect to pending claims 4, 16, and 20, U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 does not expressly disclose the element that enables the second user to input a user selection of the given WBS code to assign to the given line item, wherein the given WBS code is thereafter assigned to the given line item based on the user selection.
However, Peng discloses the element that enables the second user to input a user selection of the given WBS code to assign to the given line item, wherein the given WBS code is thereafter assigned to the given line item based on the user selection (See TCM.02.8 and FIG. 4, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes at each level of a project).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to pending claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 does not expressly disclose the claimed elements.
However, Peng discloses functionality to assign, to the given line item, one or more of (i) an actual expenditure amount associated with the given construction project, or (ii) a budget amount associated with the given construction project (See TCM.02.8, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes at each level of a project, and wherein costs are grouped and monitored with respect to each WBS level).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to pending claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 does not expressly disclose the claimed elements.
However, Peng discloses functionality to generate the initial version of the WBS code structure based on one or more of (i) an analysis of WBS variables that were used for other construction projects associated with the first user, (ii) an analysis of WBS variables used for other construction projects that are determined to be similar to the given construction project, or (iii) a standard project-level template used for a type of construction project (See TCM.02.8, wherein a bill of quantities is defined with respect to WBS codes for each defined type of activity, and wherein different agents are identified and associated with each estimation activity).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
Finally, with respect to pending claims 11 and 17, parent U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 does not expressly disclose an addition of a given WBS variable to the sequence of two or more WBS variables that are concatenated together.
However, Peng discloses an addition of a given WBS variable to the sequence of two or more WBS variables that are concatenated together (See TCM.02.4, wherein the system concatenates WBS codes for each level).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of parent U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 in view of PENG (PENG, Marie-Helene Biffi. "Linking the Estimate, the Schedule and the Cost Control through a Standardized WBS." AACE International Transactions (2008): TC21.), and in further view of Call et al. (U.S. 2004/0243453).
As disclosed above, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 and Peng disclose the elements of pending claim 1. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 and Peng do not disclose functionality to generate an alert to notify a second user associated with the given construction project that the project-level WBS has been created.
Call discloses functionality to generate an alert to notify a second user associated with the given construction project that the project-level WBS has been created (See paragraph 27, wherein, upon creation of a work breakdown structure, a user is notified that the activity is ready to begin).
As disclosed above, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 discloses a system directed to managing and modifying a work breakdown structure, and Peng discloses a system directed to managing a project using a standardized work breakdown structure. Call discloses a system directed to managing collaborative work using a work breakdown structure. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure. The technique of generating an alert is applicable to the systems of U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 and Peng as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Call would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Call to the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 and Peng would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate project management using a work breakdown structure into similar systems. Further, applying alert generation to U.S. Patent No. 11,120,376 and Peng would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved management.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of parent U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 in view of PENG (PENG, Marie-Helene Biffi. "Linking the Estimate, the Schedule and the Cost Control through a Standardized WBS." AACE International Transactions (2008): TC21.), and in further view of Call et al. (U.S. 2004/0243453).
As disclosed above, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 and Peng disclose the elements of pending claim 1. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 and Peng do not disclose functionality to generate an alert to notify a second user associated with the given construction project that the project-level WBS has been created.
Call discloses functionality to generate an alert to notify a second user associated with the given construction project that the project-level WBS has been created (See paragraph 27, wherein, upon creation of a work breakdown structure, a user is notified that the activity is ready to begin).
As disclosed above, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 discloses a system directed to managing and modifying a work breakdown structure, and Peng discloses a system directed to managing a project using a standardized work breakdown structure. Call discloses a system directed to managing collaborative work using a work breakdown structure. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure. The technique of generating an alert is applicable to the systems of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 and Peng as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Call would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Call to the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 and Peng would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate project management using a work breakdown structure into similar systems. Further, applying alert generation to U.S. Patent No. 11,681,961 and Peng would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved management.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of parent U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 in view of PENG (PENG, Marie-Helene Biffi. "Linking the Estimate, the Schedule and the Cost Control through a Standardized WBS." AACE International Transactions (2008): TC21.), and in further view of Call et al. (U.S. 2004/0243453).
As disclosed above, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 and Peng disclose the elements of pending claim 1. Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 and Peng do not disclose functionality to generate an alert to notify a second user associated with the given construction project that the project-level WBS has been created.
Call discloses functionality to generate an alert to notify a second user associated with the given construction project that the project-level WBS has been created (See paragraph 27, wherein, upon creation of a work breakdown structure, a user is notified that the activity is ready to begin).
As disclosed above, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 discloses a system directed to managing and modifying a work breakdown structure, and Peng discloses a system directed to managing a project using a standardized work breakdown structure. Call discloses a system directed to managing collaborative work using a work breakdown structure. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure. The technique of generating an alert is applicable to the systems of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 and Peng as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a project using a work breakdown structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Call would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Call to the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 and Peng would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate project management using a work breakdown structure into similar systems. Further, applying alert generation to U.S. Patent No. 12,169,801 and Peng would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved management.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen (U.S. 2007/0078792) discloses a system directed to managing an integrated project using and updating a work breakdown structure tree.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623