DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/952,795 filed on 11/19/2024. Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-18, and 21-26 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. In the response filed May 04, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17-18, and cancelled claims 7-8, 15-16, and 19-20. New claims 21-26 were presented for examination.
4. Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 9, and 17 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
5. Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 9, and 17 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed May 04, 2026, have been fully considered.
7. Applicant submits “that amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity, which is the grouping of abstract ideas identified in the Office Action under Step 2A, Prong One.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/04/2026, page 15]
With particular respect to the §101 rejection, Applicant first argues with respect to Step 2A of the eligibility inquiry “amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity, which is the grouping of abstract ideas identified in the Office Action under Step 2A, Prong One.” In response the Examiner maintains that claims 1, 9, and 17 have been found to recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” by reciting limitations for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people - including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The limitations reciting “receive input data indicating a set of tasks to be performed for a construction project; for each task in at least a subset of the set of tasks: based on an evaluation of data objects associated with the construction project that are accessible, identify one or more of (i) one or more reference data objects that must be complete before the task can start, (ii) one or more record data objects that must be complete before the task can be completed, or (iii) one or more location data objects that each represent a physical location within the construction project where the task will be performed; and generate a task data object including an association with one or more data objects that are identified for the task, wherein the association logically links the generated task data object to the one or more data objects that are identified for the task; maintain a master schedule for the construction project comprising each of the generated task data objects; dynamically update a given task data object based on a detected change in another data object that is logically linked to the given task data object; receive two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule, wherein each candidate schedule adjustment comprises pulling a subset of generated task data objects forward in time on the master schedule; based on an analysis of the two or more candidate schedule adjustments, automatically identify at least one given schedule conflict between first and second task data objects involved in the two or more candidate schedule adjustments based on (i) a first set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the first task data object and (ii) a second set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the second task data object; generate at least one updated candidate schedule adjustment that eliminates the at least one given schedule conflict; and update the master schedule according to the updated candidate schedule adjustment” are reasonably understood as setting forth activities of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. Under Prong One of Step 2A, information is received and analyzed for purposes which relate to managing a schedule. The claim limitations fall withing the “certain methods of organizing human activity” absact idea grouping because the clam limitations are directed to managing a construction project by determining task prerequisites, identifying scheduling conflicts, and adjusting task timing. These are activities performed by project managers to coordinate and exacta work, and are forms of organizing human activity.
As stated in MPEP 2106, the phrase “certain methods of organizing human activity” is used to describe concepts relating to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Clearly, organizing human activities is applicable to the processes of generating construction project schedules. The claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry, the claims recite limitations falling within both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping as set forth in MPEP 2106. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
8. Applicant submits “that amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Office's § 101 framework, which provides that a claim is patent eligible under § 101 if it integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/04/2026, page 15]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Office's § 101 framework, which provides that a claim is patent eligible under § 101 if it integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application,” it is noted that the additional elements in the independent claims are: a network interface, at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable, the computing platform, and a construction management software application (claim 1), a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is provisioned with program instructions, at least one processor, a computing platform, and a construction management software application (claim 9), a computing platform and a construction management software application (claim 17), which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05. Applicant has provided no facts/evidence, cited any portion of the Specification, nor provided a persuasive line of reasoning showing how the additional elements are integrated with the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It is also noted that the claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no interface, processor, software application, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information relating to a master schedule, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
9. Applicant submits “Turning to the second part of the Step 2A, Prong Two framework, amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 clearly reflect the described improvements to the existing software technology within a construction management software application for generating and managing a construction project schedule.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/04/2026, pages 17-18]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 clearly reflect the described improvements to the existing software technology within a construction management software application for generating and managing a construction project schedule,” it is noted while it is asserted that the claims reflect improvement to software technology within a construction management software application, the claims are directed to managing a construction project schedule, rather than improving the functioning of a computer or other technology. The claims limitations related to generation of task object, identification of related task objects, maintenance of a schedule, conflict detection, and schedule adjustment are directed to the use of genetic computer components as tools to perform project planning and scheduling activities, which does not constitute a technological improvement that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “Third, even if amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 were not found to be eligible under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 framework, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of additional elements recited by amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17, when taken together, supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea that is recited in the claims under Step 2B of the Office's § 101 framework.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/04/2026, page 19]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting “that the combination of additional elements recited by amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17, when taken together, supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea that is recited in the claims under Step 2B of the Office's § 101 framework.” In response, it is noted that the claims merely produce a result in the form of “a master schedule,” which is not an improvement to the network interface, processor, construction management software application, or any other system or technology. Furthermore, with respect to exemplary claim 1, none of the steps, individually or in combination, have been shown to yield an improvement to a computer or to any technology. The claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technology in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is no indication that any of the additional elements or the combination of elements amount to an improvement to the computer or to any technology. Their individual and collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, these additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “As amended, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the following claimed functionality: receive input data indicating a set of tasks to be performed for a construction project; for each task in at least a subset of the set of tasks: based on an evaluation of data objects associated with the construction project that are accessible via a construction management software application, identify one or more of (i) one or more reference data objects that must be complete before the task can start, (ii) one or more record data objects that must be complete before the task can be completed, or (iii) one or more location data objects that each represent a physical location within the construction project where the task will be performed; and generate a task data object including an association with one or more data objects that are identified for the task, wherein the association logically links the generated task data object to the one or more data objects that are identified for the task; maintain a master schedule for the construction project comprising each of the generated task data objects; dynamically update a given task data object based on a detected change in another data object that is logically linked to the given task data object; receive two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule, wherein each candidate schedule adjustment comprises pulling a subset of generated task data objects forward in time on the master schedule; based on an analysis of the two or more candidate schedule adjustments, automatically identify at least one given schedule conflict between first and second task data objects involved in the two or more candidate schedule adjustments based on (i) a first set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the first task data object and (ii) a second set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the second task data object; generate at least one updated candidate schedule adjustment that eliminates the at least one given schedule conflicts; and update the master schedule according to the updated candidate schedule adjustment. For the reasons explained during the April 30th interview, the Chan and Kroeger references fail to disclose or suggest the claimed functionality that is recited in amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 05/04/2026, page 20]
In response to the Applicant’s argument, it is noted that Applicant's additional amendments to claims 1, 9, and 17 are sufficient to overcome the rejections. Reasons for allowance (over the prior art) are provided below.
12. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-18, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the computing platform (claims 1-6, 21-22), non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 9-14, 23-24), and method (claims 17-18, 25-26), and are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine, article of manufacture, and process, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-18, and 21-26 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for generating construction project schedules, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions). With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: a network interface; at least one processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to: receive input data indicating a set of tasks to be performed for a construction project; for each task in at least a subset of the set of tasks: based on an evaluation of data objects associated with the construction project that are accessible via a construction management software application, identify one or more of (i) one or more reference data objects that must be complete before the task can start, (ii) one or more record data objects that must be complete before the task can be completed, or (iii) one or more location data objects that each represent a physical location within the construction project where the task will be performed; and generate a task data object including an association with one or more data objects that are identified for the task, wherein the association logically links the generated task data object to the one or more data objects that are identified for the task; maintain a master schedule for the construction project comprising each of the generated task data objects; dynamically update a given task data object based on a detected change in another data object that is logically linked to the given task data object; receive two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule, wherein each candidate schedule adjustment comprises pulling a subset of generated task data objects forward in time on the master schedule; based on an analysis of the two or more candidate schedule adjustments, automatically identify at least one given schedule conflict between first and second task data objects involved in the two or more candidate schedule adjustments based on (i) a first set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the first task data object and (ii) a second set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the second task data object; generate at least one updated candidate schedule adjustment that eliminates the at least one given schedule conflict; and update the master schedule according to the updated candidate schedule adjustment. These steps are organizing human activity by managing interactions between people by following rules, or instructions. The claim recites limitations that fall under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping because the limitations relate to project management and scheduling. The focus of the claims is coordinating construction tasks, resolving conflicts, and updating schedules, which constitutes organizing human activity, including organizing and coordinating construction tasks, dependencies, and schedules.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Independent claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations as those discussed above and are therefore found to recite the same or substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: a network interface, at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable, the computing platform, and a construction management software application (claim 1), a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is provisioned with program instructions, at least one processor, a computing platform, and a construction management software application (claim 9), a computing platform and a construction management software application (claim 17). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the “receiving” steps are evaluated as additional elements, these steps amount at most to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: a network interface, at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable, the computing platform, and a construction management software application (claim 1), a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is provisioned with program instructions, at least one processor, a computing platform, and a construction management software application (claim 9), a computing platform and a construction management software application (claim 17). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that virtually any type of computing device under the sun can be used to implement the claimed invention (Specification at paragraphs [0028, 0033]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
With respect to the “receiving” steps, these steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), nor add significantly more because such activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-6, 10-14, 7-18, and 21-26 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2-6 and 21-22 recite “receive two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule; receive, from a first client station associated with a first user, a first candidate schedule update corresponding to a first trade, wherein the first task data object is associated with the first trade; and receive, from a second client station associated with a second user, a second candidate schedule update corresponding to a second trade, wherein the second task data object is associated with the second trade,” “ for each task in at least the subset of the set of tasks, generate the task data object including the association with the one or more data objects that are identified for the task; for each task in at least the subset of the set of tasks: generate an initial task data record; and after generating the initial task data record, update the initial task data record to include, for each of the one or more data objects that are identified for the task, a respective logical link to the data object,” “for each task in at least the subset of the set of tasks, add the generated task data object to the master schedule,” “determine, for the given task data object, that a given reference data object associated with the given task data object is incomplete; based on determining that the given reference data object is incomplete, cause a visual indication of the incomplete reference data object to be displayed in association with a visual representation of the given task data object in a visual representation of the master schedule,” “merge the two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule into a merged draft schedule,” “determine a constraint imposed on a start date of the first task data object by an attribute of a given data object in the first set of one or more data objects; and based on a dependency relationship between the first task data object and a third task data object, constrain a proposed start date of the third task data object based in part on the attribute of the given data object,” “generate the at least one updated candidate schedule adjustment that eliminates the at least one given schedule conflict; incrementally adjust one or both of a proposed start date or finish date for at least one of the first task data object or the second task data object; and determine that a given adjusted start date or finish date eliminates the at least one given schedule conflict,” however these limitations cover activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which is part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping. The dependent claims recite additional elements of: program instructions, a first client station associated with a first user, a second client station associated with a second user (claims 2, 10), program instructions (claim 3, 11), program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 4), program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 5), program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 6), program instructions (claim 10), program instructions (claim 12), program instructions (claim 13), program instructions (claim 14), program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 21), program instructions (claim 22), program instructions (claim 23), program instructions (claim 24). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-18, and 21-26 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claim 1, the closest prior art, Chan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0245300 A1) and Kroeger, Pub. No.: US 2007/0294617 A1, collectively teach features for receiving input data indicating a set of tasks to be performed for a construction project; for each task in the set of tasks: identify (i) one or more reference data objects that must be complete before the task can start, (ii) one or more record data objects that must be complete before the task can be completed, or (iii) one or more physical locations within the construction project where the task will be performed; and generate a task data object; maintain a master schedule for the construction project comprising each of the generated task data objects; receive two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule, wherein each candidate schedule adjustment comprises pulling a subset of task data objects forward in time on the master schedule; identify a schedule conflict between task data objects in two or more candidate schedule adjustments; generate at least one updated candidate schedule adjustment that eliminates the schedule conflict; and update the master schedule according to the updated candidate schedule adjustment. [See Office Action mailed 02/03/2026 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter].
However, with respect to amended independent claim 1, while Chan et al., describes “a task dependency icon configured to represent a dependency relationship between two or more of the plurality of tasks in the project” (paragraph 0013) and that “a manpower management module may identify possible scheduling conflicts” (paragraph 0141) and Kroeger describes modeling real-world objects and the relationships among them (paragraph 0075) and that “each task record is linked to documents required to complete the associated task” (paragraph 0122), Chan et al., Kroeger, and the other prior art of record does not teach generating a task data object including an association with one or more data objects that are identified for the task, wherein the association logically links the generated task data object to the one or more data objects that are identified for the task; dynamically updating a given task data object based on a detected change in another data object that is logically linked to the given task data object; receiving two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule, wherein each candidate schedule adjustment comprises pulling a subset of generated task data objects forward in time on the master schedule; based on an analysis of the two or more candidate schedule adjustments, automatically identifying at least one given schedule conflict between first and second task data objects involved in the two or more candidate schedule adjustments based on (i) a first set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the first task data object and (ii) a second set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the second task data object, as required by amended claim 1.
The Chan-Kroeger combination does not teach the specific process required by claim 1. Chan and Kroeger describe a system for presenting project scheduling information in combination with workflow information and s system for scheduling and document management integration, respectively. In contrast, claim 1 recites a more intricate process including generating a task data object including an association with one or more data objects that are identified for the task, wherein the association logically links the generated task data object to the one or more data objects that are identified for the task; dynamically updating a given task data object based on a detected change in another data object that is logically linked to the given task data object; receiving two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule, wherein each candidate schedule adjustment comprises pulling a subset of generated task data objects forward in time on the master schedule; based on an analysis of the two or more candidate schedule adjustments, automatically identifying at least one given schedule conflict between first and second task data objects involved in the two or more candidate schedule adjustments based on (i) a first set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the first task data object and (ii) a second set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the second task data object.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “A computing platform comprising: a network interface; at least one processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to: receive input data indicating a set of tasks to be performed for a construction project; for each task in at least a subset of the set of tasks: based on an evaluation of data objects associated with the construction project that are accessible via a construction management software application, identify one or more of (i) one or more reference data objects that must be complete before the task can start, (ii) one or more record data objects that must be complete before the task can be completed, or (iii) one or more location data objects that each represent a physical location within the construction project where the task will be performed; and generate a task data object including an association with one or more data objects that are identified for the task, wherein the association logically links the generated task data object to the one or more data objects that are identified for the task; maintain a master schedule for the construction project comprising each of the generated task data objects; dynamically update a given task data object based on a detected change in another data object that is logically linked to the given task data object; receive two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule, wherein each candidate schedule adjustment comprises pulling a subset of generated task data objects forward in time on the master schedule; based on an analysis of the two or more candidate schedule adjustments, automatically identify at least one given schedule conflict between first and second task data objects involved in the two or more candidate schedule adjustments based on (i) a first set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the first task data object and (ii) a second set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the second task data object; generate at least one updated candidate schedule adjustment that eliminates the at least one given schedule conflict; and update the master schedule according to the updated candidate schedule adjustment,” as recited in amended claim 1, 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 platform to: receive input data indicating a set of tasks to be performed for a construction project; for each task in at least a subset of the set of tasks: based on an evaluation of data objects associated with the construction project that are accessible via a construction management software application, identify one or more of (i) one or more reference data objects that must be complete before the task can start, (ii) one or more record data objects that must be complete before the task can be completed, or (iii) one or more location data objects that each represent a physical location within the construction project where the task will be performed; and generate a task data object including an association with one or more data objects that are identified for the task, wherein the association logically links the generated task data object to the one or more data objects that are identified for the task; maintain a master schedule for the construction project comprising each of the generated task data objects; dynamically update a given task data object based on a detected change in another data object that is logically linked to the given task data object; receive two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule, wherein each candidate schedule adjustment comprises pulling a subset of generated task data objects forward in time on the master schedule; based on an analysis of the two or more candidate schedule adjustments, automatically identify at least one given schedule conflict between first and second task data objects involved in the two or more candidate schedule adjustments based on (i) a first set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the first task data object and (ii) a second set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the second task data object; generate at least one updated candidate schedule adjustment that eliminates the at least one given schedule conflict; and update the master schedule according to the updated candidate schedule adjustment,” as recited in amended claim 9, and “A method carried out by a computing platform, the method comprising: receiving input data indicating a set of tasks to be performed for a construction project; for each task in at least a subset of the set of tasks: based on an evaluation of data objects associated with the construction project that are accessible via a construction management software application, identifying one or more of (i) one or more reference data objects that must be complete before the task can start, (ii) one or more record data objects that must be complete before the task can be completed, or (iii) one or more location data objects that each represent a physical location within the construction project where the task will be performed; and generating a task data object including an association with one or more data objects that are identified for the task, wherein the association logically links the generated task data object to the one or more data objects that are identified for the task; maintaining a master schedule for the construction project comprising each of the generated task data objects; dynamically updating a given task data object based on a detected change in another data object that is logically linked to the given task data object; receiving two or more candidate schedule adjustments to the master schedule, wherein each candidate schedule adjustment comprises pulling a subset of generated task data objects forward in time on the master schedule; based on an analysis of the two or more candidate schedule adjustments, automatically identifying at least one given schedule conflict between first and second task data objects involved in the two or more candidate schedule adjustments based on (i) a first set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the first task data object and (ii) a second set of one or more data objects that are logically linked to the second task data object; generating at least one updated candidate schedule adjustment that eliminates the at least one given schedule conflict; and updating the master schedule according to the updated candidate schedule adjustment,” as recited in amended claim 17, thus rendering claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-18, and 21-26 as allowable over prior art. However, these claims are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pita et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0401500 A1 – describes a computing platform configured to generate themes data for completed or ongoing construction projects.
Ly et al., Pub. No.: US 2004/0017400 A1 – describes systems and methods for entering, manipulating, and using data related to project planning.
Ninpan, Khwansiri, et al. "Mitigating Co-Activity Conflicts and Resource Overallocation in Construction Projects: A Modular Heuristic Scheduling Approach with Primavera P6 EPPM Integration." Algorithms 17.6 (2024): 230 – describes a heuristic approach for managing complex construction projects. This integrated approach facilitates the generation of conflict-free and feasible construction schedules.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights