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 . 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.
This application is a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application of U.S. application 18965053 filed on 12/02/2024. See MPEP §201.08.
This application is a continuationapplication of U.S. application 16863666 filed on 04/30/2020. See MPEP §201.07.
In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to application 19175390 filed 04/10/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Priority from Application 18965053 filled 12/02/2024, which, at its turn claims priority from Application 16863666 filled 04/30/2020.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 09/25/2025 and 02/02/2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
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 1,9,17 are independent and rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent Claims 1,7,13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12169800 B2 in view of Samson et al, US 20150324940 A1 hereinafter Samson. Specifically,
Claims 1,7,13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12169800 B2 recite substantially similar limitations to the limitations in independent Claims 1,9,17 of the current Application under Examination, with the major difference being that Claims 1,7,13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12169800 B2 recite narrower limitations than the limitations of the current independent Claims 1,9,17 of the current Application.
Claims 1,7,13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12169800 B2 however does not exactly recite:
- wherein the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status of Claims 1,9,17
Samson in analogous art of mapping capital projects teaches or suggests:
- “wherein the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” (Claims 1,9,17)
(Samson ¶ [0040] 5th sentence: providing real-time construction data & product availability.
Specifically, per, ¶ [0031] 4th sentence: ERP systems track business resources, such as cash, raw materials, production capacity, scheduling, etc. For example, at ¶ [0043] 4th sentence: if any of data points of each sub-component part changes, of a sub-component part, these changes are entered into ERP system 202 and quickly reflected, in real-time, in overall whole assembly maintained by the common information database 212. ¶ [0044] 3rd, 5th-8th sentences: The information exchange 216 between common information database 212 and ERP system 202 and CAD system 204 can occur in either direction, but preferably changes to ERP system 202 and/or CAD system 204 are pushed downward to common information database 212, in real-time to synchronize and provide a highly up-to-date database. For example, each time data is needed about a particular component part (e.g. a cabinet assembly, door, window, or other constructions feature) [as examples of resources, material etc.], such data will be communicated on-demand to design studio 206 to thereby provide the real-time virtual experience to the user. It is contemplated that each data request made to common information database 212 for an assembly can retrieve only that assembly or may retrieve the requested assembly together with related swappable options. In this manner, design studio 206 pre-cache the various swappable options locally in an effort to make the experience operate more quickly to the user as they wish to navigate among the different options and combinations. Alternatively, the design studio 206 could have direct communication 218 with either or both of ERP system 202 and CAD system 204.
Samson ¶ [0068] 1st -2nd sentences: ERP system is constantly updating its databases as to pricing, availability, production lead time, bill of materials, etc. Thus, real-time data including pricing, product availability, bill of materials, is accessible to builder/manufacturer and customer in a transparent manner so they quickly understand ramifications of their design choices).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Claims 1,7,13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12169800 B2 to have included Samson’s teachings or suggestions in order to have provided a better computerized 3D interactive construction estimating system for building construction projects and services that would have been real-time, visual, and transparent to both the customer and the manufacturer.
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with capital projects. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical, organizational / planning and management function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Claims 1,7,13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12169800 B2 in view of Samson, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claim Interpretation with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) / 112, sixth paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute
for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural
term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are in
Claim 1 which recites: A system for 5D mapping of capital projects, the system comprising:
a model database configured to contain model items… etc.;
a schedule database configured to contain schedule items… etc.;
10a cost database configured to contain cost items… etc.;
a rules engine configured to receive rules… etc.;
a mapping engine configured to communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database, the mapping engine further configured to map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items based on the rule, and wherein the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” (emphasis added).
Examiner interprets “a model database”, “a schedule database”, “a cost database”, “a rules engine”, “a mapping engine” as generic placeholders followed by their respective functions: “contain model items”, “contain schedule items”, “contain cost items”, “receive rules”, and “communicate”, “map”, “perform real-time monitoring” respectively, and not further modified by sufficient structure. Accordingly, it appears the claim invokes 35 USC 112(f). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
- based on 112 (f) interpretation -
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), ¶1, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is independent and recites, among others:
A system for 5D mapping of capital projects, the system comprising:
a model database configured to contain model items… etc.;
a schedule database configured to contain schedule items… etc.;
10a cost database configured to contain cost items… etc.;
a rules engine configured to receive rules… etc.;
a mapping engine configured to communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database, the mapping engine further configured to map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items based on the rule, and wherein the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” (emphasis added).
* Original Specification doesn’t provide adequate respective structure for each of the respective generic placeholders “model database”, “schedule database”, “cost database”, “rules engine”, “mapping engine” to perform each of the respective functions of “contain model items”, “contain schedule items”, “contain cost items”, “receive rules for mapping”, “communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database” and “map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items”, “monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status”
* Original Specification also does not clearly link each of the respective functions of “contain model items”, “contain schedule items”, “contain cost items”, “receive rules for mapping”, “communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database” and “map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items”, “monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” to each of the respective structure for each of generic placeholders “model database”, “schedule database”, “cost database”, “rules engine”, “mapping engine” such by an algorithm.
* Original Specification thus does not appear to demonstrate that Applicant has made an invention that achieves each and all of respective claimed functions by each of the respective structure because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one or ordinary skills in the art can reasonably conclude that inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner recommends, as an example only that Applicant amend, said claim to no longer invoke 35 USC 112 (f), such as executing each of the above placeholders by sufficient structure, assuming support in the Spec. with respect to 35 USC 112 (a) / 1st ¶.
* Specifically, the Examiner recommends *
Claim 1 to be amended, as an example only, to recite:
“A system for 5D mapping of capital projects, the system comprising:
a hardware processor
a model database executed by the hardware processor to contain model items etc
a schedule database executed by the hardware processor to contain schedule items… etc.;
10a cost database executed by the hardware processor to contain cost items… etc.;
a rules engine executed by the hardware processor to receive rules… etc.;
a mapping engine executed by the hardware processor to communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database, the mapping engine further configured to map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items based on the rule, and wherein the mapping engine is further executed by hardware processor to perform real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” (emphasis added).
Claims 2-8 are dependent claims rejected based on rejected parent Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
- based on 112 (f) interpretation –
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), ¶2 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is independent and recites, among others:
A system for 5D mapping of capital projects, the system comprising:
a model database configured to contain model items… etc.;
a schedule database configured to contain schedule items… etc;
10a cost database configured to contain cost items… etc.;
a rules engine configured to receive rules… etc.;
a mapping engine configured to communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database, the mapping engine further configured to map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items based on the rule, and wherein the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” (emphasis added).
* Original Specification doesn’t provide adequate respective structure for each of the respective generic placeholders “model database”, “schedule database”, “cost database”, “rules engine”, “mapping engine” to perform each of the respective functions of “contain model items”, “contain schedule items”, “contain cost items”, “receive rules for mapping”, “communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database” and “map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items”, “monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status”
* Original Specification also does not clearly link each of the respective functions of “contain model items”, “contain schedule items”, “contain cost items”, “receive rules for mapping”, “communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database” and “map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items”, “monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” to each of the respective structure for each of generic placeholders “model database”, “schedule database”, “cost database”, “rules engine”, “mapping engine” such by an algorithm.
-> thus rendering said claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-8 are dependent claims and rejected based on rejected parent Claim 1
Examiner recommends, as an example only that Applicant amend, said claim to no longer invoke 35 USC 112 (f), such as executing each of the above placeholders by sufficient structure, assuming support in the Spec. with respect to 35 USC 112 (a) / 1st ¶.
* Specifically, the Examiner recommends *
Claim 1 to be amended, as an example only, to recite:
“A system for 5D mapping of capital projects, the system comprising:
a hardware processor
a model database executed by the hardware processor to contain model items etc
a schedule database executed by the hardware processor to contain schedule items… etc.;
10a cost database executed by the hardware processor to contain cost items… etc.;
a rules engine executed by the hardware processor to receive rules… etc.;
a mapping engine executed by the hardware processor to communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database, the mapping engine further configured to map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items based on the rule, and wherein the mapping engine is further executed by hardware processor to perform real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” (emphasis added).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
- aside from 112(f) interpretation -
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), ¶2, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is independent reciting among others:
* “a rules engine configured to receive rules for mapping one or more model items, one or more schedule items, or one or more cost items, the rules 15including a condition based on a code sequence related to the at least one model item, the at least one schedule item, and/or the at least one cost item”;
* “a mapping engine configured to communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database, the mapping engine further configured to map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items based on the rule”
-> rendering said claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear to which of antecedently recites “rules”, does the subsequently recited “the rule” corresponds to.
Claim 1 is recommended to be amended to recite, among others:
* a rules engine configured to receive rules for mapping one or more model items, one or more schedule items, or one or more cost items, the rules 15including a condition based on a code sequence related to the at least one model item, the at least one schedule item, and/or the at least one cost item;
* a mapping engine configured to communicate with the model database, the schedule database, and the cost database, the mapping engine further configured to map one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or 20one or more cost items based on at least one of the rules. Claims 2-8 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent Claim 1.
Clarification and/or correction is/are required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) describe or set forth1:
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, because when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A,B, said claims recite, or at least describe or set forth the abstract fundamental economic practices of mapping capital projects as summaries at the preamble of each of independent Claims 1,9,17, and further detailed throughout said claims by consideration of what appear to be business interactions or relations in “containing” or “receiving”:
- “model items representing capital project components from a model, each of the model items having at least one model item code”;
- “schedule items representing a portion of a capital project construction schedule, each of the schedule items having at least one schedule item code”;
- “cost items representing a budget for the portion of the capital project construction schedule and/or the capital project components, each of the cost items having at least one cost item code”.
Such fundamental economic practices are also recited, described or set forth as “adjusted project schedule” [intended] “for2 action” “based on the insights” at dependent Claims 7,15, as well as recitations of “reallocation of resources, task resequencing, or revised timelines” at dependent Claims 8,16.
Further, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C, Examiner finds that such fundamental economic practices and business interactions or relations are implemented or relate to equally abstract managing of such interactions according to rules or instructions, which are recited, described or set forth here in the actual claim language of “providing a rule for mapping one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and one or more cost items, the rule including a code sequence related to the at least one model item, the at least one schedule item, and/or the at least one cost item” ;” mapping one or more of the model items, one or more of the schedule items”, and “performing real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” as recited at each of independent Claims 9,17 and similarly recited at sister independent Claim 1.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶2 to stress that the term fundamental, as in fundamental practices, is not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known, but rather as a building block of modern economy. It then follows that here, no matter of the number of metrics, variables or dimensions taking into consideration i.e. cost, schedule, model, code-based rules etc., the claims would consider and map, they would still represent building blocks of modern economy in considering the model of the items, their schedule and cost as summarized at the title of the invention and then recited throughout independent Claims 1,9,17. These fall squarely within the abstract fundamental economic practices pertaining to the capital projects as read in light of the Background of the Invention at the Original Specification p.1 ¶3-p.2 ¶2, no matter whether or not they are old or well-known. This finding and rationale is corroborated by MPEP 2106.04 I which cites Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979: to articulate that even “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. It then follows that here, any purported groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant improvement in the abstract management of capital projects by mapping variables of cost, schedule, model, code-based rules etc. that the independent Claims 1,9,17 would provide, would also not satisfy the 101 inquiry when tested per MPEP 2106.04 I supra.
The “Myriad” rationale was further corroborated in “SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic” as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.C(i). Digging deeper, into the Court’s rationale, it was previously found in SAP that “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”.
At its turn, the “SAP” findings and rationales were corroborated by Versata Dev Grp Inc v SAP Am Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 once again undelaying the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective versus improvement to actual technology as reflected at MPEP 2106.04. For example, Versata Dev Grp, Inc v SAP Am, Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 once again underlined the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective versus improvement germane to actual technology, and found that even using fewer software tables and searches than prior-art software, to group, sort and eliminate less restrictive information did not render the claims eligible despite its dramatic improvement computer performance and ease of maintenance. Given such legal findings, the Examiner similarly reasons that here, any purported benefit that the mapping of the cost, schedule, model, code-based rule set would present, would at most represent an entrepreneurial and thus abstract benefit for the planning or management of the construction project which remains ineligible for patenting no matter of its purported entrepreneurial benefit.
In a similar vein, any purported level of computerization conferred by use of databases to contain model items, schedule and cost, at independent Claim 1 would constitute, along with the “rules engine” and “mapping engine” of at independent Claim 1, examples of interaction with a computer, which according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, fourth sentence, does not necessarily preclude the claims to recite the abstract Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.
This finding is further corroborated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C ¶8 which cites Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018), to state that providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity including acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content did not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception. Similarly, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C ii cites BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to state that considering historical usage information while inputting data, also did not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception.
It follows that here, receiving or acquiring content as “model items”, schedule items”, “cost items” for “mapping” would also not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract exception.
Alternatively when testing the above claimed feature per MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) III C #2, the Examiner finds that they are not meaningfully different than capabilities to store, access, compile and combine of information from disparate information sources, in an effort to generate a full picture of activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in such computer environment, which still set forth the abstract selecting of information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and announcement as ruled by the Federal Circuit in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed Cir. 2016) and cited by MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) III C #2. Indeed, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III stresses that: # 1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, #2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, #3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, do not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract exception.
It then follows that here, the use of model, schedule and cost databases, along with the rules and mapping engines at independent Claim 1 could be similarly argued as such computer environment or tools to aid in performance of the abstract processes of observation, evaluation, judgment and subsequent opinion as enumerated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III 2, with the abstract evaluation corresponding here to the “mapping” of independent Claims 1,9,17, and the abstract judgment corresponding here to the “insights” of Claims 5,7,13,15 and the opinion corresponding here to the “notification for action” of dependent Claims 6,14. These features can be argued as not meaningfully different than: collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying [or notifying about] certain results of the collection and analysis found abstract in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as a non-limiting example enumerated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A, 5th bullet point.
It could perhaps also be argued that here, “mapping one or more of the model items, one or more of the schedule items, and/or one or more of the cost items based on the rule” when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A, would recite, describe or set forth mathematical relationships expressed in words. Specifically, as explained by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A iv. the organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations by generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form remains abstract.
Here, when testing independent Claims 1,9,17, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A, the Examiner finds that such abstract correlation would correspond here to the claimed “mapping” by taking existent information as first, second, data etc., claimed here as “one or more of the model items, one or more of the schedule items, and/or one or more of the cost items” at independent Claims 1,9,17 and manipulating it using a “rule” at independent Claims 1,9,17. The same rationale could would apply with respect to “generates an output relating to the deviation” “upon detecting a deviation from the planned schedule” at dependent Claims 5,13.
In abundance of caution, the Examiner will now more granularly test the level of computerization at the subsequent steps below. For now, given the preponderance of legal evidence, the claims’ character as a whole is found to be undeniably abstract. Step 2A prong one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual, or combination, of the additional, computer-based elements are/is found, per MPEP 2106.05(f), to merely apply the above abstract idea and/or narrow the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment per MPEP 2106.05(h).
Here, the Examiner identified the computer aids above as tools, computer environments etc. to aid performing the abstract processes as recognized above. Now, even when more granularly testing the aforementioned computerization as representative of additional, computer-based elements, the Examiner finds that its underlining databases and engines of independent Claim 1, program code of Claims 17,18,19, artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model of Claims 4,5,7,8,12,13,15,16,20 and devices communication of dependent Claims 2,10,18, narrowed as one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, or mobile robots at dependent Claims 3,11,19, would merely apply the above abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow it to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)] none of which would integrate it into a practical application. For example, the “model database”, “schedule database” and “cost database” “configured to” respectively “contain” “model items”, “schedule items”, and “cost items” of independent Claim 1 would represent computerized capability to store data. Similarly, the “program code” for respectively “receiving” “model items”, “schedule items” and “cost items” at independent Claim 17 would represent computerized capability to receive data. Yet, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶13 is clear that use of computer or other machinery for economic or other tasks to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i) states that applying a business process and an underlining mathematical algorithm on a computer represents mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool, which does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. It follows that here, at dependent Claims 4-5,7,8,12,13,15,16,20 the applying of an “artificial intelligence / machine learning (AI/ML) model” to the abstract “mapping” of the abstract constituents identified at the prior step, and the applying of the “artificial intelligence / machine learning (AI/ML) model”
to the algorithmic “deviation” would equally represent mere invocation of a computer component or machinery as a tool, which would also not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further still, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) and (iv) state that monitoring audit log data executed on a computer4 and requiring use of a computer component such as software to tailor information and provide it on a computer5 are also examples of mere invocation of computers or machinery as tools, which once again do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
It follows that here, recitation of “program code for performing real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” at independent Claim 17, and recitation of “the AI/ML model” tailoring or produc[ing] insights and generates an output relating to the deviation” at dependent Claims 5,13, as “a notification for action” at dependent Claims 6,14 and then tailored or “adjusted project schedule based upon the insights and outputs the adjusted project schedule for action” at dependent Claims 7,15, with the tailored information further narrowed to include “one or more of the following: reallocation of resources, task resequencing, or revised timelines” at dependent Claims 8,16, would similarly represent, under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) and (iv), examples of mere invocation of computers or machinery as tools, which again would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, with respect to recitation of “wherein the one or more devices include one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, or mobile robots”, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(h) and finds such elements as a further narrowing of the abstract exception above to a field of use or technological environment, akin to a communication medium, which according to MPEP 2106.05(h)(viii) does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
Additionally, or alternatively recitation of “wherein the one or more devices include one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, or mobile robots”, could also be argued as part of generality of applying the abstract exception which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(3) would also not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, per the recitation of “real time” as in “wherein the system is in communication with one or more devices to receive real-time data” at dependent Claim 2, and “receiving the real-time data from one or more devices” at dependent Claim 10 and similarly “program code for receiving the real-time data from one or more devices” at dependent Claim 18, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(a) I, which cites Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to state that automation of manual processes or speeding up such processes is insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. This is further corroborated by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) iii. and MPEP 2106.05(a) I, each citing the same FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to stress that a process for analyzing audit log data executed on a computer where the increased in speed or acceleration in the process comes from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application because it represents a mere invocation of computer components or machinery to apply the abstract exception, which is insufficient to show improvement in computer-functionality, and thus not integrating the abstract exception into a practical application. Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D cited Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n1 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1, to find, right from the onset, that a wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid was integral the abstract exception.
Finally, per the recitation of “wherein the mapping engine includes an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model, the AJ/ML model receiving as an input the real-time data and identifying deviations from a planned schedule” at dependent Claims 4,12,20, the Examiner points to the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2025), and cited by PTAB Appeal 2025-003304: “The requirements that the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted based on real time changes do not represent a technological improvement” at least because they are “incident to the very nature of machine learning”.
According, there is preponderance of legal evidence showing the level of computerization, even when tested from the perspective of as additional elements does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Step 2A prong two.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea and/or link it to a field of use or technological environment. Specifically, Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II guidelines and carries over the findings of MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h) above, to submit that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more as sufficient legal evidence without having to rely on the conventionally test of MPEP 2106.05(d). Yet, assuming arguendo, further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional computer-based elements, per MPEP 2106.05(d), the Examiner would point as evidence to the high level of generality of the additional computer-based elements, as identified above and read in light of Original Disclosure, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(d).I.2: …”in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional”. Here,
* Original Specification p.9 ¶2 to p.10 ¶1 reciting at a high level of generality: “To that end, those skilled in the art have developed plant design programs/products ("plant design programs") to assist in planning/designing, developing, maintaining, and decommissioning capital projects 10, such as those shown in Figures 1A-1C. Examples of widely used building & infrastructure design program include BricsCAD® and/or plant design program is known as the10 SmartPlant® Enterprise product (hereinafter "SmartPlant® product"), distributed by Hexagon PPM of Huntsville, Alabama. In a manner similar to other such products, the above-noted modeling products have at least the following interrelated functions and components: " 3D modeling and visualization, 15" engineering and schematics, " information management, " procurement, fabrication, and construction, " open integration with other proprietary and open systems. 20 Accordingly, architects, designers, engineers, developers, managers and other relevant parties use these and other features of design programs, such as the SmartBuild® and SmartPlant® products, to design, build, update, manage, and decommission capital projects 10, such as the buildings 10 shown in Figures 1A-1C. As known by those skilled in the art, such 3D or 2D design programs25 often produce a template that, along with multiple software tools, serves as a37402-17701 4/30/202012principal mechanism for designing and managing their projects”
* Original Specification p.20 ¶ 2 reciting at a high level of generality: “Those skilled in the art should understand that each of these10 components can be implemented in a variety of conventional manners, such as by using hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software, across one or more other functional components”
* Original Specification p.20 last reciting at a high level of generality:
“Those skilled in the art should understand that such a system typically has many other physical and25 functional components, such as central processing units, various utilities, 37402-17701 4/30/202026
controllers, short-term memory, etc.”
* Original Specification p.26 ¶4 reciting at a high level of generality: “As known to those of skill in the art, mapping may produce a 5D visualization, where the 5D mapping result is displayed in the user interface 46”.
* Original Specification p.45 ¶3-p.46 ¶4 reciting at high level of generality: “Accordingly, the term 5D is not intended to limit the amount and/or variety of types of items that may be mapped using illustrative embodiments. In various embodiments, real time data monitoring of machines may be utilized. For example, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, and/or mobile robots may be deployed to monitor the construction site continuously. These monitoring devices may collect real-time data on material availability, resource utilization, and machine status. Accordingly, whether material or resources are available or being utilized can be monitored to more effectively determine allocation of resources and material. Similarly, by monitoring various machines that are being utilized or not, more effective utilization of those machines is possible. In various embodiments, the monitoring and collection of real-time data may be input into a machine learning model where one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms or models analyze the real-time data to identify deviations from the planned schedule. (e.g., capital project (CAP) deviation detection for a schedule). In various embodiments, the AI/ML checks resource availability, including materials, labor, and machinery. For example, the AI/ML algorithm may receive the real-time data as an input, check and search ERP/material management system for material availability (e.g., in stores, etc.). In various embodiments, upon the AI/ML algorithm of model detecting a significant change (e.g., resource shortage, delayed materials, machine breakdowns), the AI/ML algorithm may flag the issue. In various embodiments, the AI/ML algorithm may produce insights relating to the change (e.g., what change occurred and potential issues arising therefrom such as delays) and generate and output a notification for action by, for example, a superintendent, site manager, and/or stakeholders in the capital project. In various embodiments, the AI/ML algorithm may create an adjusted project schedule considering the flagged issues and output the adjusted project schedule. In various embodiments, the adjusted AI/ML generated schedule includes the reallocation of resources, task resequencing, and revised timelines (e.g., revised production plan)”.
* Original Specification p.47 ¶4 -p.48 ¶2 reciting at a high level of generality: “ Various embodiments of the invention may be implemented at least in part in any conventional computer programming language. For example, some embodiments may be implemented in a procedural programming language (e.g.,25 "C"), as a visual programming process, or in an object oriented programming 37402-177014/30/202058 language (e.g., "C++"). Other embodiments of the invention may be implemented as a pre-configured, stand-along hardware element and/or as preprogrammed hardware elements (e.g., application specific integrated circuits, FPGAs, and digital signal processors), or other related components. 5 In an alternative embodiment, the disclosed apparatus and methods (e.g., see the methods described above) may be implemented as a computer program product for use with a computer system. Such implementation may include a series of computer instructions fixed either on a tangible, non-transitory, non- transient medium, such as a computer readable medium (e.g., a diskette, CD-10ROM, ROM, or fixed disk). The series of computer instructions can embody all or part of the functionality previously described herein with respect to the system. Those skilled in the art should appreciate that such computer instructions can be written in a number of programming languages for use with many 15 computer architectures or operating systems. Furthermore, such instructions may be stored in any memory device, such as semiconductor, magnetic, optical or other memory devices, and may be transmitted using any communications technology, such as optical, infrared, microwave, or other transmission technologies.20 Among other ways, such a computer program product may be distributed as a removable medium with accompanying printed or electronic documentation (e.g., shrink wrapped software), preloaded with a computer system (e.g., on system ROM or fixed disk), or distributed from a server or electronic bulletin board over the network (e.g., the Internet or World Wide Web). In fact, some 25 embodiments may be implemented in a software-as-a-service model ("SAAS") or37402-177014/30/2020 59cloud computing model. Of course, some embodiments of the invention may be implemented as a combination of both software (e.g., a computer program product) and hardware. Still other embodiments of the invention are implemented as entirely hardware, or entirely software. 5 Although the above discussion discloses various exemplary embodiments of the invention, it should be apparent that those skilled in the art can make various modifications that will achieve some of the advantages of the invention without departing from the true scope of the invention.
Additionally or alternatively, assuming arguendo, further evidence would still be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional computer-based elements, per MPEP 2106.05 (d), Examiner would point as evidence to MPEP 2106.05(d).II showing the conventional functions of: i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, including using the Internet to gather data6 and utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information, and
ii. gathering statistics7 /electronic recordkeeping8/ storing and retrieving info in memory9
- Here -
i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, including using the Internet to gather data10 utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information is relevant to: “wherein the system is in communication with one or more devices to receive real-time data” at dependent Claim 2 and “receiving the real-time data from one or more devices” at dependent Claim 10, and “program code for receiving the real-time data from one or more devices” at dependent Claim 18, as well as “wherein the one or more devices include one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, drones, or mobile robots” at dependent Claims 3,11,19, showing such features as conventional.
ii. gathering statistics11 /electronic recordkeeping12/ storing and retrieving info in memory13 is relevant to recitation of the “model database”, “schedule database” and “cost database” “configured to” respectively “contain” “model items”, “schedule items”, and “cost items” of independent Claim 1, thus showing such features as conventional.
All of these fail to provide anything significantly more than what is already well-understood, routine and conventional in light MPEP 2106.05(d).
- In Conclusion -
Claims 1-20 although directed to statutory categories (here “system” or machine at Claims 1-8, “method” or process at Claims 9-16, and “computer program product comprising a tangible, non-transient computer usable medium” at Claims 17-20) they still recite, or at least set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with their additional, computer-based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than what was already identified as the abstract idea (Step 2B). Claims 1-20 are thus ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2, 9,10 and 17,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as disclosed by:
Samson et al, US 20150324940 A1 hereinafter Samson. As per,
Claims 1,9,17 Samson teaches / suggests: “A system for 5D mapping of capital projects” (¶ [0038] 6th-7th sentences: instant API is described as 6D Building Information Modeling (BIM), derived from: 3 dimensional CAD design components+Time+Cost+Manufacturer Information = 6D BIM Information (including all relevant building component information, such as product data and details, maintenance / operation manuals, cut sheet specifications, photos, warranty data, web links to product online sources, manufacturer information and contacts, etc. Examiner interprets Samson’s 6D mapping as narrower version of the currently claimed 5D mapping, and thus meets the currently claimed 5D mapping), “the system comprising “at least one hardware processor” (mid-¶ [0010], mid-¶ [0026]) / “A method for mapping a plurality of cost items, a plurality of model items, and a plurality of schedule items for a 15large-scale capital project, the method comprising” / “A computer program product for use on a computer system for mapping a plurality of 5cost items, a plurality of model items, and a plurality of schedule items, the computer program product comprising a tangible, non-transient computer usable medium having computer readable program thereon, the computer readable program code comprising: program code for” (¶ [0026] - ¶ [0028]):
“a model database executed by the at least one hardware processor to contain (Claim 1) / “receiving” (Claim 9) / “program code for receiving” (Claim 17) /
- “model items representing capital project components / from a model”
(Samson Fig1, ¶ [0056] user select from predefined list 408 of available home models constructed by selected manufacturer or builder. Each of these home models is pre-designed building template. List 408 is scrollable and available homes shown as 2 step list. it is understood that home designs could be arranged in various multi-step lists or other organizational structure. In the shown example, user selected 1st model 410 in list. Upon selecting a model, pictures 412 of selected model are shown to user. Picture 412 illustrates front elevation of selected home model. Additional corresponding info 414 is presented below picture 412 in scrollable format, such as engineering floor plans, secondary images of home model, etc. user select any of this corresponding info 414 for enlarged view. Further, corresponding home specifications 416 presented below picture 412 such as written description of home, model, square footage, style, number of rooms, baths, bedrooms, stories, garage bays, home dimensions (depth, width), base price, etc. user quickly select different collection 404, home model list 408, and different home model 410 for view. Based upon this displayed info, user has access to available home plans for comparison purposes. Once the user selected a desired home model to customize, the user proceed by selecting configure & Price button 418), “each of the model items having at least one model item code” (Claims 1,9,17) (Samson ¶ [0010] 5th sentence: common info database stores data comprises product assemblies with each product assembly corresponding to one of customization options, and each product assembly further comprises one of said first data element. ¶ [0043] last 3 sentences: overall effect of this compartmentalized, integrated approach is that attributes of each sub-component can be quickly and easily updated in ERP system as they occur, and those changes can be similarly reflected in common information database 212, while being seamless to user participating in real-time virtual experience. Each assembly has its ID code. A complete list of chosen assemblies used in final home design is maintained, and ERP system can be used to tally all of chosen assembly codes to provide complete pricing and bill of materials for entire, finalized home);
- “a schedule database configured to contain” (Claim 1) / “receiving” (Claim 9) / “program code for receiving” (Claim 17) “schedule items representing a portion of a capital project construction schedule, each of the schedule items having at least one schedule item code” (Claims 1,9,17)
(Samson ¶ [0036] last sentence: 3D design studio 106 provide production engine 128, which facilitate production schedule, lead time, delivery, as exemplary activities for building constructing customized real-world building. ¶ [0030] activities such as: product planning, production scheduling, cost and development; manufacturing; inventory management; purchasing management, sales order processing; distribution; job costing; labor information; geographical cost adjustments; shipping & payment; and Financial accounting.
Samson ¶ [0031] 4th sentence corroborates such activities of scheduling, etc., as well as the status of business commitments, such as orders, purchase orders, and payroll”.
Samson ¶ [0032] corroborates such activities: ERP system provide estimated pricing & availability of these items, and sales configuration tools. For example, ERP system include info relating to: inventory/purchasing; manufacturing; production scheduling; sales order processing; distribution; job costing; financial; and accounting”. ¶ [0033] last 3 sentences corroborate such activities: with each item selected or changed, the ERP system quickly enable (preferably in real-time) estimated pricing, scheduling, availability, and conflict management. This system further convert the final, customized home into a production plan or manufacturing plan. The system further handle the management and ordering of basic building materials, including wood, steel, fasteners, roofing, plumbing, electrical, insulation, concrete, windows, doors, landscaping, etc.
Samson ¶ [0038] last sentence: 6D BIM Information (including all relevant building component info, such as product data and details, maintenance/operation manuals, cut sheet specifications, photos, warranty data, web links to product online sources, manufacturer info and contacts, etc.) can be delivered to home or property owner; ¶ [0042] last sentence: Each of these sub-component parts have its own engineering data (prepared 2D drawing, pre-rendered 3D drawing, dimensions, physical features, materials, performance data, unique installation requirements, etc. ¶ [0043] 6th sentence each assembly has its own unique ID code.
Samson mid-¶ [0044]: each time data is needed about a particular component part or other constructions feature, such data will be communicated on-demand to the design studio 206 to thereby provide the real-time virtual experience to end user);
Samson ¶ [0043] 6th sentence: Each assembly has its own unique ID code. ¶ [0030] 2nd-3rd sentences: ERP system store and manage data from different stages of business. Some of these stages include: production scheduling. ¶ [0010] 5th sentence: The common information database stores computer-readable data that comprises a plurality of product assemblies with each product assembly corresponding to one of the customization options, and each product assembly further comprises …one of said second data element);
- “10a cost database configured to contain” (Claim 1) / “receiving” (Claim 9) / “program code for receiving” (Claim 17) “cost items / a plurality of cost items representing a portion of a budget for the capital project construction schedule” (Claims 1,10) / “or the capital project components, each of the cost items having at least one cost item code” (Claim 16)
(Samson ¶ [0030] 2nd-3rd sentences: ERP system store and manage data from different stages of business. Some of these stages include: marketing and sales; purchasing management; sales order processing; cost adjustments, shipping and payment; and financial accounting.
Samson ¶ [0031] 4th sentence: ERP systems track business resources, such as cash, raw materials, production capacity, scheduling, etc. and status of business commitments, such as orders, purchase orders, and payroll. ¶ [0036] 3rd sentence: further explains that the financing engine 126 handle customer contractual & financial obligations or costs to pay real-world building. Samson ¶ [0036] 2nd sentence: real-time pricing engine 124 is provided based on all various customizations & design changes selected by user via customization engine 122. Indeed Samson ¶ [0040] last two sentence states that: as the customer is actively customizing a new home or building in real time, system architecture 200 is designed to provide real-time pricing to the user so that the immediate cost and effect of each customization can be experience by the user. In this regard, the user quickly and efficiently understand actual price effect of each choice made during the home design process. ¶ [0051] 1st sentence following customization of the home, full pricing will be provided for all aspects. ¶ [0042] last sentence: Each of the sub-component parts can have its own pricing data (manufacturer cost, labor cost, overhead, adjustment factors, suggested retail price or mark-up factor, etc.) maintained by the ERP system 202.
Samson ¶ [0069] 3rd sentence: due to the large expense of a home purchase, the system can further direct the customer through one or more financing options, simulations, purchase agreements, etc. See mid-¶ [0067] for additional details)
- “a rules configured to receive rules” (Claim 1) / “providing a rule” (Claim 9) / “program code for creating a rule” (Claim 17) “for mapping the one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or one or more cost items” (Claims 1,9,17) / “the rules including a condition based on a code sequence related to the at least one model item, the at least one schedule item, and/or the at least one cost item” (Claim 1)
(Samson ¶ [0034] 4th sentence: the engineering resource system performs strength and dynamic analysis of a home design, per local standards, and to include or address building codes national and/or local. ¶ [0043] 4th-6th sentences: if any of data points of each sub-component part changes, such as price change of a sub-component part, these changes are quickly reflected, in real-time, in overall whole assembly maintained by common info database 212. The overall effect of this compartmentalized, integrated approach is that the attributes of each sub-component are quickly & easily updated in ERP system as they occur, and those changes are similarly easily reflected in common information database 212, while seamless to user participating in real-time virtual experience. Each assembly can have its own unique ID code. A complete list of the chosen assemblies used in the final home design can be maintained, and ultimately the ERP system can be used to tally all of the chosen assembly codes to provide complete pricing and a bill of materials for the entire, finalized home. mid-¶ [0044]: common information database 212 could be designed to periodically request an update from each of ERP system 202 and CAD system 204 based upon a pre-set schedule to provide a highly up-to-date database. Similarly, the info exchange 214 between common information database 212 and graphical front-end design studio 206 occur in either direction, but preferably design studio 206 will request certain info from common information database 212 on an as-needed basis. mid-¶ [0067] With this pricing data, the display update current price 508 to include retrieved the pricing data of chosen part assemblies from common information database 212); “and”
- “a mapping engine configured to communicate with the model item database, the schedule item database, and the cost item database, the mapping engine further configured to” (Claims 1,9,17) (Samson ¶ [0040] 3rd sentence: API 208 middleware enable uni-directional or bi-directional communication and access to shared common information database 212 accessible by any or all of ERP system 202, CAD system 204, and graphical front-end design studio 206.
Samson ¶ [0041] 1st,11th sentences further explains system architecture 200 leverages common information database 212 to enable communication between graphical front-end design studio 206, and supporting back-end ERP system 202 and CAD system 204. common information database 212 acts as intermediary server-connected storage to maintain operational communication between ERP & CAD systems 202, 204 at one physical location, and design studio 206 at another physical location. ¶ [0044] 5th-9th sentences: information exchange 214 between common information database 212 and graphical front-end design studio 206 can occur in either direction, but preferably the design studio 206 will request certain information from the common information database 212 on as-needed basis. For example, each time data is needed about a particular component part (e.g. cabinet assembly, door, window, or other constructions feature), such data will be communicated on-demand to design studio 206 to provide real-time virtual experience to the user. It is contemplated that each data request made to common information database 212 for assembly to retrieve only that assembly, or alternatively retrieve the requested assembly together with related swappable options. In this manner, design studio 206 can pre-cache the various swappable options locally to make the experience operate more quickly to the user as they wish to navigate among different options and combinations. Alternatively, it is contemplated that design studio 206 can have direct communication 218 with either or both of the ERP system 202 and CAD system 204) “to map/ mapping one or more model items, one or more schedule items, and/or one or more cost items based on the rule” (Claims 1,9,17) (Samson [0040] 4th-5th sentences: API 208 middleware enable uni-directional or bi-directional communication and access to shared common information database 212 accessible by any or all of ERP system 202, CAD system 204, and graphical front-end design studio 206. The common information database 212 is especially useful for providing real-time construction data and product availability, as well as real-time pricing to the customer as part of the real-time virtual experience. ¶ [0043] 3rd-6th sentences: as a result, the user quickly see the effect of changing between cabinet option A and cabinet option B, each with its own certain features, appearance, and price. At the same time, if any of the data points of each sub-component part changes, such as a price change of a sub-component part, these changes can be entered into the ERP system 202 and can be quickly reflected, possibly in real-time, in the overall whole assembly maintained by the common information database 212. A complete list of the chosen assemblies used in the final home design can be maintained, and ultimately the ERP system can be used to tally all of the chosen assembly codes to provide complete pricing and a bill of materials for the entire, finalized home. ¶ [0060] 1st -7th sentences noting another example noting upon choosing the wall to be customized, and selecting the “Select Stone Wall” 524 feature, a predetermined list of options 526 is presented to the user. The predetermined list of options 526 provides the user with, for example, different stone types, arrangements, finishes, and colors. A selection of any of these options will change the appearance of the stone facing 514 in the graphical virtual home exterior 510. In this manner, the user can quickly and easily experience what the various stone facing options will look like for their custom home. ¶ [0067] last sentence: common information database 212 may contain the engineering drawings for display to the user as assemblies with an associated bill of materials)
- “wherein the mapping engine is further configured to perform real-time monitoring of one or more of the following: material availability, resource utilization, or machine status” (Claims 1,9,17)
(Samson ¶ [0040] 5th sentence: providing real-time construction data & product availability.
Samson ¶ [0031] 4th sentence: ERP systems track business resources, such as cash, raw materials, production capacity, scheduling, etc.
Samson ¶ [0043] 4th sentence: if any of data points of each sub-component part changes, of a sub-component part, these changes are entered into ERP system 202 and quickly reflected, in real-time, in overall whole assembly maintained by the common information database 212.
Samson ¶ [0044] 3rd, 5th-8th sentences: The information exchange 216 between common information database 212 and ERP system 202 and CAD system 204 can occur in either direction, but preferably changes to the ERP system 202 and/or CAD system 204 are pushed downward to common information database 212, in real-time to synchronize and provide a highly up-to-date database. For example, each time data is needed about a particular component part (e.g., a cabinet assembly, door, window, or other constructions feature), such data will be communicated on-demand to the design studio 206 to thereby provide the real-time virtual experience to the end user. It is contemplated that each data request made to the common information database 212 for an assembly can retrieve only that assembly, or may alternatively retrieve the requested assembly together with related swappable options. In this manner, the design studio 206 can pre-cache the various swappable options locally in an effort to make the experience operate more quickly to the end user as they wish to navigate among the different options and combinations. Alternatively, it is contemplated that the design studio 206 could have direct communication 218 with either or both of the ERP system 202 and CAD system 204.
Samson ¶ [0068] 1st -2nd sentences: ERP system is constantly updating its databases as to pricing, availability, production lead time, bill of materials, etc. Thus, real-time data including pricing, product availability, bill of materials, is accessible to builder/manufacturer and customer in a transparent manner so they quickly understand ramifications of their design choices).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Samson Fig.1 in support of rejection arguments
Claims 2,10, 18. Samson teaches all the limitations in claims 1,9,17 above.
Samson further teaches “wherein the system is in communication with one or more devices to receive real-time data” (Claim 2) / “receiving” / “program code for receiving the real-time data from one or more devices” (Claims 10,18) (Samson ¶ [0029] 2nd-3rd sentences: The computerized system provides a real-time integrated solution that includes a plurality of major components that interface over a communication network, including: Enterprise resource planning (ERP) system 102; a CAD system 104 (i.e., a computer automated design system) that provides an Engineering resource system; a 3D Design Studio 106 that provides a user with a real-time virtual experience based upon data provided by ERP and CAD systems; and an application programming interface (API) 108 that provides the integration layer between the 3D design studio and the ERP and CAD systems. The 3D design studio 106 is a graphical front-end layered on top of the ERP system 102 and CAD system 104 to provide a user input and output system, and the API 108 manages and controls interaction between the ERP/CAD systems and 3D design studio. ¶ [0031] 1st sentence: ERP systems provide an integrated real-time view of core business processes, using common databases maintained by a database management system).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3,11,19, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Samson as applied to claims 2,10,18 above, and in view of
Harris et al, US 20190147247 A1 hereinafter Harris. As per,
Claims 3,11,19 Samson teaches all the limitations in claims 2,10,18 above.
Samson still recites at ¶ [0029] 3rd sentence: 3D design studio 106 is a graphical front-end that is layered on top of the ERP system 102 and CAD system 104 to provide user input and output system. ¶ [0027] 1st sentence: input devices comprise camera-based input. Other examples at mid-¶ [0048] 7th sentence: noting the input information is related to the desired home/building and customizations,
Samson does not explicitly recite: “wherein the one or more devices include one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors” “drones, or mobile robots”.
Harris however in analogous modeling of structures for bill of materials in analysis of projects of construction, reconstruction or repair teaches or suggests: “wherein the one or more devices include one or more of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors” “drones, or mobile robots”
(Harris ¶ [0016] 3rd, 5th sentences: in step 12, system could receive one or more digital images of a property. Images of a property could be gathered from many possible sources including, but not limited to, drones, and from ground-based cameras)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Samson’s system/method/product to have included Harris’ teachings or suggestions to have automatically delineated candidate objects in the model for annotation, to rapidly increase in the efficiency and speed with which annotated computer models of structures are developed (Harris ¶ [0029] last sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Samson ¶ [0012], ¶ [0026] in view of Harris ¶ [0035].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor in analysis of projects. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical and organizational function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Samson in view of Harris, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 4,12,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Samson as applied to claims 2,10,18 above, and in view of
Morkos et al US 20190205484 A1 hereinafter Morkos. As per,
Claims 4,12,20 Samson teaches all the limitations in claims 1,9,17 above.
Samson does not exactly recite: “wherein the mapping engine includes an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model, the AI/ML model receiving as an input the real-time data and identifying deviations from a planned schedule” as claimed. Nevertheless,
Morkos in analogous art of construction planning teaches/suggests: “wherein the mapping engine includes an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model, the AI/ML model receiving as an input the real-time data and identifying deviations from a planned schedule”
(Morkos ¶ [0103] 7th-14th sentences: upon receipt of the real progress, real parameter or condition, and/or real resource pool of the construction project, the estimated construction schedule for the future time frame can be updated. For example, the server may re-run or re-calculate the remaining construction schedule based on remaining (e.g., future) portions of the construction plan. In some instances, the estimated construction schedule for the future time frame can be updated in real-time. Real-time can include a response time of less than 1 second, tenths of a second, hundredths of a second, or a millisecond. In some instances, a comparison between the estimated progress and real progress can be factored into a machine learning algorithm used by the server. An updated construction schedule can be presented to a user automatically or upon user instructions for an update. The updated construction schedule may be visualized, for example, by methods (e.g graph, Gantt chart, 4D model, information cards, etc.) described elsewhere herein. For example, at Fig.10 and ¶ [0091] 9th -10th sentences: In some instances, the location of a point on the chart 1002 for a construction plan and/or schedule can be indicative of a duration and total cost of the project. Beneficially, such visual plotting can easily allow assessment of whether a construction plan is within an operable or objective time frame and/or operable or objective cost. ¶ [0097] 1st sentence: A bar may curve up at the end, such that operations taking a longer duration are more distinguished and easier to follow visually)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Samson’s system/method/product to have included Morkos’s teachings to have better mitigated complications, hazards, inefficiency, waste of resources and budget, etc. (Morkos ¶ [0003] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Samson ¶ [0012], ¶ [0026] in view of Morkos ¶ [0018], ¶ [0035], ¶ [0116].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with construction analysis or planning. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical, organizational and managerial function as separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Samson in view of Morkos, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like puzzle pieces in logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination’s results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 5-8, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Samson / Morkos as applied to claims 4,12 above, and in further view of
Subramanian et al, US 20210117878 A1 hereinafter Subramanian. As per,
Claims 5,13 Samson / Morkos teaches all the limitations in claims 4,12 above.
Samson/Morkos does not recite wherein the AI/ML model, upon detecting a deviation from the planned schedule, produces insights and generates an output relating to the deviation.
Subramanian however in analogous art of worksite project tracking teaches/suggests
- “wherein the AI/ML model, upon detecting a deviation from the planned schedule, produces insights and generates an output relating to the deviation”
(Subramanian ¶ [0054] 1st,4th,5th sentences: system controller 122 implement machine learning techniques to determine which components, are likely to inhibit progress. The notification include multiple levels of urgency based on which of the multiple threshold progress values the progress value is less than. The notification indicate a time period for which the progress value is less than the threshold progress value. For example Fig. 5 element 512: Is progress value less than a threshold progress value?->yes-> step 516: determine components are underperforming.
Subramanian ¶ [0054] 9th,12th- 13th sentence: system controller 122 implement machine learning techniques to determine which components, individually or in combination, are likely to inhibit progress of paving system 100. In addition, through the machine learning techniques, the system may learn the type of recommendations [interpreted as insights] that are most effective when implemented in the paving system 100 in order to reach the target data.
Subramanian ¶ [0054] 6th-7th sentences: As described with respect to Fig.3 the notification may include one or more selectable controls that, when selected, may display progress data and/or recommendation(s) to the user. The notification recommendations may be based at least in part on determining the one or more components of the paving system 100 that are inhibiting progress of the paving project 206 and/or the paving system 100). Similar ¶ [0005] 3rd sentence:
generating, with the controller and based at least in part on determining that the progress value is less than the threshold progress value, at least one of an alarm or a recommendation, and sending, with the controller, at least one of the alarm or the recommendation to an electronic device associated with a user).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Samson / Morkos’ “system” /“method” to have included Subramanian’s teachings in order to have provided a more rigorous algorithm that would have used feature reduction and/or feature selection algorithm (i.e. Spearman's rank correlation between factors, recursive feature elimination (RFE), principal component analysis (PCA), matrix factorization, diversity selection based on latent space from a matrix factorization, a Relief algorithm, or a combination thereof) in order to have better identified one or more factors and/or components that impact the progress of the paving project the most and or will impact the paving project. (Subramanian ¶ [0054] last 3 sentences in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Samson ¶ [0012], ¶ [0026] in view of Morkos ¶ [0018], ¶ [0035], ¶ [0116] in further view of Subramanian ¶ [0060].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with project planning or monitoring. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same analytical, organizational and managerial / planning function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Samson / Morkos in further view of Subramanian, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 6,14 Samson / Morkos / Subramanian teaches all the limitations in claims 5,13 above.
Samson/Morkos does not teach “wherein the output includes a notification for action”.
Subramanian however in analogous art of worksite project tracking teaches/suggests
- “wherein the output includes a notification for14 action”
(Subramanian ¶ [0042] 2nd,4th-5th sentences the recommendations include data describing which components of paving system 100 causing the paving project 206 to be behind schedule to identify strategies to overcome the one or more inefficiencies. These strategies may be presented to the user on the display when the user selects the control 306 to allow the foreman at ¶ [0049] last sentence to make changes to the paving system 100 prior to the paving project getting behind schedule. Also see ¶ [0048] 14th-15th sentences: noting additional details of the system controller 122 comparing the actual start time with the projected start time and/or the suggested start time and send, to electronic device 128 associated with the user, an indication whether the current work day started early, late, or substantially on time (i.e., within approximately 15, 25, 30 minutes, etc.). In an example where the system controller 122 determines that the start time was later than projected start time and/or suggested start time,the system controller 122 may automatically update the target data in order to reach the target data for the day
Rationales to have modified/combined Samson/Morkos/Subramanian are above&reincorporated.
Claims 7,15 Samson / Morkos / Subramanian teaches all the limitations in claims 6,14 above.
Samson/Morkos does not teach “wherein the AI/ML model generates an adjusted project schedule based upon the insights and outputs the adjusted project schedule for action”
Subramanian however in analogous art of worksite project tracking teaches/suggest
- “wherein the AI/ML model generates an adjusted project schedule based upon the insights and outputs the adjusted project schedule for15 action”
(Subramanian ¶ [0054] 9th,12th-13th sentence system controller 122 implement machine learning techniques to determine which components, individually or in combination, are likely to inhibit progress of paving system 100. In addition, through the machine learning techniques, the system learn the type of recommendations [or insights] that are most effective when implemented in the paving system 100 in order to reach the target data. For example, at Fig.5 step 512 and
Subramanian ¶ [0052] 4th sentence: if the system controller 122 determines that the progress value is greater than threshold progress value, the system controller 122 may evaluate and/or adjust the target data, which is represented at ¶ [0037] 1st sentence as a projected bar. For example, at ¶ [0048] 14th-15th sentences: the system controller 122 compare the actual start time with the projected start time and/or the suggested start time and send, to electronic device 128 associated with the user, an indication whether the current work day started early, late, or substantially on time (i.e., within approximately 15, 25, 30 minutes, etc.). In an example where the system controller 122 determines that the start time was later than the projected start time and/or the suggested start time, the system controller 122 may automatically update the target data in order to reach the target data for the day. This way at ¶ [0049] last sentence the foreman can make changes to the paving system 100 prior to the paving project getting behind schedule)
Rationales to have modified/combined Samson/Morkos/Subramanian are above&reincorporated.
Claims 8,16 Samson / Morkos / Subramanian teaches all the limitations in claims 7,15 above.
Samson/Morkos does not teach
- “wherein the adjusted AI/ML generated schedule output includes one or more of the following: reallocation of resources, task resequencing, or revised timelines” as claimed.
Subramanian however in analogous art of worksite project tracking teaches/suggest
- “wherein the adjusted AI/ML generated schedule output includes one or more of the following: reallocation of resources” (Subramanian [0054] 9th,12th-13th sentence system controller 122 implement machine learning techniques to determine which components, individually or in combination, are likely to inhibit progress of paving system 100. In addition, through the machine learning techniques, the system may learn the type of recommendations that are most effective when implemented in the paving system 100 in order to reach the target data. For example, at
¶ [0048] last sentence the system controller 122 may adjust an amount of paving material 108 that needs to be paved every hour in order to reach the target data for the day and/or the paving project 206), task resequencing, or revised timelines” (Subramanian ¶ [0048] 14th-15th sentences: system controller 122 compare the actual start time with projected start time and/or the suggested start time and send, to electronic device 128 associated with the user, an indication whether the current work day started early, late, or substantially on time (i.e., within approximately 15,25,30 minutes etc.). In an example where the system controller 122 determines that the start time was later than the projected start time and/or the suggested start time, the system controller 122 may automatically update the target data in order to reach the target data for the day).
Rationales to have modified/combined Samson/Morkos/Subramanian are above&reincorporated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Following prior art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
* WO 2011091158 A2 teaching performing or assisting management of construction project, has server that manages set of tasks information from user, which is applied to frame work to determine attendant state of project and compared with preset conditions
* Kalagnanam et al, A system for automated mapping of bill-of-materials part numbers, 10th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, p 805-810, Aug22 2004
* US 20140277666 A1 teaching generating scheduling options in consideration of specific space constraints within a construction site
* US 20220254054 A1 teaching construction machine work information generation system and work information generation method
* US 20210192419 A1 teaching time and attendance system suitable for large or mobile work forces
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/OCTAVIAN ROTARU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
June 26th, 2026
1 MPEP 2106.04(a): “…examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible…”.
2 USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04, with respect to the patentable weight of intended use or result
3 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
4 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
5 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
6 Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
7 OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
8 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014)
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755
9 Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
10 Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
11 OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
12 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014)
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755
13 Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
14 USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04, with respect to the patentable weight of intended use or result
15 USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04, with respect to the patentable weight of intended use or result
Prosecution Insights