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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments submitted 11 July 2025 have been entered and considered. In response, US Pre-Grant Application No. 2017/0315697 to Jacobson et al. (hereinafter “Jacobson”) is introduced to address the limitations of generating a computerized floorplan model and graphically annotating areas within the floorplan model according to a user-selected status. As Jacobson was not previously used in the rejection of the independent claims, this action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Maintenance of Building Components Supported in Interactive Environments” by Sampaio et al. (submitted by Applicant, hereinafter referred to as “Sampaio”) in view of US Pre-Grant Application No. 2017/0315697 to Jacobson et al. (hereinafter “Jacobson”).
As to claim 1, Sampaio discloses a method for rapidly developing an annotated computer model of water damage relating to a structure, comprising the steps of:
generating a computerized
graphically defining at least one area within the
automatically generating and displaying in the user interface a plurality of questions to be answered by a user of the system based on the at least one area (fifth page, Fig.5, questions are in the lower left of the of the displayed interface window); and
generating, based on respective answers provided by the user to the plurality of questions, a list of actions to mitigate water damage in the at least one area (fifth page, Fig.5, the upper right of the interface window provides a section for generating a list of actions to be taken to mitigate water damage, “Interventions”; fourth page, Table I, lower portion of table, “Intervention”).
Sampaio is not explicit that the generated model is a floorplan model as used in the instant application, and noted in Applicant’s arguments submitted 11 July 2025. In a similar field of art, Jacobson teaches generating a floorplan model of a building (see at least para. 0020-21). Jacobson’s floorplan model can by dynamically edited by a user to indicate a user-selected status for each room of the building floorplan. The user-entered status of each room is then used to update the floorplan model of the building. While Jacobson does not explicitly teach updating the status of a room with an indication of water/flood damage, Sampaio provides for such designation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the user-editable floorplan model of Jacobson with the water/flood damage indication of Sampaio. Doing so would produce the know and expected uses and benefits of expanding the utility of Jacobson’s room-designation model to account for rooms with water/flood damage according to Sampaio’s anomaly designation process.
As to claim 3, Sampaio discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising generating a zone encompassing the at least one area, the zone being indicative of a category and a class of the water damage in the at least one area (Fig.5, the image of the building shows different elements, which are encompassed by the roof, the roof being a zone, the interface window, in section 2, reads, “Caracterização da anomalia” which means “Characterization of the anomaly” in English).
As to claim 5, Sampaio discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein plurality of questions are presented to the user in a guided script (Fig.5, questions presented in the lower left of the interface window).
As to claim 6, Sampaio discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the at least one area is indicative of a room or a set of rooms within the floorplan model (the model identifies wall surfaces for each room, sixth page, right column, first full paragraph, just above Fig.7; the model comprises rooms in Fig.2).
Regarding claims 7, 9, 11 and 12, see the discussions above for claims 1, 3, 5 and 6, respectively. Sampaio discloses a computer system having a processor, memory and display are inherent, considering the user of software (Fig.1), and the computer interface (Figs.3, 4 and 5).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampaio and Jacobson in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170193297 to Michini et al. (submitted by Applicant, hereinafter referred to as “Michini”)
As to claim 2, Sampaio and Jacobson disclose the method of Claim 1, but do not disclose it further comprising the steps of:
graphically defining the at least one area by generating a boundary utilizing a user interface tool displayed by the user interface; and
generating, based on the respective answers provided by the user to the plurality of questions, a list of actions to mitigate water damage of the boundary.
However, the following is well known in the art, as evidenced by Michini. Michini discloses graphically defining the at least one area by generating a boundary utilizing a user interface tool displayed by the user interface ([0077], user can indicate boundaries of a rooftop; user can click on or trace the boundaries of the rooftop). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sampaio and Jacobson’s system according to Michini because this would permit easier designation of areas for damage in the 3D model, in Sampaio and Jacobson’s interface.
In the combination, the list of actions to mitigate water damage generated based on the respective answers provided by the user (see discussion above for claim 1) would involve the boundary since the boundary would define the roof, which has the damage.
With regard to claim 8, see the discussion above for claim 2.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampaio and Jacobson in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170221152 to Nelson et al. (submitted by Applicant, hereinafter referred to as “Nelson”).
As to claim 4, Sampaio and Jacobson disclose the method of Claim 1, but not it further comprising the steps of:
positioning at least one piece of equipment within the at least one area that can be utilized to mitigate the water damage in the at least one area by utilizing a user interface tool displayed by the user interface;
automatically generating and displaying in the user interface the plurality of questions to be answered by the user of the system based on the at least one area and the at least one piece of equipment; and
generating, based on respective answers provided by the user to the plurality of questions, a calculation for utilizing the at least one piece of equipment to mitigate the water damage in the at least one area.
However, this is well known in the art. For example, Nelson teaches:
positioning at least one piece of equipment within the at least one area that can be utilized to mitigate the water damage in the at least one area by utilizing a user interface tool displayed by the user interface (paragraph [0100], room details page provide a field for adding dehumidification to a garage, which would necessarily require a dehumidifier);
automatically generating and displaying in the user interface the plurality of questions to be answered by the user of the system based on the at least one area and the at least one piece of equipment ([0097]-[0100]); and
generating, based on respective answers provided by the user to the plurality of questions, a calculation for utilizing the at least one piece of equipment to mitigate the water damage in the at least one area ([0089]; [0098]-[0100]).
Nelson’s approach would provide more efficient repair of damage due to water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sampaio and Jacobson’s system according to Nelson.
Regarding claim 10, see the discussion above for claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen R Koziol whose telephone number is (408)918-7630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM Pacific Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665