DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 04/05/2026
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15 are presented for examination
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments – Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 04/05/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 2, 9, and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 2, 9, and 11 have been withdrawn.
It should be noted, however, that additional issues are present in the newly amended versions of the claims. See the Claim Objections section below.
Response to Arguments -101
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-7, filed 04/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15 under 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15 under 101 has been withdrawn.
Particularly, the way the system uses a particular drift correction mechanism that references both in-building markers and external official geodesy anchors to provide more accurate, curvature-corrected building model geometry successfully integrates the claim into a practical application.
Further, the ordered combination of the particular additional elements (referring to both in-building markers and external official geodesy anchors, installing optical markers, reading in those optical markers, delivering geometry to a server to create a curvature-corrected 3D point cloud that includes a text file, access points for the reference floor, photos, sensor information, and a local magnetic field of the earth, etc.) is not conventional, particularly when taken as a whole.
Response to Arguments -103
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-10, filed 04/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15 under 103 has been withdrawn.
Particularly, references that would have been reasonable and obvious to combine that teach referencing both external official geodesy surveying anchors and in-building markers to provide curvature-corrected building model geometry, adjusting the marker-associated positions while performing the compensation, wherein the model specifically contains a text file, access points for the reference floor, photos, sensor information, and a local magnetic field of the earth, and also explicitly teach the duplication of floors could not be found.
The closest references found for teaching these limitations were in disparate fields and did not offer sufficient teachings, suggestions, or motivations to make a reasonable case that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 7 recite “geodesy surveying points.” To read more clearly and be further in line with the specification, it is recommended that these points be amended to be referred to as “geodetic surveying points,” as this is the commonly accepted term for these elements. Further, the specification itself refers to these as “geodetic” ([Page 14 Par 1] “Depending on the application, anchor points are also referred to as … geodetic datum points…”)
Claim 1 recites “delivering the compensated geometry to a server hosting the building information model.” No “building information model” was previously introduced. It is recommended to amend this limitation to read “delivering the compensated geometry to a server hosting a building information model;” to avoid potential issues with antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites “creating or expanding a building information model.” To avoid confusion and potential issues with antecedent basis, it is recommended to amend this to read “the building information model.” As the building information model was already created in claim 1, creating a model after the fact in claim 3 would mean creating a second model, to which there does not appear to be support. However, it is clear this “creating” limitation is merely an artifact left over from a previous version of the claims before the building information model was amended into claim 1, and is merely meant to refer to the building information model that has now already been created. Therefore, the claim should be amended similarly to suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Particularly, no support could be found in the disclosure for the newly amended language “compensating for drift in the geometry of the reference floor using the location points of the read-in markers and the official anchor points by analyzing with a processor of the mobile scanning device to adjust the location points based on reading the markers;” While compensating for drift in the geometry on the basis of the read-in markers is found throughout the disclosure, ([Page 3 Par 2] “wherein, on the basis of the location points (OPD1, OPD2) of the read-in markers (Ml - M3), the geometry of the reference floor is compensated for drift;” [Page 6 Par 7] “reading in the markers in the reference floor by way of a correspondingly configured mobile reading device (scanning device, e.g. a device from the company NavVis), wherein, on the basis of the location position of the read-in markers, the geometry of the reference floor is compensated for drift;” [Page 12 Par 3] “means for reading in machine-readable markers installed at the specified location points in the reference floor, wherein, on the basis of the location position of the read-in markers, the geometry of the reference floor is compensated for drift, and wherein an, in particular digital, volume model can be created for the rooms in the reference floor in a building information model (BIM) in a suitable notation and can be stored in a storage medium;”) the adjustment of the location points themselves, that is, the locations tied to the machine-readable markers, during drift compensation does not have support in the disclosure. The closest passage to describing this, as found in [Page 17 Par 2] merely describes adding these locations to the point cloud. “The location point data OPD1, OPD2 of all read-in markers in the building GB can be merged into a point cloud at the server S.” However, this clearly does not describe any position adjustment to the location points themselves, merely the addition of those points to another data container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Mirabito whose telephone number is (703)756-1494. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 am - 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/M.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights