DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11-13 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments referred to below were filed 1 April 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 11 and 12 obviate the prior claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 12 and 13 obviate the prior 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 12-15. Claims 12 and 13 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
For these reasons, the previous claim objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 1 April 2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites: “… the processor is further configured to determine a fitting position of the fitted formwork on an existing formwork compatible with a distance determined by the distance determination unit based on formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and the at least one existing formwork, and to store the determined fitting position in the position database as a position of the fitted formwork …” (emphasis added), which appears to be an artifact of Applicant’s editing process. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner recommends amending claim 12 as follows: “… the processor is further configured to determine a fitting position of the fitted formwork on an existing formwork compatible with the determined distance [[to]] store the determined fitting position in the position database as a position of the fitted formwork …”
Examiner notes that Applicant appeared to make a bona fide attempt to remove the distance determination unit, which is why an objection is provided instead of maintaining the rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determining a fitting position of the fitted formwork on the at least one existing formwork compatible with the determined distance on the basis of the formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and the at least one existing formwork”, which is unclear. Particularly, the specification indicates that there are “infinitely many” fitting position options but indicates “assumption of basically adjacent formworks” and excludes those that are not adjacent and/or within a tolerance range. The specification also indicates a side of each formwork may be connection surfaces. It is not clear whether the assumptions (e.g., adjacent formworks and/or within a tolerance range and/or the sides being connection surfaces) from the specification should be read into the claim and if not, it is not clear how the determination of a fitting position is actually made.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 12 recites similar determination step and is rejected for similar reasons. Claims 2-11 and 13-15 depend from rejected claim 1 or claim 12. Therefore, claims 2-11 and 13-15 are also rejected under the same rationale since these claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 or claim 12, while failing to cure the respective deficiencies of claim 1 or claim 12.
For compact prosecution, Examiner has made an interpretation (as best understood), which is based on the assumptions. Most notably, Examiner is interpreting claim 1, and recommends amending claim 1, to recite: “determining a fitting position of the fitted formwork on the at least one existing formwork compatible with the determined distance, wherein the fitting position is a position where a side of the fitted formwork is connected to or adjacent, within a tolerance range, to a side of the at least one existing formwork on the basis of the formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and the at least one existing formwork”.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and mathematical calculation(s). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The following is an analysis based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-11 are directed to the statutory category of a process. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes: Claims 12-15 are directed to the statutory category of a machine. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A:
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
1. A method for determining the position of a formwork fitted onto at least one existing formwork, the method comprising:
transmitting a locating signal from the fitted formwork;
receiving the transmitted locating signal with a receiver at a reference point;
determining a distance between the fitted formwork and the reference point based on the received locating signal;
determining a fitting position of the fitted formwork on the at least one existing formwork compatible with the determined distance on the basis of the formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and the at least one existing formwork, and
saving the determined fitting position as the position of the fitted formwork,
wherein the formwork is devoid of a locating signal receiver.
The limitations “for determining the position of a formwork fitted onto at least one existing formwork”, “determining a distance between the fitted formwork and the reference point based on the received locating signal”, “determining a fitting position of the fitted formwork on the at least one existing formwork compatible with the determined distance on the basis of the formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and the at least one existing formwork” and “wherein the formwork is devoid of a locating signal receiver” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could determine a distance between the fitted formwork and a reference point and determine a fitting position of the formwork on an existing (already-placed) formwork, mentally or on paper with pen.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “transmitting a locating signal from the fitted formwork”, “receiving the transmitted locating signal with a receiver at a reference point” and “saving the determined fitting position as the position of the fitted formwork” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering – See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering/inputting and/or outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there is one type of additional element. The first and only type of additional element/limitation, which as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering and/or outputting). Recitations of “transmitting a locating signal”, “receiving the transmitted locating signal” and “saving the determine fitting position” are mere data gathering/inputting and/or outputting that are recited at a high level of generality, and, are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC). See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data … utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”)). These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 2-11 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 12 Step 2A prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
12. A system for determining a position of a formwork, comprising:
a fitted formwork with a transmitter for a locating signal,
a reference point with a receiver for a locating signal,
a processor configured to determine a distance between the fitted formwork and the reference point based on a locating signal sent by the transmitter and received by the receiver; and
a position database with stored positions of at least one existing formwork;
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a fitting position of the fitted formwork on an existing formwork compatible with a distance determined by the distance determination unit based on formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and the at least one existing formwork, and to store the determined fitting position in the position database as a position of the fitted formwork, and
wherein the formwork is devoid of a locating signal receiver.
The limitations “for determining a position of a formwork”, “determine a distance between the fitted formwork and the reference point based on a locating signal sent by the transmitter and received by the receiver”, “determine a fitting position of the fitted formwork on an existing formwork compatible with a distance determined by the distance determination unit based on formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and the at least one existing formwork” and “wherein the formwork is devoid of a locating signal receiver” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could determine a distance between the fitted formwork and a reference point and determine a fitting position of the formwork on an existing (already-placed) formwork, mentally or on paper with pen.
Claim 12 Step 2A prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “a fitted formwork with a transmitter for a locating signal”, “a reference point with a receiver for a locating signal” and “store the determined fitting position in the position database as a position of the fitted formwork” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering – See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering/inputting and/or outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
• “processor configured to” perform operations, and “position database with stored positions of at least one existing formwork” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer).
Claim 12 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional elements. The first type of additional element/limitation, which as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering and/or outputting). Recitations of “a fitted formwork with a transmitter for a locating signal”, “a reference point with a receiver for a locating signal” and “store the determined fitting position” are mere data gathering/inputting and/or outputting that are recited at a high level of generality, and, are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC). See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data … utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”)). These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
The second type of additional elements are the generic computer components (the processor and database configured to perform the functional steps), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 12 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 12 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 13-15 are further addressed below.
Dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-15
Regarding claims 2-11 and 13-15, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein determining the fitting position comprises: determining all possible fitting positions of the fitted formwork on the at least one existing formwork; determining the associated distance of each determined possible fitting position to the reference point; determining those fitting positions as compatible with the determined distance whose associated distance is within a tolerance range around the determined distance”; claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites: “wherein determining the fitting position comprises: limiting the possible fitting positions based on a local zone boundary”; claim 4 depends from claim 2 and further recites: “wherein determining the fitting position comprises: limiting possible fitting positions on the basis of an orientation information concerning the fitted formwork”; claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein a locating signal is transmitted together with a geometry of the fitted formwork and/or with an orientation information from the fitted formwork to a receiver”; claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “determining a number of reference points having a receiver with a direct line of sight to a transmitter of the fitted formwork; and when the determined number of reference points is less than three, performing the method according to Claim 1”; claim 7 depends from claim 6 and further recites: “wherein if the determined number of reference points is at least three, the position of the fitted formwork is determined on the basis of the distances to the at least three reference points and associated with a probability of one”; claim 8 depends from claim 6 and further recites: “wherein the position of the fitted formwork is associated with a reduced probability less than one, wherein a probability associated with the at least one existing formwork, to which the fitted formwork is fitted, is taken into account”; claim 9 depends from claim 8 and further recites: “wherein the reduced probability is determined as a function of a deviation of the determined distance from the distance corresponding to the determined fitting position”; claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein determining the fitting position comprises: determining a connection geometry for at least two positioning options; determining the fitting position in a context of a position determination of a subsequent formwork, wherein the position of the subsequent formwork is determined at a fitting position compatible with the connection geometry”; claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the method is carried out on the basis of a stored installation sequence of a plurality of formworks and the respectively determined positions and/or distances, wherein, in the case of a plurality of possible fitting positions for a fitted formwork, the probability of the possible fitting positions is evaluated on the basis of other chronologically subsequently erected formworks, and a possible fitting position having the greatest associated probability is determined as the position of the fitted formwork”; claim 13 depends from claim 12 and further recites: “wherein the processor is connected to a geometry database with stored formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and at least one existing formwork.”; claim 14 depends from claim 12 and further recites: “wherein the transmitter is centered on the fitted formwork.” and claim 15 depends from claim 12 and further recites: “wherein the fitted formwork comprises an orientation sensor, wherein the orientation sensor is connected to the transmitter”. These feature have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which the claim depends. The bolded portion of the additional feature are considered to further clarify the details of the human’s mental activity, with pen and paper, and/or a mathematical calculation(s). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). In addition, the “transmitting”/”transmitter” of claims 5 and 14 are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, which cannot provide an inventive concept, and is well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g); See also MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”)). In addition, the “processor” connected to a database and use of orientation sensor (in claims 13 and 15) are generic computer components, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claim claims 2-11 and 13-15 are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claims 1 and 12 would be allowable over the cited prior art if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) set forth in this Office action. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-15 would be allowable based on dependency on a potentially allowable claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter of the independent claim:
Context: The application appears to be directed to a method that uses a transmitter/tag on (e.g., the back of) a formwork to determine a distance between a reference/anchor receiver. That distance and the fit/connection of the formwork next to/with an already installed formwork (e.g., based on an installation sequence/order of the formworks) is used to determine the position of the fitted (newly erected) formwork. So just using one locating signal and known information about how the formworks are to be installed to determine the position of the formwork. Specification explains accuracy is important in this context.
The closest pertinent prior art of record BRAMBERGER et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0319363) teaches construction means is/may be formwork (Para. [0002]) and the construction means needs to be identified/tracked/position-determined (Paras. [0003]-[0005]). Paras. [0011] and [0012] of BRAMBERGER respectively recite “the use of a loop antenna provides for a position determination of the signal transmitter without three or more loop antennas being necessary, as this is the case for example in conventional triangulation methods” and “the signal evaluation device connected to the loop antenna can be configured to determine the position of the signal transmitter relative to the loop antenna on the basis of the signal strength and/or signal frequency received in various portions of the loop antenna”. Thus, BRAMBERGER seems to understand the problem related to locating/tracking of construction elements (e.g., formworks). However, BRAMBERGER’s approach is slightly different than the claimed formwork positioning/tracking method, and uses formwork as just one example of a type of potential construction element to be track/identify position of.
Specifically, although BRAMBERGER mentions formwork (Para. [0002]), BRAMBERGER fails to disclose at least “determining a fitting position of the fitted formwork on the at least one existing formwork compatible with the determined distance on the basis of the formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and the at least one existing formwork” and “wherein the formwork is devoid of a locating signal receiver”, as recited in claim 1 and as similarly presented in independent claim 12. The claim limitations of claim 1 (and similarly claim 12) have been considered in combination with the other claim limitations and, when considered as a whole, are considered to be allowable over the prior art of record. It is for this reason the claimed invention overcomes the prior art of record.
The remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination with BRAMBERGER, fail to cure these deficiencies of BRAMBERGER, as discussed below:
The prior art of record VOGL et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0145111) discloses, at Para. [0106], “[i]n case of a gap between the first form element 4 and the previous casting segment 16 (as shown in FIG. 12) the laser radiation (illustrated with solid lines 41) hits the light receiving element 40 at a first position, while the laser radiation would hit the light receiving element 40 at a (known) second position if the first form element 4 abuts the previous casting segment 16 (illustrated with dashed lines 42). From the distance between the first and second position the gap between the first form element 4 and the previous casting segment 16 may be calculated.”
The prior art of record REIMANN (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0087757) discloses, at Para. [0069], “at least the position of one anchor is determined in absolute terms in relation to a blueprint and/or a point of reference. According to the inventive method, at least one distance, particularly also the orientation and/or relative position, between at least a number of anchor pairs, equaling the number of anchors minus one, particularly of all the anchors is determined. What is important, thus, is that at least the distance between the anchors is sufficiently known to determine the necessary distances.”
The prior art of record PETTERSSON (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0209156 A1) discloses a method for determining the position of a construction element onto at least one existing construction element (determining the mounting position 32 is performed by virtual fitting and preferably also comprises determining a mounting orientation of the element at the mounting position 32, i.e. a mounting pose is determined in six degrees of freedom, Para. [0064]; See also FIG. 3 shows the mounting position 32 is on and adjacent to existing construction elements of the building 30; [the fitted construction element and at least one existing element are explained in more detail below]) comprising: transmitting a locating signal (two GNSS antennas 42 each of which being adapted to work with a global navigation satellite system (GNSS, represented by satellites 40), such as e.g. GPS, for determining a position of the GNSS antenna 42, Para. [0071]; [the GPS GNSS satellites are interpreted as corresponding to broadcasters/transmitters that transmit/broadcast a GPS [position/locating] signal]; See also the pose determining unit comprises a calculation unit which receives position data from the GNSS antennas 42 in real time, indicating the positions of the GNSS antennas 42 in a global coordinate system, Para. [0071]) from the fitted construction element (the GNSS antennas 42 can provide a position, Para. [0081]; See also the GNSS antennae 42 are placed directly on the element 20 to allow determining a position and orientation of the element 20, Para. [0071]; See also the element 20 is a wall element 20 that is to be positioned on a building 30 that is under construction, Para. [0030]; [the GNSS antenna that position data is received also retransmits the location/position data/signal to the crane/crane controlling unit 3; thus, the element 20 having antennae 42 is interpreted as being a transmitter that transmits/retransmits a position/locating signal; See also annotated FIG. 2 of PETTERSSON below]; [Examiner’s note: PETTERSSON, at Para. [0083], appears to use mounting position and mounting pose interchangeably]);
PNG
media_image1.png
431
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
<Examiner-annotated FIG. 2 of PETTERSSON>
receiving the transmitted locating signal with a receiver at a reference point (the pose determining unit furthermore comprises fixed GNSS antennas 43 that are placed on the building 30, Para. [0072]; [the antenna 43 placed on the building is interpreted as a receiver at fixed reference point [the building]]; See also the calculation unit receives position data also from these fixed GNSS antennas 43 in real time, and is adapted to compare the position data with that from the movable GNSS antennas 42 on the element 20, which allows for determining a movement of the element 20 with higher precision than in a configuration in which only the positions of the movable GNSS antennas 42 is determined, Para. [0072]); determining a distance between the fitted construction element (the pose determining unit is adapted to monitor a distance of the element to the mounting position, Para. [0029]; See also in the embodiment of FIG. 4, the pose determining unit furthermore comprises fixed GNSS antennas 43 [interpreted as fixed reference point] that are placed on the building 30, and the calculation unit receives position data also from these fixed GNSS antennas 43 in real time, and is adapted to compare the position data with that [position data/locating signal] from the movable GNSS antennas 42 on the element 20, which allows determining a movement of the element 20 with higher precision than in a configuration in which only the positions of the movable GNSS antennas 42 is determined, Para. [0072]); determining a fitting position of the fitted construction element construction element (determining the mounting position 32 is performed by virtual fitting and preferably also comprises determining a mounting orientation of the element at the mounting position 32, i.e. a mounting pose is determined in six degrees of freedom, Para. [0064]; See also FIG. 3 shows the mounting position 32 is on and adjacent to existing construction elements of the building 30) compatible with the determined distance (movement instructions 63 may comprise an optimal movement path for the new part to the mounting position 32, Para. [0067]; [the movement path is interpreted as requiring compatibility with the determined distance, i.e., from point A to point B; See also pose determining unit comprises a calculation unit which receives position data from the GNSS antennas 42 in real time, indicating the positions of the GNSS antennas 42 in a global coordinate system and calculates a pose of the element 20, Para. [0071]) on the basis of the construction element construction element construction element (part measuring unit 5 are adapted to measure a construction (e.g. the building 30 of FIG. 1a) and a new part (e.g. the wall element 20 of FIG. 1a), and to generate measurement data describing an actual state of the construction 74 and an actual state of the new part 75, respectively, Para. [0063]; See also next sentence: these as-built data sets 74, 75 and a building model 72 (e.g. a construction plan comprising a target state of the construction of the building) are stored as parts of a building information model in the data storage 12, Para. [0063]; See also next sentence: the data storage 12 is adapted to provide the data, i.e. the building model 72, the actual state of the construction 74 and the actual state of the new part 75 to the calculation unit 11 which comprises program code having computer-executable instructions for calculating based on the provided data 72, 74, 75 a mounting position 32 for the new part on the construction, in particular the best-fitting mounting position 32, Para. [0063]; See also determine the 3D model of the actual construction state of the building, and/or the 3D model of the element, Para. [0021]; [the 3D model of the building and/or element are interpreted as geometries]), and saving the determined fitting position as the position of the fitted construction element (FIG. 2 shows the building model 72 in the data storage 12; See also as-built data sets 74, 75 and a building model 72 (e.g. a construction plan comprising a target state of the construction of the building) are stored as parts of a building information model in the data storage 12, Para. [0063]; See also the data storage 12 is adapted to provide the data, i.e. the building model 72, the actual state of the construction 74 and the actual state of the new part 75 to the calculation unit 11 which comprises program code having computer-executable instructions for calculating based on the provided data 72, 74, 75 a mounting position 32 for the new part on the construction, in particular the best-fitting mounting position 32, Para. [0063]).
PETTERSSON does not explicitly disclose the movable construction wall element 20 and the fixed construction wall elements 30, 31 are “formwork” (Applicant’s Specification, at Page 1, Lines 3-5, indicate a “formwork” is a construction wall element “for producing hollow mould for casting concrete parts” and examples include a wall formwork, a ceiling formwork and/or a climbing formwork).
The prior art of record HECHT et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0021447 A1) discloses a construction wall element that is a formwork 14 that includes an antenna 60. See, e.g., Paras. [0057]-[0058] & FIGS. 2 & 3 of HECHT.
The prior art of record ZIEROLF (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0239521 A1) published December 2, 2004. See, e.g., Para. [0067] teaches “loop antenna 48 is configured to fit closely within a corresponding section or joint of the pipeline, casing, etc., as indicated by the section of loop antenna 48 shown installed in the section of sub joint 38 of FIG. 3”, Para. [0006] teaches cement is poured between casing and wall (i.e., casing is a formwork) and responding device 30 in FIG. 5.
The prior art of record SUM (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0059656 A1) published March 11, 2020 (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 09/03/2021). See, e.g., Para. [0012] teaches “formed in the corresponding metallic part of the formwork element, which is above all readily accessible from the outside even in the case of formwork elements stacked one upon another, a depression in which, in the use position, the transponder is accommodated in an insulated manner, so that its electromagnetic signals can be effectively issued or received by the transponder without being disturbed or “swallowed” by the surrounding metal of the edge web, frame or carrier”.
The prior art of record BASTIAN et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190235092 A1) filed Jan. 30, 2018. See, e.g., Para. [0073] teaches “the pallet 104 is stored in a storage facility 134 that includes an array of short-range communication beacons 136, such as WPAN beacons and/or Wi-Fi beacons, positioned at known locations within the facility. The tracking device 106 via the short-range communication module 438 receives a signal from each of the communication beacons 136 to which the tracking device 106 is within range. The strength of the signal received by the tracking device is used to determine the distance from the tracking device 106 to the short-range communication beacon 136, creating a radius 2104 around the beacon 136 at which the tracking device 106 is located. By determining a second radius 2108 of a second beacon, the possible locations of the tracking device 106 is further limited to the intersections of radius 2104 and radius 2108. Measuring the signal strength of a third beacon 136 creates a third radius 2112, and the intersection 2116 of each of the radii 2104, 2108, 2112 produces a location of the tracking device 106” and Para. [0083] teaches “the processor 402 of the tracking device 106 determines whether or not the pallet 104 is within the error range of the geo-fence” and “the stationary error limit or radius in certain examples is based on the range and/or standard deviation of location measurements for a specified time period”.
The prior art of record O’HAGAN et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150355311 A1) published Dec. 10, 2015. See, e.g., Para. [0040] teaches “term “spatial association model” may refer to data associated with a particular asset that defines the expected relationship between tags or sensors associated with that asset. A spatial association model may define a distance relationship between particular tags such that certain tags are expected to be located within a particular distance of one another, to a fixed point, to a central location (e.g., a “center of gravity” of tag locations defined in the spatial association model, or the like). This distance relationship may be a particular distance (e.g., tag A and tag B should be located within 12 inches of one another), a range of distances (e.g., tag A and tag B should be located at least 6 inches apart and no further than 12 inches apart), or any other method of defining a relationship between the relative positioning of two or more objects” and “a spatial association model corresponding to a pallet of goods may include identifiers for tags associated with each asset good stacked on the pallet, corresponding to the relative size of the good compared to the size of the pallet.”; Para. [0043] teaches “the physical dimensions of the asset may be used to determine a distance relationship between tags associated with the asset, a maximum range of motion for movable elements of the asset may be used to determine valid relative positions for tags affixed to those movable elements, or the like” and “the length, width, and/or height of the pallet may define acceptable positions for tags associated with goods stored on the pallet. In this manner, if a tag or tags associated with the asset are located in a position that is inconsistent with the spatial association model for the asset, data from one or more of the tags may be identified as erroneous”; Para. [0191] teaches “a spatial association model may correspond to an asset that is a pallet of goods, and define a two or three dimensional area associated with the pallet, such that RF tags associated with goods on the pallet are located within or expected to be located within the two or three dimensional area”; and Para. [0215] teaches “certain measurements may be deemed more likely to correspond to the “true” position of the asset by determining which measurements, if any, best fit the spatial association model defined for the asset.”
Contact and Application Status Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached on (571)272-3676. 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.
JOHN P. HOCKER
Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights