DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-10, 12, 14 and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected (Final Rejection).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments referred to below were filed 08/25/2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims 1, 6, 12, 14 and 15 obviate the prior specification and claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 6 obviate the prior 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) indefiniteness rejections of claims 6-9.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 6, 8-10 and 12 obviate the prior 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) antecedent basis rejections.
For these reasons, the previous drawing, specification and claim objections, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) indefiniteness rejections of claims 6-9, and the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) antecedent basis rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, at Page 7, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) based on a 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. Specifically, amending the specification does not moot the § 112(f) interpretation and the acts of claims 12 and 13 still do not provide “sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.”
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 08/25/2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive for the following reasons:
First, Applicant’s arguments, at Page 9, appear to misquote the Office action. The Office action concedes that PETTERSSON does not appear to explicitly disclose a formwork and takes the position that PETTERSSON discloses “determining a fitting position of the fitted construction element construction element construction element construction element construction element construction element ”.
Second, Applicant argues that “the examiner erred by mixing the teachings discussed below of the two different positions found in PETTERSSON when applying PETTERSSON …” (emphasis added). Specifically, Applicant appears to argue, at Page 10, that “the best-fitting mounting position 32” of PETTERSSON is not saved “as the position of the fitted formwork”. This argument is unpersuasive for the following reason(s). The Examiner is not persuaded that PETTERSSON does not disclose saving/storing the best-fitting mounting position 32 “as the position of the fitted [construction element]”. Para. [0063] of PETTERSSON discloses storing the actual state of the construction 74, the actual state of the new part 75 and a building model 72 (e.g., with target state) and based on that data, calculating a mounting position/pose. As further evidence, PETTERSSON, at Para. [0088], also discloses the pose of the part is determined continuously while being moved and, at Para. [0089], the pose/position of the part and the mounting pose/position are identical. PETTERSSON teaches “continuous” and “real time” determinations. Thus, Examiner is not persuaded that the stored “real time” actual state of the part in PETTERSSON corresponds to the target mounting position because PETTERSSON teaches they become identical. Examiner’s Note: PETTERSSON refers to pose as including position and orientation (Para. [0013] of PETTERSSON).
Third, Applicant argues, at Page 10, there are two positions and only one is saved, in PETTERSSON. However, as discussed above, Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because PETTERSSON teaches the actual state of the moved part becomes identical to the (target) mounting position. Moreover, Applicant’s claim does not require saving two different positions. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., saving two different positions of the fitted formwork) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Fourth, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 11 recites “… that of the possible fitting positions is determined as the position …” (emphasis added), where “that” appears to be referencing the determined fitting position of parent claim 1. If so, Examiner recommends amending claim 11 to replace “that” with “the determined fitting position”.
b. Claim 12 recites “… transmitter) …”, which appears to be an artifact of Applicant’s editing process. Examiner recommends amending claim 12 to remove the right closing parenthetical character.
Claim Interpretation
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 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, sixth 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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a distance determination unit” and “an adjustment unit” in claim 12, and “the adjustment unit” in claim 13.
The “distance determination unit” and the “adjustment unit” in claim 12 and the “adjustment unit” in claim 13 are considered “generic placeholders” under Prong A. Prong B is satisfied because each of these claim elements are modified by functional language including reciting “set up to”.
For claim 12 and Prong C, the only acts provided in the claim for performing the “distance determination unit” are: “determine a distance between the fitted formwork and the at least one reference point based on a locating signal sent by the transmitter and received by the receiver”. These acts of claim 12 do not provide “sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.”
For claim 12 and Prong C, the only acts provided in the claim for performing the “adjustment unit” are: “determine a fitting position of the fitted formwork on an existing formwork compatible with a distance determined by the distance determination unit based on the formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and the at least one existing formwork, and to store the determined fitting positions in the position database as the position of the fitted formwork”. These acts of claim 12 do not provide “sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.”
For claim 13 and Prong C, the only acts provided in the claim for performing the “adjustment unit” are: “connected to a geometry database with stored formwork geometries of the fitted formwork and at least one existing formwork”. These acts of claim 13 do not provide “sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.”
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 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 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 12-15 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.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the claim limitations of “distance determination unit” and the “adjustment unit” in claim 12 and the “adjustment unit” in claim 13 each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s). While the claimed limitations are present in the specification, the specification does not disclose a corresponding structure or algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. See MPEP 2181 II(B). Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 13-15 depend respectively from rejected claim 12. Therefore, claims 13-15 are also rejected under the same rationale as claim 12 since these claims inherit the respective deficiencies of claim 12, respectively.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 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, 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 1-5, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over PETTERSSON (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0209156 A1) in view of HECHT et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0021447 A1), and further in view of DACKEFJORD et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0090010 A1). The U.S. ‘156 PETTERSSON publication was cited in the Chinese Office Action dated October 8, 2022 for corresponding/counterpart Chinese Application No. 202080031522.1, and corresponds to EP 3 351 699, which was cited by the PCT Written Opinion dated April 20, 2020 in corresponding/counterpart International Application No. PCT/EP2020/055782.
Regarding claim 1, PETTERSSON discloses a method for determining the position of a 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; [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). However, a formwork is a type of construction wall element and formworks were known to include electronic location devices (e.g., transmitters, receivers) at the time of the invention. Further, HECHT shows a construction wall element that is a formwork 14 that includes an antenna 60. See, e.g., Paras. [0057]-[0058] & annotated FIGS. 2 & 3 (shown below) of HECHT.
PNG
media_image2.png
756
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
<Examiner-annotated FIGS. 2 & 3 of HECHT>
Both PETTERSSON and HECHT disclose a new movable construction element having an antenna. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the new movable construction formwork with antenna/antenna position of HECHT could have been substituted for the new movable construction element with antenna/antenna position of PETTERSSON because both the formwork and the construction element are new movable construction elements having electronic devices (antenna) that serve the purpose of building a new structure while tracking/determining location/position of the new movable structural element. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing a new movable construction structure part’s location/position to be tracked/determined.
Motivation to Combine: PETTERSSON and HECHT are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” locating/tracking construction elements. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of PETTERSSON and HECHT before him or her, to modify PETTERSSON to include formwork with antenna/antenna position as taught by HECHT. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (MPEP 2143). The methods and systems of PETTERSSON differ from the instant application by substitution of a component (formwork with antenna/antenna position) with other components (construction element with antenna/antenna position). The relationship between formwork (a mold for concrete) and construction elements is known in the art as shown by HECHT. Structural construction methods commonly use a variety of structural types (including molds and/or precast/prefabricated elements), and prefabrication/molds for construction are closely related, so one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another. Therefore, the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the new movable construction element (form/formwork) of HECHT for the (potentially precast/preformed) new movable construction element of PETTERSSON according to known methods to yield the predictable result of tracking/determining a location of a new construction part prior to and/or during the installation process.
Additionally, the fitted construction element/formwork of PETTERSSON as modified uses a locating signal transmitted by a GPS satellite to determine position data, which is then retransmitted from the fitted construction element/formwork to the fixed (second) antenna of the existing fixed/reference construction element/formwork. PETTERSSON also uses surveying methods, including laser tracking equipment and a retroflector (Paras. [0021] & [0024]; FIG. 6 of PETTERSSON). Thus, it is arguable that PETTERSSON in view of HECHT does not explicitly disclose using the same type of positioning system as intended to be claimed, and more specifically, it is arguable that PETTERSSON does not explicitly disclose transmitting a locating signal from the fitted construction element/formwork; receiving the [same] transmitted locating signal [from the fitted construction element/formwork] with a receiver at a least one reference point; and determining a distance between the fitted construction element/formwork and the reference point based on the [same] received locating signal from the fitted construction element/formwork because PETTERSSON arguably does not explicitly disclose the antenna of the new part/construction element/formwork transmits the locating signal to the receiver of the reference point receives the signal, and determines the distance from the based on the locating signal (but rather PETTERSSON transmits position data previously derived from a GPS/satellite locating signal).
DACKEFJORD, however, is related to the problem with positioning systems the inventors were trying to solve (object to be tracked has reduced ability to receive signals, Para. [0003] of DACKEFJORD) and teaches transmitting a locating signal from a movable target objectmovable target object (Paras. [0009]-[0016] of DACKEFJORD discloses: “determining the location of a device comprising a radio transmitter is provided. The method comprises receiving in a locator device a radio signal from said device, determining a distance to the device from the locator device at the position of the locator device. The determined distance has a determined distance accuracy; and/or determine a direction to the device with a determined direction accuracy. The determined distance and or direction is based on the radio signal received from the device, forming a geographical area with boundaries set as the determined distance +/− said determined accuracy, and /or as the determined direction +/− said determined direction accuracy, subdividing the geographical area into a number of sub-areas, and removing any sub area that is not included in all geographical areas formed for each new position of the locator device, moving the locator device to a new position and repeating removal of sub-areas until the total area of the remaining sub-areas is below a threshold value. determining the location of the device as the area as the remaining sub-areas”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the locating signal-based positioning system of PETTERSSON with the locating signal-based positioning system of DACKEFJORD for the purpose of using a locating signal-based positioning system that still works when the ability to receive GPS signals is reduced (Para. [0003] of DACKEFJORD).
Regarding claim 2, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein determining the fitting position comprises: determining all possible fitting positions of the fitted formwork on the at least one existing formwork (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] of PETTERSSON; See also FIG. 3 shows the mounting position 32 is on and adjacent to existing construction elements of the building 30; Regarding “all possible fitting positions”, the claim limitation does not require more than one possible position, and in an embodiment, the fitting positions of PETTERSSON follow a sequence of fitting/installing: See if there are more than one new parts available for mounting, determining the mounting position 32 may also comprise determining a sequence in which the parts are to be mounted, Para. [0065] of PETTERSSON); determining the associated distance of each determined possible fitting position to the reference point (the pose determining unit is adapted to monitor a distance of the element to the mounting position, Para. [0029] of PETTERSSON; 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] of PETTERSSON); determining those fitting positions as 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] of PETTERSSON; [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] of PETTERSSON) whose associated distance is within a tolerance range around the determined distance (pose of the element 20 needs to be determined with a higher accuracy than a mounting tolerance for the element 20 at the mounting position 32 … a typical mounting tolerance is e.g. two millimetres per metre, Para. [0080] of PETTERSSON).
Regarding claim 3, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the method according to Claim 2, wherein determining the fitting position comprises: limiting the possible fitting positions based on a local zone boundary (a three-dimensional model of an actual construction state of the building 30 is available and the positions of the surveying devices 50 are known, it is possible to determine the borders of the surveying area, Para. [0082] of PETTERSSON; See also determined distance and or direction is based on the radio signal received from the device, … forming a geographical area with boundaries set as the determined distance +/− said determined accuracy, and /or as the determined direction +/− said determined direction accuracy, Paras. [0012] & [0013] of DACKEFJORD).
Regarding claim 4, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the method according to Claim 2, wherein determining the fitting position comprises: limiting possible fitting positions on the basis of an orientation information concerning the fitted construction element/formwork (the movement instructions can be provided to workers 8 at the mounting position together with information about the exact mounting pose and/or the determined position and orientation of the element 20, in order to facilitate moving the element 20 into the exact mounting pose manually, Para. [0085] of PETTERSSON).
Regarding claim 5, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein a locating signal is transmitted together with a geometry of the fitted formwork and/or with an orientation information from the fitted construction element/formwork to a receiver (pose data is then transmitted to a crane controlling unit for controlling the crane 60, Para. [0071] of PETTERSSON; See also determine a pose 26 of the new part, i.e. its position and orientation, Para. [0066] of PETTERSSON; See also Examiner-annotated FIG. 2 of PETTERSSON (reproduced below)).
PNG
media_image1.png
431
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
<Examiner-annotated FIG. 2 of PETTERSSON>
Regarding claim 10, PETTERSSON as modified teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein determining the fitting position comprises: determining a connection geometry for at least two positioning options (if there are more than one new parts [i.e., construction elements/formwork] available for mounting, determining the mounting position 32 may also comprise determining a sequence in which the parts are to be mounted, Para. [0065] of PETTERSSON; See also 3D as-built model and BIM of PETTERSSON discussed below); 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 (if there are more than one new parts [i.e., construction elements/formwork] available for mounting, determining the mounting position 32 may also comprise determining a sequence in which the parts are to be mounted, Para. [0065] of PETTERSSON; See also FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating a method 100 according to the invention … in a first step 110 a new part to be mounted to a construction is provided ... it is then measured 112, e.g. by means of a laser scanner, so that a 3D as-built model of the part is provided 115 as a part of a building information model (BIM) 70, Para. [0086] of PETTERSSON; [the BIM is interpreted as the entire building model that includes all possible fitting/mounting positions]).
Regarding claim 12, PETTERSSON teaches a system (system 1 comprises a computer system 10 with calculation means 11 and a data storage 12, … the system furthermore comprises a pose determination unit 2 and a crane controlling unit 3, Para. [0062]) for determining a position of a 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 construction element is explained in more detail below]), comprising:
a fitted construction element (the element 20 is a wall element 20 that is to be positioned on a building 30 that is under construction, Para. [0030]) with a transmitter for a locating signal (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 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]; [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>
a reference point with a receiver for a locating signal (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]),
a distance determination unit set up to determine 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]);
a position database with stored positions of at least one existing formwork (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 programme 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]); and
an adjustment unit set up to determine 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 a distance determined by the distance determination unit (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]) based on 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 programm 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 to store the determined fitting position in the position database as a 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 programme 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). However, a formwork is a type of construction wall element and formworks were known to include electronic location devices (e.g., transmitters, receivers) at the time of the invention. Further, HECHT shows a construction wall element that is a formwork 14 that includes an antenna 60. See, e.g., Paras. [0057]-[0058] & annotated FIGS. 2 & 3 (shown below) of HECHT.
PNG
media_image2.png
756
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
<Examiner-annotated FIGS. 2 & 3 of HECHT>
Both PETTERSSON and HECHT disclose a new movable construction element having an antenna. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the new movable construction formwork with antenna/antenna position of HECHT could have been substituted for the new movable construction element with antenna/antenna position of PETTERSSON because both the formwork and the construction element are new movable construction elements having electronic devices (antenna) that serve the purpose of building a new structure while tracking/determining location/position of the new movable structural element. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing a new movable construction structure part’s location/position to be tracked/determined.
Motivation to Combine: PETTERSSON and HECHT are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” locating/tracking construction elements. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of PETTERSSON and HECHT before him or her, to modify PETTERSSON to include formwork with antenna/antenna position as taught by HECHT. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (MPEP 2143). The methods and systems of PETTERSSON differ from the instant application by substitution of a component (formwork with antenna/antenna position) with other components (construction element with antenna/antenna position). The relationship between formwork (a mold for concrete) and construction elements is known in the art as shown by HECHT. Structural construction methods commonly use a variety of structural types (including molds and/or precast/prefabricated elements), and prefabrication/molds for construction are closely related, so one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another. Therefore, the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the new movable construction element (form/formwork) of HECHT for the (potentially precast/preformed) new movable construction element of PETTERSSON according to known methods to yield the predictable result of tracking/determining a location of a new construction part prior to and/or during the installation process.
Additionally, the fitted construction element/formwork of PETTERSSON as modified uses a locating signal transmitted by a GPS satellite to determine position data, which is then retransmitted from the fitted construction element/formwork to the fixed (second) antenna of the existing fixed/reference construction element/formwork. PETTERSSON also uses surveying methods, including laser tracking equipment and a retroflector (Paras. [0021] & [0024]; FIG. 6 of PETTERSSON). Thus, it is arguable that PETTERSSON in view of HECHT does not explicitly disclose using the same type of positioning system as intended to be claimed, and more specifically, it is arguable that PETTERSSON does not explicitly disclose transmitting a locating signal from the fitted construction element/formwork; receiving the [same] transmitted locating signal [from the fitted construction element/formwork] with a receiver at a reference point; and determining a distance between the fitted construction element/formwork and the at least one reference point based on the [same] received locating signal from the fitted construction element/formwork because PETTERSSON arguably does not explicitly disclose the antenna of the new part/construction element/formwork transmits the locating signal to the receiver of the reference point receives the signal, and determines the distance from the based on the locating signal (but rather PETTERSSON transmits position data previously derived from a GPS/satellite locating signal).
DACKEFJORD, however, is related to the problem with positioning systems the inventors were trying to solve (object to be tracked has reduced ability to receive signals, Para. [0003] of DACKEFJORD) and teaches transmitting a locating signal from a movable target objectmovable target object(Paras. [0009]-[0016] of DACKEFJORD discloses: “determining the location of a device comprising a radio transmitter is provided. The method comprises receiving in a locator device a radio signal from said device, determining a distance to the device from the locator device at the position of the locator device. The determined distance has a determined distance accuracy; and/or determine a direction to the device with a determined direction accuracy. The determined distance and or direction is based on the radio signal received from the device, forming a geographical area with boundaries set as the determined distance +/− said determined accuracy, and /or as the determined direction +/− said determin