DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on August 8th, 2025. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-19, and 21 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Claims 1-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, a mental process, and certain method of organizing human activity without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-13, 15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al., “BIM-based Automated Planning for Panelized Construction in the Light-Frame Building Industry”, PhD. Dissertation, University of Alberta, 2016
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., “BIM-based Automated Planning for Panelized Construction in the Light-Frame Building Industry”, PhD. Dissertation, University of Alberta, 2016 in view of Krijnen, Thomas, and Martin Tamke. "Assessing implicit knowledge in BIM models with machine learning." Modelling Behaviour: Design Modelling Symposium 2015. Springer International Publishing, 2015.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., “BIM-based Automated Planning for Panelized Construction in the Light-Frame Building Industry”, PhD. Dissertation, University of Alberta, 2016 in view of Jrade, Ahmad, and Julien Lessard. "An integrated BIM system to track the time and cost of construction projects: a case study." Journal of construction engineering 2015.1 (2015): 579486.
This action is Final
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the drawings objection
Withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, and updated below as was necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, regarding the newly added limitations, see the § 101 rejection below for clarification on how these are treated. The Examiner further notes that MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I): “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” And 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).”
With respect to the remarks starting at page 11 for prong 2, see the § 101 rejection for these newly amended limitations, also see MPEP § 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” And MPEP § 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.”
With respect to the remarks regarding step 2B, see the § 101 rejection for these newly amended limitations.
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Maintained, updated below as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, regarding the newly amended limitations, see the rejection below for how these are rejected in view of the prior art.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes with respect to the remarks regarding the “simplified structural analytical model” (page 14 of the remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the claims do not recite such a scope as implied in these remarks. The claims merely recite, in part:
receiving a data file comprising a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object; (2) identifying a plurality of structure elements of the object based at least in part on performing mesh analysis comprising matching at least a portion of a mesh data corresponding to each of the plurality of structure elements; (3) determining a type of each of the identified structure elements based at least in part on the mesh data of each of the identified structure elements of the object;
…and saving the modified split 3D model data of the two or more separate structure elements in the 3D model data file;
Of particular note, the Examiner points to the 3D model data file is not referred back to until the “saving…” feature, and that feature only requires saving to the data file; furthermore, the 3D model is not referred back for step (4) as a basis of step 4, rather at step (4) the GUI is generated with the 3D model with a visual indication. In addition, the Examiner notes that the claim itself clarifies that it’s a “data file comprising a three-dimensional (3D) model)”, i.e. the data file may also readily comprise other data, as comprising is an open-ended transitional phrase.
In other words, the claims have no express basis to import a feature such as “performing structural analysis to generate support data from a single model”.
With respect to the remarks regarding limitation (6), these remarks don’t address the prior citations or rationale, i.e. Liu § 4.5.3 for the pre-defined “work package information” wherein “Each type of building component has its own table to store its WBS information.”; as clarified by citation to § 4.5.4 incl. ¶ 2: “During the development of the simulation model, the concept of "Process Pattern" is adopted. Construction knowledge encapsulating construction logic can be generalized as process patterns, which are reusable for similar building elements and building projects (Benevolenskiy et al., 2012; Konig et al., 2012). Process patterns of construction processes for each type of building component in panelized LGS projects are formalized to develop the simulation model in this research” to the last paragraph in § 4.5.4: “In this way, the limitation of the fixed activity network diagram explained above and dynamic precedence constraints (e.g., physical constraints) of activities is addressed by the fact that the controller routes entities and triggers construction activities in a manner satisfying precedence constraints without an explicit direction arrow, as indicated by the incomplete network in the simulation model."”
With respect to the comment regarding Liu § 4.3 ¶ 1 page 99: “…Within the integrated system, a BIM product model is supplemented with work breakdown structure (WBS) information, while the process simulation model can gain rich product information (including quantity take-offs) from BIM and work package information (e.g., operation productivity) from WBS in order to generate component-centric activity-level construction schedules. Moreover, this research requires the planner to build part of the activity network manually as per constraints that need to be observed and remain constant during construction, instead of a complete activity network as in previous research, in order to address the difficulty of manually building a complete activity network and overcomes the limitation of defining a fixed activity network in project planning…” – the Examiner makes particular note of “part of the activity network manually” in this citation, i.e. its expressly stated that only part of the activity network has a planner, and this is “as per constraints that need to be observed”, wherein the “as per” is mean as “through” the constraints (note in Latin this is the phrase “per”, i.e. “through”, akin to i.e. conveying id est = that is); i.e. page 93: “Moreover, when construction scheduling involves details at the activity level, both technology precedence constraints and resource constraints must be taken into account in order to create a meaningful detailed schedule. In current practice, resource constraints are overlooked in BIM-based scheduling; optimization technology is not yet integrated with BIM and process simulation model to address resource-constrained scheduling problems.” Then at page 94: “An evolutionary optimization algorithm is also incorporated into the proposed approach to evaluate various construction sequences under technical and resource constraints and ultimately obtain the optimized activity-level schedule.”, thus in § 4.3: “The dynamic precedence constraints on activities will be derived at run time of DES through BIM-simulation integration, whereas resource-induced precedence constraints [from the planner] are addressed by using priority dispatching rules to allocate limited resources in the simulation model. In addition, an evolutionary algorithm, namely, particle swarm optimization, is selected for computational efficiency and effectiveness in arriving at optimum solutions for large, complex systems, and hence is incorporated into the methodology in order to optimize the construction sequences with the objective of minimizing project duration under resource constraints”
Thus, the remarks mis-interpret the term “manually” as they take it in isolation, rather then as being modified by the “as per…” language as Liu explicitly uses to convey that the user enters in constraints so that the resulting activity network is built according to their constraints.
To further clarify, see § 4.5.4 starting on page 116 of Liu, including fig. 4.11 and its accompanying description, leading to “…This construction logic is not represented in the above process pattern. In light of such limitation, we develop construction sequence controllers, such as “Controller for Wall Lifting” and “Controller for Floor Assembly”, by writing user codes in the “Execute” element….In this way, the limitation of the fixed activity network diagram explained above and dynamic precedence constraints (e.g., physical constraints) of activities is addressed by the fact that the controller routes entities and triggers construction activities in a manner satisfying precedence constraints without an explicit direction arrow, as indicated by the incomplete network in the simulation model.”, i.e. see the code for “Controller_for_Lifting_Wall_Formula” on page 199 of Liu, note this is for the element type “Wall” (per the name); wherein this includes code for “//Check [whether] all the supporting elements are done or not” with calling the function “CheckAllSupportsisDone” (code starting at page 203).
Thus, Liu, page 130: “In short, the proposed methodology addresses the difficulty in manually building a complete activity network through in-depth BIM-Simulation integration and overcomes the limitation of defining a fixed activity network in construction project planning.”
With respect to the remarks regarding the dependent claims, see above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
See MPEP 2163(II)(A): "For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" and, thus, "[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.""
Also, see MPEP 2163(I) for Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The independent claims, using claim 1 as representative, recite:
(2) identifying a plurality of structure elements of the object-based at least in part on performing mesh analysis comprising matching at least a portion of a mesh data corresponding to each of the plurality of structure elements;
(3) determining a type of each of the identified structure elements based at least in part on the mesh data of each of the identified structure elements of the object;
See ¶¶ 4-6 and 37-43 – this does not sufficiently describe the particular “matching…” limitation in the manner recited in these claims, nor the later limitations that refer back to it be antecedent basis in ordered combination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, a mental process, and certain method of organizing human activity without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 11 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claims 11, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept. The independent claims recite a mental process, and some of the dependent claims add a math concept, and others add certain methods of organizing human activity
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
(2) identifying a plurality of structure elements of the object based at least in part on performing mesh analysis comprising matching at least a portion of a mesh data corresponding to each of the plurality of structure elements;
A mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer/do it in a computer environment, given the high level of generality recited herein of how the analysis is performed. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A): “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
To clarify, a person is readily able to mentally observe a 3D object, e.g. a building, and mentally observe structural elements, e.g. the person walks to SCOTUS, and mentally observes the columns and walls on the exterior of SCOTUS.
To do so with a model of an object, one may readily use physical aids, e.g. Lego’s to create a replica of a building, or an artistic creating a scale model of a building out of wood or clay, or other physical medium, or one simply uses a computer to do this, e.g. by observing a 3D model on the display of a computer or on a print-out (e.g. instant fig. 2A), and mentally observing the columns, slabs, and walls in the 3D model (e.g. instant fig. 2B).
To clarify, see ¶¶ 4, 41-43, which go into no great detail about how the mesh analysis is to be performed, but rather only that it may be “using one or more machine learning algorithms” (¶ 4). ¶¶ 41-43 discuss that, in the exemplary, unrecited manner (for it is improper to limit the claim to having features not expressly recited), this is to be performed on a “BIM data file defining the 3D model” (i.e. what data it is applied to) but goes into no particular details on how the identifying is performed, but rather merely describes what is being identified, e.g. “walls”, “columns”, etc.
The “matching” is nothing more than a mental judgement/evaluation/observation, given the generality recited herein, as a person is readily able to mentally observe two sets of data/information, and compare them so as to mentally evaluate/judge whether they match, e.g. mentally observing blueprints/other schematics of a building, and evaluating/judging what elements are structural elements (e.g. beams, columns, and walls). Or the person may readily mentally observe a model, e.g. on the display or a print-out from a computer, and make such mental observations/evaluations/judgements.
To further clarify, See the July 2024 PEG, example 47, claim 2, step (d): “The claim does not provide any details about how the trained ANN operates or how the detection is made, and the plain meaning of “detecting” encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of an anomaly in a data set.”
See the July 2024 Fed. Register Notice for: “A claim to “the collection of information from various sources (a Federal database, a State database, and a case worker) and understanding the meaning of that information (determining whether a person is receiving SSDI benefits and determining whether they are eligible for benefits under the law),” where “ `[t]hese steps can be performed by a human, using “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,” because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do,' ” and thus can practically be performed in the human mind,In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022).”
See MPEP § 2106.05(f): “By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).”
(3) determining a type of each of the identified structure elements based at least in part on the mesh data of each of the identified structure elements of the object; - a mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer/in a computer environment. A person is readily able to determine types of identified elements, e.g. observe a cuboidal structural shape, or a cylindrical (¶ 39), observe, or use physical aids such as a ruler/tape measure dimensions such as the height/radius/other dimensions, and then mentally judge what classes they are, e.g. a cuboid/cylindrical shape inside of a room is a column (¶ 40); e.g. a cuboidal shape at the boundaries of a room that is vertical is a wall (¶ 40), cuboidal shape lying flat/horizontal along the floor/ceiling is a slab.
The claims are nothing more than the mental process of a person mentally observing a room (or a model/drawing of a room), and mentally evaluating/judging what structural elements are and where they are.
(4) determining support data between at least a portion of the identified structure elements … wherein the support data is determined based at least in part on the determined element type of the at least portion of the identified structure elements; when given its BRI in view of the instant disclosure (e.g. ¶¶ 7, 16-17, 33, 41, 43, fig. 2A-2B), this is a mental process but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer.
To clarify, first see the above discussion of prior limitations. A person simply continues this mental process, e.g. observing that there is a “Slab” for the floor (fig. 2 A and B), observing that the “Slab” is the floor which is providing support for the “Columns”, and the columns are providing support for walls.
Or consider an even simpler example: a dog house, or a small simple shed with simple paneling for the walls. A person is readily able to mentally observe and evaluate/judge such a structure, e.g. by walking into the shed, and based on a series of mental observations, judge that the floor of the shed supports the other portions of the shed; that there are framing members (e.g. wooded 2x4s or similar such members) that extend from the floor and provide support for the wall panels and the roof, etc.
Neither the claims nor the instant disclosure provides any limitation on what the “object” is (the claims don’t even limit it to a building, this could readily be used for a sailboat, e.g. the USS Constitution that was built long before the invention of a computer, wherein the keel of the USS Constitution would be equivalent to the “slab” in fig. 2A, as the keel of such a vessel supports the remaining portions of the vessel). And see ¶ 31: “For example, a construction object can be a building, bridge, road, highway, gate, dam, wall, staircase, a part thereof, or any other physical structure. A construction object can be a plurality of buildings, bridges, roads, highways, gates, dams, walls, other structures, and/or a combination thereof.”
With respect to determining data in such a manner, the person would be able to use physical aids, e.g. pen and paper, and tabulate such supporting relationships, or draw them out on graph paper in the form of a simple chart (fig. 2B), etc.
(5) modifying the 3D model data of one or more of the identified structure elements by splitting the 3D model data relating to a single identified structure element into two or more separate structure elements, … - a mental process, but done on a computer/in a computer environment/apply it on a computer.
See ¶ 49 for its discussion of the user doing the splitting, note the absence in the claim of even having “a design tool” be used to achieve the splitting (more instructions to simply do this a computer), wherein all this requires is a person mentally judging to split 3D model data, e.g. support the user wishes to split a column into two elements, the person simply writes down on paper, or purely mentally, the dimensions of a cylindrical column, and then divides a dimension by two so as to split the data into two column elements, e.g. divide the radius by two so as to split the column into two elements along its vertical axis, or divide the height by two to split the column along the horizontal axis.
Such a mental process is readily able to be applied to other structural elements, e.g. walls and slabs, e.g. a person splitting a larger slab into smaller slabs, such as a person would do when planning out construction for a house, and wishing to re-use cut slabs from another room (e.g. a slab being a sheet of 4 feet by 8 feet plywood/cement board or the like for floor boarding, wherein in other rooms they were cut into smaller slabs, e.g. 4 feet by 3 feet and 4 feet by 5 feet), wherein a person is readily able to mentally judge that instead of using one 4x8 slab (e.g. plywood), they instead split the design into a 4x3 and 4x5 slabs, and thus they are readily able to mentally perform this step such as may be used to re-use cuttings from other parts of the construction project (or from other projects). Pen and paper, and/or a calculator is readily able to be used as a tool for this step as well.
(6)applying one or more pre-defined build formulas or formula relationships for the identified structure elements based at least in part on the determined element type and the support data; and (7) generating an object construction plan for the object, comprising said pre- defined build formulas or formula relationships.
First, to clarify on the BRI, see ¶¶ 9, 32, and 57, including in ¶ 9: “A formula relationship can be a logical constraint. The formula relationship can define a sequential relationship, such as to identify which recipe is to be performed first, which recipe is to be performed after, which recipes are to be performed in parallel, which recipe is to be performed at a particular time (e.g., 45 minutes in, etc.), step, operation, phase, stage, point, duration, and/or other unit relative to another recipe, and other sequential relationships. A formula relationship can be a relationship between operations that are in different recipes.” And ¶ 57: “A recipe in the library can comprise a formula for building a specific type of structure element. The formula in a recipe can define one or more operations (e.g., place formwork, place steel, pour concrete, dry concrete, remove formwork, etc.) and sequence or interconnections thereof for building the structure element. The formula can define logical relationships between the operations. An operation can define one or more resources (e.g., raw material, labor, etc.), production rate, spatial requirements, temporal requirements, and/or other instructions or factors for the operation. The formula may be dependent on one or more parameters ( e.g., material, dimensions, etc.) of the specific type of structure element.”
This is nothing more than a continuation of the mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer.
For example, the person, have made the mental observations, evaluations, and judgements above, when faced with the task of creating a new building, or doing renovations to an old building, would have readily been able to perform such a task before the invention of the computer, which is simply used as a tool to perform this abstract idea.
For example, the person, having completed the above mental process(es), then moves onto evaluating how to create a new building, e.g. a new shed. So the person first decides that the floor of the building is laid first, e.g. by pouring concrete to create a pad to build on, or other simple foundation techniques such as brick or cinderblock foundations with a wooden floor supported by the foundation. Such construction techniques well predate the computer, and have resulted in complex buildings without a computer, e.g. the Empire State Building, many of the Federal buildings in Washington DC, etc.
To pour concrete, one first sets out formwork, e.g. a temporary wood box dug into the ground in a manner that the concrete is poured into the box, and when the concrete cures (dries)the box is removed, thus providing the foundation (additional steps may readily be performed in this process, e.g. steel beam reinforcement of the concrete, etc.). Such a mental process has been long and routinely used throughout the construction industry (see example 45, claim 1, prong 1, discussion of a brief history of the Arrhenius equation predating computers: “e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.” Wherein this is not described in the background section; see MPEP § 2111.01(I)).
E.g. see Home Depot, “How to Build a Concrete Patio Slab”, accessed electronically on Feb. 3rd, 2025, URL: www(dot)homedepot(dot)ca/en/home/ideas-how-to/outdoors/patio/how-to-build-a-concrete-patio(dot)html – which provides a simple 10 step recipe for doing so, and provides photographs of people performing each of these steps in order, notes that the estimated time is “3 hours”, etc.
E.g. Singh, Pragati, and Andrew Scanlon. "Concrete in Residential Construction." Pennsylvania Housing Research Centre, USA (2013). Abstract: “Concrete is widely used in residential construction for footings, walls, and slabs on ground.”; § 2 on pages 3-4 provides a listing of typical “Concrete elements”; then see § 4 including: “To achieve quality concrete in residential construction, careful planning and attention to detail is required at each step of the process…”, § 8.2 discusses the “Setting time”; § 8.5 discusses the “Placement” of the concrete including: “Extra care should be taken while placing concrete around reinforcement bars, corners of forms and other embedded items so that there is no void around them. Removal of forms [formwork] should be done in such a way that the surface of concrete is not damaged.”; § 9 discussing the “curing” process including the “curing period”; § 11.1 for the “Design” of the “formwork”; also see § 11.2, then § 11.3 for the “Removal of formwork” and when this is to occur: “The formwork should only be removed when the concrete has attained its minimum strength. The strength can be determined by testing job cured specimens or in place concrete or using procedures like maturity method, penetration resistance, pullout tests etc. as specified by ACI 228.1R.”; and § 12: “Concrete construction has been and will continue to play a major role in residential construction. High quality concrete construction requires careful planning and attention to detail at phases of the process”
The person then continues the mental process, i.e. having applied predefined recipes with formulas for the concrete slab forming the base of a building, they then apply other similar recipes to the other elements of the building, until they have mentally evaluated how to create the entire building, wherein they would readily be able to write out a construction plan for the building, using the recipes they mentally determined. Such a mental process may have even been used in the construction of the Pyramids of Ancient Egypt, or in various buildings in Ancient Rome, e.g. the Hippodrome.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
A system for object construction, comprising: one or more computer processors, individually or collectively configured to implement a method for constructing an object, comprising: - and similar limitations found in the preamble of claim 11
based at least in part on performing mesh analysis comprising matching at least a portion of a mesh data corresponding to each of the plurality of structure elements; - doing this in the context of mesh data with mesh analysis is considered as part of the mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool and merely applying it on a computer.
… based at least in part on the mesh data of each of the identified structure elements of the object; - similar reason as above, i.e. it is merely specifying doing this in the context of “mesh data” but recites no particularly in how this step is to be performed, i.e. do it on a generic computer/apply it with a computer.
(5) modifying the 3D model data of one or more of the identified structure elements by… - part of the mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as well as mere instructions to “apply it”. MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
To clarify, and to show what is missing, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A): “a claim to a method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image), Research Corp. Techs., 627 F.3d at 868, 97 USPQ2d at 1280.” – to clarify, this was a particular manipulation of computer data structures; and the present claims lack such a particular manipulation, but rather merely give a “context” of what type of data is to be split so as to modify it, but recites no particular technological implementation of how to do such splitting with 3D model data by a particular manipulation of its particular data structure (or even any particular recitation of its data structure). To clarify, ¶ 38: “For example, the data file can be any data file defining a polygon mesh broken into elements” but the claim recites no limitation on how the data structure itself is to be particular manipulated
and saving the modified split 3D model data of the two or more separate structure elements in the 3D model data file – part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer/apply it on a computer
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
based at least in part on performing mesh analysis comprising matching at least a portion of a mesh data corresponding to each of the plurality of structure elements; - generally linking to a particular technological environment. To clarify, this limitation is merely the act of comparing/matching geometrical information/data to structural elements (¶ 39 for BRI of structure element: “During analysis, the server can categorize structure elements, such as into shapes. For example, a structure element can have a shape of a cuboid, a sphere, a cylinder, or any other shape or form.”), but doing it in the context of mesh data. The claims recite no particularly in how the mesh data itself is to be analyzed in some particular technological manner, rather it merely recites “matching”, and people are readily able to mentally judge whether two sets of information match. This is akin to IV as discussed above in 2106.05(f) for its discussion of “context of XML”, i.e. its merely generally linking this identifying limitation to be in the “context” of “mesh data” with a generically recited mesh analysis but recites no particularity in how the mesh data structure itself is to be analyzed in a particular technological manner to accomplish the identifying step. To clarify, ¶ 38: “For example, the data file can be any data file defining a polygon mesh broken into elements.”
… based at least in part on the mesh data of each of the identified structure elements of the object; - similar reason as above, i.e. it’s merely specifying doing this in the context of “mesh data” but recites no particularly in how this step is to be performed
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
(1) receiving a data file comprising a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object; - mere data gathering
generate, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the 3D model of the object, a visual indication of one or more support relationships (i) between groups of the identified structure elements or (ii) within each individual structure element of the at least portion of the identified structure elements, or both (i) and (ii), - mere data displaying
and saving the modified split 3D model data of the two or more separate structure elements in the 3D model data file – mere data storage
based at least in part on performing mesh analysis comprising matching at least a portion of a mesh data corresponding to each of the plurality of structure elements; … based at least in part on the mesh data of each of the identified structure elements of the object; - an insignificant computer implementation that are merely just steps incidental to automating the abstract idea using the computer as a tool.
Should it be found that the splitting is not part of the abstract idea, then the Examiner notes it would be considered as an insignificant extra-solution activity nominal/tangential to the primary process of the claimed invention, i.e. (5) modifying the 3D model data of one or more of the identified structure elements by splitting the 3D model data relating to a single identified structure element into two or more separate structure elements, and saving the modified split 3D model data of the two or more separate structure elements in the 3D model data file; would be considered as a nominal/tangential extra-solution activity.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) “…Instead, under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception…Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B” and MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
To further clarify, MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1): “Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Mayo, 566 US at 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965). Yet, the Court has explained that ‘‘[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’’ and has cautioned ‘‘to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law” See also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The ‘directed to’ inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon").”
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
A system for object construction, comprising: one or more computer processors, individually or collectively configured to implement a method for constructing an object, comprising: - and similar limitations found in the preamble of claim 11
based at least in part on performing mesh analysis comprising matching at least a portion of a mesh data corresponding to each of the plurality of structure elements; - doing this in the context of mesh data with mesh analysis is considered as part of the mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool and merely applying it on a computer.
… based at least in part on the mesh data of each of the identified structure elements of the object; - similar reason as above, i.e. it is merely specifying doing this in the context of “mesh data” but recites no particularly in how this step is to be performed, i.e. do it on a generic computer/apply it with a computer.
(5) modifying the 3D model data of one or more of the identified structure elements by… - part of the mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as well as mere instructions to “apply it”. MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found t