DETAILED ACTION
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
The 35 USC 101 rejections for claims 11 and 12 including signals are withdrawn, as the terminology “non-transitory” has been added to those claims.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. This is not agreed – as set forth in the analysis of the individual claim features, the claims are maintained to be directed to mental processes and mathematical relationships.
Applicant highlights the introduction of language requiring the use of various circuits, but these are merely generic computer components (presumably computer processors) being recited in a manner such that they amount to mere instructions to apply an exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f). The structure of these circuits is not described, but rather they are characterized by what task they are intended to perform, meaning they are generic in nature and not specially configured (would include generic computer processors or workstations).
Applicant highlights the amended language of “such that measurements of the resulting constructed structure conform to measurements of the design model” but fails to address that this is recited as intended use of the step of “instructing construction details of a part to be constructed next,” and that no actual construction steps are positively recited. Simply putting intended use attached to this step that can be performed mentally does not provide a practical application. If applicant intends to integrate a practical application, the construction should be actively claimed/positively recited, otherwise it is merely generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of construction as per MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant highlights the measuring step as a “practical step”, but this measurement is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, as was described in the 35 USC 101 rejection. Applicant does not provide any rationale for why this measurement would constitute more than insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
In view of the above, the amendments do not render the claims eligible, and the prior 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained, with additional analysis added to address the new limitations.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental processes and mathematical relationships) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A construction management method for constructing a structure in conformance with a design model of the structure by means of a central processing unit configured to include a physical simulation circuit, a designing circuit, a comparing circuit and a construction instructing circuit, comprising the steps of: (this falls within the statutory categories of invention. Note that intended use in the preamble does not receive the benefit of patentable weight. The central processing unit (CPU, equivalent to a generic processor) and its circuits are generic computer components being recited as mere instructions to apply an exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f))
by transmitting and receiving information to and from a design database storing a design model of a structure and a measurement database storing measurement data on the structure, (the database storing data is a generic computer component being recited as mere instructions to apply an exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f). The transmission and receiving of data is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The measurement data on the structure is numerical data organized according to mathematical relationships.)
reading the design model of the entire of the structure from the design database; (as above, either mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computer components or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. The model is numerical geometry representing the structure with mathematical relationships, and any link to a building is merely generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of construction as per MPEP 2106.05(h).)
designing an initial construction model by means of the physical simulation circuit and the designing circuit so that final form physical simulation results obtained by performing a physical simulation by applying a physical deformation to a model of the structure match the design model; (This can be done either mentally by manually observing results and adjusting parameters based on evaluations and judgements, or by a mathematical algorithm comparing a numerical difference and adjusting numerical parameters in the mathematical model to minimize the difference. Note that no physical operations are positively recited as occurring, only the use of data that has resulted from those operations)
extracting from a database a construction completed part model of a part completely constructed at the present stage from the initial construction model; (this can be done by a person observing the part and noting appropriate data, such as on a blueprint, or by mathematically processing numerical geometry data)
calculating partial physical simulation results obtained by performing the physical simulation for the construction completed part model by means of the comparing circuit; (Performing numerical calculations on numerical data, which a person could also perform mentally with aid of pencil and paper via relatively simple predictions or threshold calculations (e.g. manually calculating whether the force threshold for a beam to buckle has been met); note again that no physical simulation is actually claimed here, only performing calculations on data that originates from unclaimed physical simulation)
obtaining a measurement model from the measurement data of the part completely constructed at the present stage in the measurement database; (Either mental processes involving evaluating data and recording results on blueprints, or mathematical relationships by extracting mathematical correlations between data and generating resultant numerical functions)
calculating an actual object difference by comparing the partial physical simulation results with the measurement model by means of the comparing circuit; and (performing mathematical calculations using numerical data and comparing the numerical outputs to measured numerical data, all within the realm of mathematical relationships; as above a person could also perform mentally with aid of pencil and paper via relatively simple predictions or threshold calculations)
instructing construction details of a part to be constructed next and/or later of the initial construction model or an actual object of the structure based on the actual object difference by means of the construction constructing circuit such that measurements of the resulting constructed structure conform to measurements of the design model. (A person can mentally accomplish this by observing the results of the prior step and evaluating them, then making mental judgements on what should happen next and recording the results on blueprint or other guidance documents. The intended use of the properties of the resulting structure is merely generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of construction as per MPEP 2106.05(h) as the construction operations are not positively recited, and are only set forth as intended results of the abstract instruction operation)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the database and processor/circuitry), 2) generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of construction, and 3) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (generating measurements and receiving data). The database is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic database performing a generic computer function of storing and transmitting data and a generic processor with circuits that performs calculations) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The specification data is transmitted and measured is only tangentially linked to the calculation and analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a database and processor/circuitry to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 9-12 are substantially similar to claim 1, and are rejected under the same grounds.
Dependent claims 3-8 recite only further details that fall within the scope of mental processes, mathematical relationships, and insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (further measurement steps).
Claims 13 and 14 recite measuring the part completely constructed and entering it into the database, but this is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The further limitation of basing the deformation of the model on various parameters is just details of the calculations that are mathematical in nature and may be performed mentally. The claims remain ineligible.
Claims 15 and 16 recite only further details that fall within the scope of mental processes and mathematical relationships, and remain ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 108106594 A represents the closest prior art, with the following passages notably pertinent:
"The angle of inclination at the control point and foundation settlement deformation data are deformed with the BIM of the building and its component Information and data are compared ... If more than default error range, then the deformation information and data of the building and its component are modified."
"Step S1 according to the design drawing of building, establishes the original BIM threedimensional models of the building"
"Step S2 in each construction stage, is swept using the high-precision three-dimensional scanner entity that carries out inside and outside to the building It retouches, obtains the solid data of the building ... an entire scan is carried out to the building using high-precision three-dimensional scanner every several days"
"after the completion of every one of the working procedure of engineering, 3-D scanning foundation is carried out to building and has completed process BIM threedimensional models are compared with the BIM threedimensional models established according to design drawing."
"According to the angle of inclination at the control point and foundation settlement deformation data are uploaded to cloud by wireless data acquisition"
"Step S5 ... According to the angle of inclination at the control point and foundation settlement deformation data, BIM deformation informations to the building and its component and Data are modified ... the deformation data of building can be constantly updated"
"If more than default error range, then the deformation information and data of the building and its component are modified"
The above citations, in effect, disclose continuously scanning a building under construction, and updating its BIM 3D model to match the physical structure based on deformations. This is similar to the features of claim 1 absent the last limitation, but notably does not disclose modifying any construction operations or part details. The instant application essentially claims modifying the physical parts to match the model, while the reference discloses modifying the model to match the physical parts. Additionally, the reference only discloses a single BIM model (the claims require a construction completed part model on which physical simulations are conducted, which the references do not disclose in the context of the final limitation).
Also relevant are the following references:
JP 4308106 B2 discusses adjusting a part to match the ideal modelled state, but not via physical simulations of that part as claimed (“Therefore, the positional deviation (positional deviation amount) between the steel column 11 that is built and temporarily fixed and the ideal built-in state is calculated (step S105). Then, based on the calculated amount of displacement, a correction instruction for correcting the displacement of the steel column 11 is performed so that the steel column 11 is closer to the ideal built-in state (step S106).”).
US 20150355050 A1 (cited by applicant on the IDS dated 9/26/2022) discusses physical modeling of buildings, though not in the specific manner claimed where results are used for modifying parts used in construction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189