DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 08/29/2025
Claims 1-4, 8-20 are presented for examination
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 02/11/2022 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 10/28/2021 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Abstract
The abstract dated 10/28/2021 has been reviewed. It has 75 words, and contains no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Response to Arguments - 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-4 and 20 under 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2-4 and 20 under 112 has been withdrawn.
Please note, however, that the new amendments have introduced new issues with 112, leading claims 1-4 and 8-19 to be rejected for different reasons.
Response to Arguments - 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they use CAD and software.
Examiner responds by explaining that merely reciting the use of software tools, particularly at the level of generality claimed, is not sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application. Further, tying the use of the system to a particular field of use, such as computer aided design, is also not sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application, nor provide significantly more. See (MPEP 2106.05(h) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. “)
Further, the term practical “application” has nothing to do with whether or not a claim recites a software application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a particular solution and not just the idea of one.
Examiner responds by explaining that, although the claim has been amended to list a number of additional elements, it is unclear how exactly any of these features effect how the construction project is actually constructed; e.g. how are the generically recited “portal sustainability” features actually implemented? What form do they take? How does the use of these features change the construction process? With this in mind there is not sufficient specificity in any of these new features to conclude that they recite a particular solution that integrates the claims into a practical application.
Applicant argues that digitalizing multiple dimensions of data via integration with complex 3D design models cannot be performed in the human mind because digitalizing and digitizing data are not the same thing and that such operations are not abstract and integrate the claims into a practical application/ provide significantly more.
Examiner responds by firstly explaining that “digitalizing” and “digitizing” are synonyms are share a common definition; there is nothing in the disclosure to suggest that a different definition should be used for the word “digitalizing.” Although the applicant or patentee is “free to be his or her own lexicographer” they may only “use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999)” There is no evidence of this being the case. Further, the specification uses the terms “digitalization” and “digitization” interchangeably, such as in [Par 65] “The Digitalization stage is utilized for creating representations of planned or existing conditions and adding digital data. The digitization stage integrates…”
Generically “digitalizing” data, i.e. creating digital representations of data is merely the act of transferring that data to a computer. In other words, it is equivalent to both mere data gathering and a mental process. See In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022) which describes an updated overview of the types of data gathering that can be considered a mental process. Should it be found that this is not a mental process, it is also mere data gathering. See ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Further, to break down the newly recited elements of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of design and testing tools comprises digitalization tools for creating representations of planned or existing conditions,
As noted above, generically “digitalizing” data, i.e. creating digital representations of data is merely the act of transferring that data to a computer. In other words, it is equivalent to both mere data gathering and a mental process. See In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022) which describes an updated overview of the types of data gathering that can be considered a mental process. Should it be found that this is not a mental process, it is also mere data gathering. See ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
the digitalization tools incorporating a building information modeling (BIM) framework with schedule integration, cost integration, portal sustainability and digital twin tools,
When recited at such a high level of generality, these tools amount to nothing more than the application of a generic computer, in other words mere instructions to apply. Other than the digital twin tools, which, as described below, amount to no more than mere data gathering, no detail is given about the particularities of how any of these tools work, how they interact with the mental process, nor how the effect the final construction process.
the digital twin tools creating a near real-time 3D digital representation of an as-built environment based on a real-time feed of hardware sensor data and animated heat maps of the hardware sensor data;
Generating a model from sensor data, without any specificity recited as to how this sensor data is obtained nor how the model is actually generated, amounts to no more than mere data gathering.
Further, outputting such a heatmap is merely the act of presenting the gathered data, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
Applicant argues that the use of AR/VR in claim 20 is a point of novelty of the claim, and therefore not a mental process or mere instructions to apply.
Examiner responds by explaining that, firstly, stereoscopic images that can be viewed with a VR headset are practical to draw by hand with a pencil and paper. Further, displaying step by step representations for constructing something is a mental process that involves drawing a representation of a project at each step of construction with a pencil and paper. Designers at LEGO or IKEA have created this kind of step-by-step construction representation for decades.
As for the actual presentation of such images on an AR/VR headset, no detail is given as to how, particularly, the AR/VR operation works that would suggest it is anything more than generic. With this in mind, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Response to Arguments - 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejections of claim 1-4 and 6-19 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claim 1-4 and 6-19 under 103 has been withdrawn.
Particularly, prior art that teaches a BIM system that “is integrated with schedule integration, cost integration, portal sustainability and digital twin tools, the digital twin tools creating a near real-time 3D digital representation of an as-built environment based on a real-time feed of hardware sensor data and animated heat maps of the hardware sensor data,” that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine with the previous references, and that also would have had sufficient motivation to combine, was not found.
However, it should be noted that these features were not added to claim 20, which is still rejected in view of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “near real-time” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near real-time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is frequent enough to be considered “near” real-time is a subjective opinion that differs from person to person. For example, a first person might consider a system that updates every second to be “near real-time,” while a second person believes that a system must update every millisecond to be considered “near real-time.”
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 1-4, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
a plurality of design and testing tools directed to phases of the project's lifecycle, wherein the plurality of design and testing tools comprises automation tools including a three dimensional (3D) portal creator for a user to design and produce a passenger portal for passengers of a vehicle to embark and disembark the vehicle and for storage and maintenance of the vehicles, wherein the plurality of design and testing tools is usable for physical horizontal and vertical infrastructure, and comprises simulation tools for creating three dimensional (3D) graphical representations of run-time operations of vehicles over a guideway of the project
Mental tools and methods for designing infrastructure projects have been used for millennia, well before the invention of the computer. The roman aqueducts, for example, one of the largest infrastructure projects of their time, were precisely designed using simple planning, observation using basic tools, and simple mental math (see Expedition Magazine – Roman Aqueducts: Technical Aspects of their construction, Page 11-14)
Designing the portal and is a mental process equivalent to mentally imaging such a portal. For example, a sculptor might visualize a sculpture they are planning on creating before sculpting it. Alternatively, such a portal could be designed by drawing a multi-view drawing of the portal with a pencil and paper.
Similarly, creating a representation of the “run-time operations of vehicles over a guideway of the project” is equivalent to mentally imagining such an operation. For example, a child interested in trains may visualize they layout and movement of a train upon a track when planning to build a train set. Alternatively an operation representation could be created by drawing a multi-view representation of an operation, such as a train refueling, with a pencil and paper.
Further, performing this operation with a true 3D-renderer on a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply this mental process on a generic computer.
Additionally, should it be found that these limitations are not mental processes, the simulations and tools are recited at such a high level of generality that they amount to more than mere instructions to apply.
wherein the plurality of design and testing tools comprises digitalization tools for creating representations of planned or existing conditions,
Generically “digitalizing” data, i.e. creating digital representations of data is merely the act of transferring that data to a computer. In other words, it is equivalent to both mere data gathering and a mental process. See In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022) which describes an updated overview of the types of data gathering that can be considered a mental process. Should it be found that this is not a mental process, it is also mere data gathering. See ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Mere data gathering:
wherein the plurality of design and testing tools comprises digitalization tools for creating representations of planned or existing conditions,
Generically “digitalizing” data, i.e. creating digital representations of data is merely the act of transferring that data to a computer, which amounts to no more than gathering that data. See ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
the digital twin tools creating a near real-time 3D digital representation of an as-built environment based on a real-time feed of hardware sensor data and …
Generating a model from sensor data, without any specificity recited as to how this sensor data is obtained nor how the model is actually generated, amounts to no more than mere data gathering.
Post-Solution Activity
wherein the physical and vertical infrastructure of the project is constructed based upon a project design created and tested from the plurality of design and testing tools.
Merely constructing the project after a series of abstract steps towards designing and testing it is equivalent to merely acting on the result of the abstract steps, and is therefore mere post-solution activity.
the digital twin tools creating … animated heat maps of the hardware sensor data;
outputting such a heatmap is merely the act of presenting the gathered data, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
A system for design and implementation of a project comprising: a plurality of design and testing tools directed to phases of the project's lifecycle, wherein the plurality of design and testing tools comprises automation tools including a three dimensional (3D) portal creator for a user to design and produce a passenger portal for passengers of a vehicle to embark and disembark the vehicle and for storage and maintenance of the vehicles, wherein the plurality of design and testing tools is usable for physical horizontal and vertical infrastructure, and comprises simulation tools for creating three dimensional (3D) graphical representations of run-time operations of vehicles over a guideway of the project
Using these tools on a computer amounts to no more than instructions to apply.
Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the process is done with a “simulation” and representations are created without reciting how this simulation or representation creation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations; for additional clarity see ([Par 89-97] “As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present disclosure may be embodied as a system, a method or a computer program product. … Any combination of one or more computer usable or computer readable medium(s) may be utilized…. Computer program code for carrying out operations of the present disclosure may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network. … FIG. 57 is an exemplary system for use in accordance with the embodiments described herein. The system 5700 is generally shown and may include a computer system 5702, which is generally indicated. The computer system 5702 may operate as a standalone device or may be connected to other systems or peripheral devices. For example, the computer system 5702 may include, or be included within, any one or more computers, servers, systems, communication networks or cloud environment.”)
the digitalization tools incorporating a building information modeling (BIM) framework with schedule integration, cost integration, portal sustainability and digital twin tools,
When recited at such a high level of generality, these tools amount to nothing more than the application of a generic computer.
Applying a computer to perform a generic BIM modeling at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that modeling, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the BIM model is “integrated” with schedule, cost, sustainability, and digital twin features without reciting how any of these features work no how the integration is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are mere data gathering or post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, or a general purpose computer and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Mere data gathering:
wherein the plurality of design and testing tools comprises digitalization tools for creating representations of planned or existing conditions,
Generically “digitalizing” data, i.e. creating digital representations of data is merely the act of transferring that data to a computer, which amounts to no more than gathering that data. See ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
the digital twin tools creating a near real-time 3D digital representation of an as-built environment based on a real-time feed of hardware sensor data and …
Generating a model from sensor data, without any specificity recited as to how this sensor data is obtained nor how the model is actually generated, amounts to no more than mere data gathering.
A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a
practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Post-solution activity:
wherein the physical and vertical infrastructure of the project is constructed based upon a project design created and tested from the plurality of design and testing tools.
Merely constructing the projects after a series of abstract steps towards designing and testing it is equivalent to merely acting on the result of the abstract steps, and is therefore mere post-solution activity. This element merely acts on the results of the previous abstract steps. A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.
the digital twin tools creating … animated heat maps of the hardware sensor data;
outputting such a heatmap is merely the act of presenting the gathered data, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
This element merely acts on the results of the previous abstract steps. A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
A system for design and implementation of a project comprising: a plurality of design and testing tools directed to phases of the project's lifecycle, wherein the plurality of design and testing tools comprises automation tools including a three dimensional (3D) portal creator for a user to design and produce a passenger portal for passengers of a vehicle to embark and disembark the vehicle and for storage and maintenance of the vehicles, wherein the plurality of design and testing tools is usable for physical horizontal and vertical infrastructure, and comprises simulation tools for creating three dimensional (3D) graphical representations of run-time operations of vehicles over a guideway of the project
Using these tools on a computer amounts to no more than instructions to apply.
Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the process is done with a “simulation” and representations are created without reciting how this simulation or representation creation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations; for additional clarity see ([Par 89-97] “As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present disclosure may be embodied as a system, a method or a computer program product. … Any combination of one or more computer usable or computer readable medium(s) may be utilized…. Computer program code for carrying out operations of the present disclosure may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network. … FIG. 57 is an exemplary system for use in accordance with the embodiments described herein. The system 5700 is generally shown and may include a computer system 5702, which is generally indicated. The computer system 5702 may operate as a standalone device or may be connected to other systems or peripheral devices. For example, the computer system 5702 may include, or be included within, any one or more computers, servers, systems, communication networks or cloud environment.”)
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
the digitalization tools incorporating a building information modeling (BIM) framework with schedule integration, cost integration, portal sustainability and digital twin tools,
When recited at such a high level of generality, these tools amount to nothing more than the application of a generic computer.
Applying a computer to perform a generic BIM modeling at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that modeling, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the BIM model is “integrated” with schedule, cost, sustainability, and digital twin features without reciting how any of these features work no how the integration is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations.
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that 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. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A system for design and implementation of a project comprising: a plurality of design and testing tools; automation tools including a three dimensional (3D) portal creator for a user to design and produce a passenger portal for passengers of a vehicle to embark and disembark the vehicle and for storage and maintenance of the vehicles, simulation tools for creating three dimensional (3D) graphical representations of run-time operations of vehicles over a guideway of the project;” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the project includes at least one of roads, rail, pipelines, powerlines, stations, airports, facilities, utilities, or a hyperloop.”
This merely clarifies the nature of the project and is therefore merely an extension of the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the plurality of design and testing tools comprises automation tools for monitoring and analyzing topological surface elevations on land and under water for potential locations for construction of the project”
As stated before, this kind of design of infrastructure based on terrain geometry has been performed since the days of the Roman empire with the aqueducts. This planning is equivalent to observing a tract of land and judging where a construction project would be best suited, and is thus a mental process.
“determining a length of a curve for vehicles to accelerate through a turn at a switch without passengers experiencing lateral or rotational forces above a threshold.”
Determining this length is a mental process; a skilled railway designer could reasonably observe a train that is intended to be used on a proposed track and, judging by the weight and speed of the train, judge what would be a safe curve length for that train at that speed so that it does not derail or excessively jostle passengers.
Further, checking is these forces are above a threshold is a mental process equivalent to observing measurements of these forces and comparing them to an arbitrarily chosen threshold value to judge which number is larger.
Further, should it be found that this element is not a mental process, it is an example of well understood, routine, conventional activity (WURC)
Determining this curve length to ensure safety, known as minimum curve radius in railway design fields, is a common well-understood, routine and conventional activity amongst railway designers. See Kobayashi (US 20190185033 A1) [Par 44-45] and minimum railway curve radius (Wikipedia) [Par 1-2]
Claim 4 recites “automation tool includes a network topology creator tool that creates an entire network geometry connecting multiple origins and destination and includes switch geometries for point-to-point travel between each of the multiple origins and the destination.”
Creating a network topology with multiple origins and destinations and switches is a mental process equivalent to simply drawing a representation of such a network with a pen and paper.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the BIM framework is integrated with augmented or virtual reality (ARNR) tools to show modeled construction, commissioning, operations or maintenance activities at a particular site.”
This merely clarifies the form of the BIM framework, and is therefore merely an extension of the abstract idea, mere instructions to apply, and WURC elements
Claim 9 recites “wherein, for construction, the AR/VR tools can project to the user a chronological construction from the ground up of the project over a view of the site where the user is located,”
Displaying step by step representations for constructing something is a mental process that involves drawing a representation of a project at each step of construction with a pencil and paper. Designers at LEGO or IKEA have created this kind of step-by-step construction representation for decades.
Using “AR/VR” tools for this step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
“wherein, for commissioning and operations, the AR/VR tools can show animations of a maneuvering of the vehicle in at least one degree of freedom or moving or actuating of structural elements.”
Animating a vehicle or structure moving is a mental process equivalent to drawing several frames of animation with a pen on paper to represent the movement of an object. Children, for example, will sometimes create flipbooks of racecars or airplanes using simple sheets of paper and pencil.
Using “AR/VR” tools for this step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the digitalization tool further includes at least one of a schedule integration tool that incorporates temporal data into the BIM framework to determine construction sequencing of the project, a cost integration tool for determining quantity takeoff, estimating, budgeting, forecasting and cash flow, or a portal sustainability tool to check the infrastructure of compliance with certification criteria to be environmentally friendly and energy and resource efficient.”
This merely clarifies the form of the digitalization tools, and is therefore merely an extension of the abstract idea, mere instructions to apply, and WURC elements
Claim 11 recites “wherein the plurality of design and testing tools comprises optimization tools for finding solutions to minimize or maximize various objectives, subject to constraints.”
Generically optimizing some practice for optimal performance to maximize or minimize results is an extremely common mental process. For example, a person in riding a bicycle up a hill may adjust the gearing of the bicycle so as to maintain upwards travel without exhausting themselves.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the optimization tools includes a profile optimizer that iteratively examines different courses for the infrastructure over the geographic profile to find a best course.”
Determining which path of a series of paths is the best option is a mental process frequently performed by navigators. This process involves observing each path, making a judgment as to which is fastest and how difficult or how much fuel each path will consume, and then, based on these judgement, make a final judgment of which path to proceed down.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the different courses are designed for passenger comfort, angle of traverse, vehicle capabilities, vehicle speed and vehicle energy requirements.”
This merely specifies the variables considered for each path when optimizing, and is therefore merely an extension of the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the optimization tool includes a 3D terrain optimizer that is an iterative process over multiple geospatial datasets, directed to terrain, land use, environmentally sensitive areas, and parcel cost to minimize various objectives including capital costs, travel times, energy consumption, environmental impact or maximize various objectives including passenger comfort and, energy efficiency of the project based on various courses over multiple geospatial data layers where the project is to be constructed.”
As before, determining which path of a series of paths is the best option is a mental process frequently performed by navigators. This process involves observing each path, making a judgment as to which is fastest and how difficult or how much fuel each path will consume, and then, based on these judgement, make a final judgment of which path to proceed down. Specifying what particular elements or data are used in comparing the paths to each other does not change the fact that this is a mental process.
Claim 15 recites “the plurality of design and testing tools comprises simulation tools for creating representations of step-wise construction of the project.”
Displaying step by step representations for constructing something is a mental process that involves drawing a representation of a project at each step of construction with a pencil and paper. Designers at LEGO or IKEA have created this kind of step-by-step construction representation for decades.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the simulation tools for creating three dimensional (3D) graphical representations run-time operations or step- wise construction comprise at least one of dynamic clash detection, construction sequence simulation, or passenger and portal operations simulation.”
This merely clarifies the nature of the simulation tools, and is therefore merely an extension of the abstract idea and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the dynamic clash detection is at least one of operable to simulate a clash between models used in the project design or to simulate operation of a vehicle traveling over the guideway of the project.”
Determining whether models or objects in a simulated representation of something interfere with each other is a mental process equivalent to creating a representation, such as by drawing with pen and paper, and judging whether the project specifications cause objects to overlap.
For example, a person moving into a new building might create a floorplan based on measurements of their new space. They might decide that a couch, bed, desk, and table be in the same room, but upon drawing them all into the floorplan notice that there is no way to fit them all in without overlap, geometry that would be impossible in the real world.
Through a similar process, a person might determine that a vehicle does not fit over a guideway or a bridge.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the construction sequence simulation is operable to show a building of the project from ground up.”
Displaying step by step representations for constructing something is a mental process that involves drawing a representation of a project at each step of construction with a pencil and paper. Designers at LEGO or IKEA have created this kind of step-by-step construction representation for decades.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the simulation tools for creating three dimensional (3D) graphical representations run-time operations or step- wise construction include simulations for quantifying cost risk and uncertainty at every level of the project.”
As per MPEP 2106(a)(2)(II)(A), fundamental economic practices or principles are examples of abstract ideas. Therefore, making financial estimates, such as quantifying cost risk, is directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106(a)(2)(II)(A)(i) mitigating settlement risk, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982 (2014) and (iv) offer-based price optimization, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 20 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
at least one of monitoring and analyzing topological surface elevations on land and under water for at least one of potential locations for construction of the project,
As stated before, this kind of design of infrastructure based on terrain geometry has been performed since the days of the Roman empire with the aqueducts. This planning is equivalent to observing a tract of land and judging where a construction project would be best suited, and is thus a mental process.
or for determining a length of a curve for vehicles to accelerate through a turn at a switch without passengers experiencing lateral or rotational forces above a threshold;
Determining this length is a mental process; a skilled railway designer could reasonably observe a train that is intended to be used on a proposed track and, judging by the weight and speed of the train, judge what would be a safe curve length for that train at that speed so that it does not derail or excessively jostle passengers.
Further, checking is these forces are above a threshold is a mental process equivalent to observing measurements of these forces and comparing them to an arbitrarily chosen threshold value to judge which number is larger.
Further, should it be found that this element is not a mental process, it is an example of well understood, routine, conventional activity (WURC)
using AR/VR tools to project to a user a chronological construction from the ground up of the project over a view of the site where the user is located,
Displaying step by step representations for constructing something is a mental process that involves drawing a representation of a project at each step of construction with a pencil and paper. Designers at LEGO or IKEA have created this kind of step-by-step construction representation for decades.
Doing so “using AR/VR tools” merely amounts to instructions to apply the mental process on a computer
show animations of a maneuvering of a vehicle in at least one degree of freedom, and moving of structural elements;
Animating a vehicle or structure moving is a mental process equivalent to drawing several frames of animation with a pen on paper to represent the movement of an object. Children, for example, will sometimes create flipbooks of racecars or airplanes using simple sheets of paper and pencil.
at least one of determining construction sequencing of the project, determining quantity takeoff and estimating, budgeting, forecasting and cash flow, or checking the infrastructure of compliance with certification criteria to be environmentally friendly and energy and resource efficient; and
Determining construction sequencing is a mental process that involves simply ordering construction steps in a way that makes sense, such as judging that the foundation of a house should be built before the roof.
Determining quantity takeoff and estimating, budgeting, forecasting and cash flow are all estimates that are commonly made by experienced construction planners, comparing the complexity, labor, and costs of a project to similar known projects to come up with reasonable figures for these elements.
Finally, checking that a structure follows environmental regulations is a mental process that involves thoroughly inspecting and observing the structure, comparing observations to known laws and certification criteria, and making a judgement of whether or not the criteria are met.
simulating, in a three dimensional (3D) graphical representation, operation of a vehicle traveling over a guideway of the project.
Such a simulation is a mental process equivalent to drawing, with a pencil and paper, a frame-by-frame representation of the process of the vehicle moving over the guideway in a way that has 3D qualities, such as a perspective drawing. For example, a small child interested in trains may draw a flip-book of his favorite train crossing a bridge.
Further, performing this operation with a true 3D-renderer on a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply this mental process on a generic computer.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
simulating, in a three dimensional (3D) graphical representation, operation of a vehicle traveling over a guideway of the project.
Performing this simulation on a computer amounts to no more than instructions to apply the mental process embodied by the simulation on a generic computer.
Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the system is done with a “simulation” without reciting how this simulation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations; for additional clarity see ([Par 89-97] “As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present disclosure may be embodied as a system, a method or a computer program product. … Any combination of one or more computer usable or computer readable medium(s) may be utilized…. Computer program code for carrying out operations of the present disclosure may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network. … FIG. 57 is an exemplary system for use in accordance with the embodiments described herein. The system 5700 is generally shown and may include a computer system 5702, which is generally indicated. The computer system 5702 may operate as a standalone device or may be connected to other systems or peripheral devices. For example, the computer system 5702 may include, or be included within, any one or more computers, servers, systems, communication networks or cloud environment.”)
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are mere data gathering or post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, or a general purpose computer and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
simulating, in a three dimensional (3D) graphical representation, operation of a vehicle traveling over a guideway of the project.
Performing this simulation on a computer amounts to no more than instructions to apply the mental process embodied by the simulation on a generic computer.
Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the system is done with a “simulation” without reciting how this simulation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations; for additional clarity see ([Par 89-97] “As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present disclosure may be embodied as a system, a method or a computer program product. … Any combination of one or more computer usable or computer readable medium(s) may be utilized…. Computer program code for carrying out operations of the present disclosure may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network. … FIG. 57 is an exemplary system for use in accordance with the embodiments described herein. The system 5700 is generally shown and may include a computer system 5702, which is generally indicated. The computer system 5702 may operate as a standalone device or may be connected to other systems or peripheral devices. For example, the computer system 5702 may include, or be included within, any one or more computers, servers, systems, communication networks or cloud environment.”)
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that 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. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A smart infrastructure system for design and implementation of a project comprising: a processor; at least one memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including: using AR/VR tools” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity (WURC) has found that claim elements that are understood to be Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity are not indicative of Integration into a Practical Solution nor evidence of an Inventive Concept (MPEP 2106.05(d))
WURC:
or for determining a length of a curve for vehicles to accelerate through a turn at a switch without passengers experiencing excessive lateral or rotational forces;
Determining this curve length to ensure safety, known as minimum curve radius in railway design fields, is a common well-understood, routine and conventional activity amongst railway designers. See Kobayashi (US 20190185033 A1) [Par 44-45] and minimum railway curve radius (Wikipedia) [Par 1-2]
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such.
The claim is ineligible.
Further,
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) are directed to a “system” or machine, but fails to disclose physical “things”. The elements of the claim, particularly the disclosed “tools” are construed as software (see paragraph 3 of Specification “The tools described in this disclosure enable well-informed early decisions to be made by automating strenuous and tedious design tasks, digitalizing multiple dimensions of data via integration with complex 3D design models, determining optimal designs by using complex mathematical algorithms and approaches to complex multi- dimensional geometries, and simulating operational and temporal data in complex 3D environments. Some of these tools improve upon existing off-the-shelf design software capabilities by integrating with API's, while others are developed from scratch.”). Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are not directed to any of the statutory categories (MPEP 2106.03).
The dependent claims 2-4, 6-19 included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
(1) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Highway Alignment Optimization: An Integrated BIM and GIS Approach (Hereinafter Zhao) in view of Geometry-Based Modeling and Simulation of Construction Processes (Hereinafter Akbas) in further view of Simulation and Visualization of a High-Speed Shinkansen Train on the Railway Structure (Hereinafter Shinkansen) in addition to BIM and Virtual Reality (VR) at the construction site (Hereinafter Johansson)
Claim 20. Zhao makes obvious A smart infrastructure system for design and implementation of a project comprising: a processor; at least one memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including: ([Abstract] “This study proposes an approach for managing highway alignment in the context of a larger landscape that integrates building information modelling (BIM) and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. To support this integration, semantic web technologies are used to integrate data on a semantic level. Moreover, the approach also uses genetic algorithms (GAs) for optimizing highway alignments. AfullyautomatedmodelisdevelopedthatenablesdatainteroperabilitybetweenBIMand GIS systems and also allows for data exchange between the integration model and the optimization algorithm. The model enables the full exploitation of features of the project and its surroundings for highway alignment planning.” [Page 2 Par 2] … enable the computer to read and interpret semantic information across the internet.”) at least one of monitoring and analyzing topological surface elevations on land ([Page 22 Figure 14] shows analysis of different routes over the terrain to find the optimal construction location and path) or for determining a length of a curve for vehicles to accelerate through a turn at a switch without passengers experiencing lateral or rotational forces above a threshold;
Zhao does not explicitly teach analyzing an under water location; using AR/VR tools to project to a user a chronological construction from the ground up of the project over a view of the site where the user is located, show animations of a maneuvering of a vehicle in at least one degree of freedom, and moving of structural elements; at least one of determining construction sequencing of the project, determining quantity takeoff and estimating, budgeting, forecasting and cash flow, or checking the infrastructure of compliance with certification criteria to be environmentally friendly and energy and resource efficient; and simulating, in a three dimensional (3D) graphical representation, operation of a vehicle traveling over a guideway of the project.
Akbas makes obvious analyzing an under water location; ([Page 101 par 4] “There are two geometric models for the DCA project. The first model, used by the lagoon test case, contains the overall project organized by areas. Some example areas are the lagoon, the restaurant building, roller coaster, and a ferris wheel. The lagoon geometry in this model is a single geometric entity” [Page 67 Par 1] “Assuming one-to-one correspondence between activities and work locations, their system creates a structured grid, partitions the content of each grid element and performs an exhaustive search for an optimal zoning plan for the given cost and duration criteria” [Figure 6-1, 7-2, and 7-3] Show analysis and planning of potential construction in an artificial lagoon, i.e. an underwater location) using ([Page 109 Figure 7-9] shows the chronological construction process at a particular site [Page 71 Figure 5-5] Shows visualizations of a site at work locations, i.e. user locations for workers.) ([Page 31 Par 4] “ Automated process planners generate tasks required to reach a goal state, assign resources to tasks, sequence these tasks, and calculate their durations. Construction process planners automate this process for construction, preparing a construction plan and a schedule, and assigning required resources for the process of interest as a result” [Page 32 par 4] “ Automated process planners commonly use physical support relations to determine the sequence of activities, e.g., Planex (Zozaya-Gorostiza et al. 1989), Ghost (Navinchandra et al. 1988), Builder (Cherneff et al. 1991), CMM (Fischer and Aalami 1996). The supporting component should be installed before the supported component can start. For example, footings must be installed before work on columns can start. Similarly, some activities cannot start unless its required work is ready.” [Page 110 Figure 7-10] shows various generated scheduling metrics [Page 115 Figure 7-14] Shows a generated schedule) determining quantity takeoff and estimating, budgeting, forecasting and cash flow, or checking the infrastructure of compliance with certification criteria to be environmentally friendly and energy and resource efficient
Akbas is analogous art because it is within the field of infrastructure construction planning and simulation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Akbas with Zhao before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better plan a construction process by enabling the thorough investigation of construction workflow and sequencing requirements. As explained by Akbas, ([Page iv] Currently, there is an inadequate support for modeling the spatial aspects of construction operations, evaluation of alternative process plans and visualizing the results directly. Critical Path Method networks do not describe how a project is built. 4D models provide visualizations for the construction process, but they have limited support for analysis. Existing discrete event simulation techniques do not use the spatial aspects in model definition and evaluation of results.”) To this end, Akbas presents a comprehensive construction plan simulation and analysis system, able to generate an optimal sequence of construction operations, ultimately resulting in a more efficient construction process ([Page 130 Par 5 – Page 131 Par 1] “In summary, the GPM approach offers a new basis for interactive construction process design. By explicitly considering the project-specific geometric configuration in modeling the construction process, it supports rapid evaluations of the effects of geometry or production parameters on the planned construction process. This allows users to explore the schedule impact of different project design options and to compare the use of different crews, workflow strategies, and other production variables. With the GPM approach, construction planners can be more proactive in addressing construction challenges on a particular project and can respond more quickly and accurately to changes in the project design or crew availability or capacity.”) Overall one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Zhao with Akbas would result in a system that enabled more organized construction, enabling a faster, more cost-effective construction process.
The combination of Zhao and Akbas does not explicitly teach using AR/VR tools to show animations of a maneuvering of a vehicle in at least one degree of freedom, and moving of structural elements and simulating, in a three dimensional (3D) graphical representation, operation of a vehicle traveling over a guideway of the project.
Shinkansen makes obvious ([Fig. 9 and 10] Show 3D graphical simulations of a shinkansen train moving over a rail line (guideway) [Page 309 Par 2] “A finite element program, DIASTARS, for the simulation of a Shinkansen train running on the railway structure at high speed has been developed. A visualization program, VIS, for the animation of the dynamic motion of the train and the railway structure has been developed. ”)
Shinkansen is analogous art because it is within the field of 3D vehicle simulation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine it with Zhao and Akbas before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better model the physics of vehicles on the project, allowing for more accurate determination of whether or not the project’s requirements have been met. High speed rail presents unique physics and engineering challenges; faster vehicles means more stress on tracks and supporting structure. The need for highly-accurate 3D simulations of such vehicles is noted by Shinkansen ([Page 309 Par 1] “Recently much concern has been focused on developing high-speed railway technology for excellent ride comfort and for satisfying the safety at a high-speed operation. One of the important structural problems is to study carefully on the combined dynamic behavior between a high-speed train and the railway structure.”) To this end, Shinkansen presents a method for accurately simulating and visualizing the movement of a high-speed rail vehicle, and the physical effects of such movements on the vehicle itself, the tracks, and the rail support structure ([Page 309 Par 2] “In this paper the equation of motion to solve the combined dynamic response of a Shinkansen train, rail, and the railway structure is described, and an efficient numerical method based on a modal method to obtain the combined response is discussed. The train with as many as 16 vehicles connected at largest is modeled as an assemblage of the bodies, trucks and wheelsets connected to each other by springs and dampers. Connectors between vehicles are also modeled by springs and dampers. A finite element program, DIASTARS, for the simulation of a Shinkansen train running on the railway structure at high speed has been developed. A visualization program, VIS, for the animation of the dynamic motion of the train and the railway structure has been developed. Some examples are demonstrated.” [Page 320 Par 1] “An efficient numerical method based on a modal transformation method and an adaptive time increment scheme were devised to make iterative calculations during each time increment effective in practical problems with as many as 16 vehicles connected and a complex railway structure. A finite element program, DIASRARS, has been developed to solve the combined dynamic behavior of a Shinkansen train and the railway structure. The response of the train and the railway structure at each time increment was obtained in the generalized coordinates rather than in physical coordinates and stored as a file to be used in the visualization that makes the data volume considerably smaller and possible to store even on a PC. Through the application to practical problems and the comparison with the experimental result, the validity and effectiveness of the present method were shown. A visualization program using OpenGL, VIS, for the animation of dynamic motion of the train and railway structure has been developed to make the understanding and evaluation of the complicated dynamic behavior easier”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Shinkansen with Zhao and Akbas would result in a system capable of taking more information into account when evaluating routes by implementing an accurate, efficient, physics-based simulation of the actual traversal of a vehicle over said route, leading to better evaluations.
The combination of Zhao, Akbas, and Shinkansen does not explicitly teach using AR/VR tools
Johansson makes obvious using AR/VR tools ([Abstract] “In Scandinavia, recent years have seen an increased effort to move away from traditional 2D-drawings at the construction site, and instead let site personnel extract necessary information directly from the Building Information Model (BIM). However, although BIM-viewers and mobile applications are constantly improving, there are still issues around user-friendliness and ability to extract information and correct measurements directly from the model. In order to improve on the current situation, this paper presents a VR-application that allows construction workers to interact with the BIM through a user-friendly interface. By using modern VR hardware, such as HTC Vive, they can enter and freely navigate, inspect, and interact with the BIM in scale 1:1 and extract information, take measurements, define section planes, and control visibility of individual components or sub-models”)
Johansson is analogous art because it is within the field of 3D modelling, particularly of construction processes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine it with Zhao, Akbas, and Shinkansen before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to make the construction process easier. As noted by Johansson, although the integration of BIM systems has made construction data more available, it can be hard to use for the untrained ([Abstract] “In Scandinavia, recent years have seen an increased effort to move away from traditional 2D-drawings at the construction site, and instead let site personnel extract necessary information directly from the Building Information Model (BIM). However, although BIM-viewers and mobile applications are constantly improving, there are still issues around user-friendliness and ability to extract information and correct measurements directly from the model.”) To this end, Johansson presents a VR-integrated system that allows constructions workers to more easily interact with an understand building plans ([Abstract] “In order to improve on the current situation, this paper presents a VR-application that allows construction workers to interact with the BIM through a user-friendly interface. By using modern VR hardware, such as HTC Vive, they can enter and freely navigate, inspect, and interact with the BIM in scale 1:1 and extract information, take measurements, define section planes, and control visibility of individual components or sub-models”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Johansson with Zhao, Akbas, and Shinkansen would result in a system that significantly easier to use for workers, allowing construction to proceed more quickly and efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Mirabito whose telephone number is (703)756-1494. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 am - 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.P.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187