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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/2026 has been entered.
This action is non-final, and is in response to the amendments filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered. Claims 1, 9, and 18 are independent claims. Claims 1, 9, 18 have been amended. No claims have been canceled.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
In the amendment filed on 12/08/2025, applicant amended the independent claims, i.e. claims 1, 9, 18. The amendments have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/08/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 the Assignee submits that the Examiner generalizes the claim to find an alleged mental process that is not recited in the plain language of the claim itself, that claims do not recite and are not directed to a mental process under Step 2A Prong 1, that, even if found to recite and be directed to an abstract idea under Prong One, when viewed as a while the abstract idea is integrated in a practical application due to the specific structures and functional systems that cooperate to define an improvement to graphical user interfaces and diagnostic visualization systems, and , furthermore, even if the claim is found not be directed to a practical application, it includes additional elements that amount to significantly more.
The Arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Regarding the generalization” of the claim to find an “alleged” mental process, Examiner points out that each limitation was separately analyzed, multiple were found to recite mental processes, and those were considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis (as per the MPEP 2106.04 II. Evaluating Claims Reciting Multiple Judicial Exceptions (“if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea for Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B (if necessary) rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually) It was a summarization of the a single abstract idea for the claim.
As for the claim not reciting mental process, each of the limitation that does so is clearly indicated in the analysis. Any improvement that can be found is generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements which is the abstract idea itself and an improvement in the judicial exception can not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As for any innovation brought by additional elements either alone, in combination, or with claim as a whole, the argument was not found persuasive.
The same reasoning applies to dependent claims, which fail to bring additional elements that would transform the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The rejections under 35 USC 101 are therefore maintained.
In view of the amendments the Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Walter in view of Bumbalough in further view of Sridharan in further view of Hijazi has been withdrawn. However a new rejection over Walter in view of Bumbalough in further view of Sridharan has been made, as detailed below.
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, 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea (mental process), not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-8 are directed to a system and claims 9-20 are directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 9) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 9) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold in the following:
[A] An interface processing system for displaying interrelated hierarchical building system models of a physical building, the interface processing system, comprising: a memory allocation defined by: a data store storing an executable asset; and a working memory allocation; and a processor allocation configured to load the executable asset from the data store into the working memory allocation to instantiate an instance of a building management service configured to:
[B0] generate, from a set of building information data sources, a hierarchical structured data representation of functionally distinct building systems, wherein each building information data source of the set of building information data sources comprises information describing a respective physical building system of the physical building, each physical building system comprises at least one asset corresponding to a system level component of the physical building, each respective at least one asset of each respective physical building system associated with: a respective location in respect of the physical building; and at least one of: a respective upstream asset having a dependency relationship with the respective at least one asset, the respective upstream asset associated with a first different buildinq system that is functionally distinct from the respective physical building system; or a respective downstream system level component having a dependency relationship with the respective at least one asset, the respective downstream asset associated with a second different buildinq system that is functionally distinct from the respective physical building system;
[B] receive from a client application executing an operator interface on a client device, a request to display, within a virtual building system model, a visual representation of a selected asset located in the physical building;
[C] query an asset database comprising the hierarchical structured data representation associated with the selected asset, to determine location data for the selected asset and system level components associated with the asset;
[D] use the location data to generate a digital model of a building system location associated with the selected asset, the digital model comprising a three-dimensional model of building structural components;
[E] retrieve model data for the selected asset and model data for the system level components;
[F] extract, using a set of asset schemas, dependency
[G] generate, based on dependency relationships an interactive visual representation of the building system location comprising the three-dimensional model of the building structural components overlayed with visual representations of the asset and the system level components; and
[H] cause display, via the client application executing on the client device, an interactive data set for displaying the interactive visual representation in the operator interface.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 9) recites: generate a hierarchical structured data representation of functionally distinct building systems([B0]), obtain model data for building components ([E]); extracting a hierarchical relationship between a building component and connected elements ([F]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application specification, represents a process aimed at: “generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements.”
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (and in view of the specification that indicates how obtaining the model data involves identification of elements), covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement in determining the hierarchical relationship between elements, mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. For example, an architect can, mentally or using pen and architectural drawings, observe elements in tables and architectural drawings, think or sketch a graph of hierarchical relationships identifying such elements in drawings, and make a judgement what relationships exist between elements. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Accordingly, claim 1 (which is representative of claims 9) recites an abstract idea.
Per Step 2A.2. it is determined that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements [A]-[D], [G]-[H], when considered individually, fail to amount to more than the judicial exception itself. Specifically:
- Element [A] constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f));
- Non-bolded elements in [B0] are mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f));
- Element [B] constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f));
- Element [C] constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f));
- Element [D] amounts to linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
- Element [G] amounts to linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
- Element [H] constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Taken individually or in combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field.
According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative also of claim 9) does not contribute an inventive concept. That is, the additional elements when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05 and 2106.07) .
The additional elements, when considered individually, are limitations that the courts have found not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the judicial exception; [A]- [C], [H], amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, while [D],[G], amount to no more than linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea (“generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”) could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 9 are deemed ineligible.
Independent claim 17 recites:
[A] A method for generating a structured data model used to display an interactive hierarchical model of a physical building, the method comprising:
[B0] generating, from a set of building information data sources, a hierarchical structured data representation of functionally distinct building systems wherein each building information data source of the set of building information data sources comprises information describing a respective physical building system of the physical building, , each physical building system comprises at least one asset corresponding to a system level component of the physical building, each respective at least one asset of each respective physical building system associated with: a respective location in respect of the physical building; and at least one of: a respective upstream asset having a dependency relationship with the respective at least one asset, the respective upstream asset associated with a first different buildinq system that is functionally distinct from the respective physical building system; or a respective downstream system level component having a dependency relationship with the respective at least one asset, the respective downstream asset associated with a second different buildinq system that is functionally distinct from the respective physical building system;
[B] receiving a request to display a visual representation of the selected building system within a virtual building system model, the request comprising a building system type and a building system location;
[C] querying an asset database to identify assets that satisfy the selected building system type and the building system location;
[D] using the building system location to generate a digital model of the physical building, the digital model comprising a three-dimensional model of building structural components;
[E] retrieving, from the hierarchical structured data representation, structured data for the assets that satisfy the building system type and structured data for system level components having dependency relationships with the assets;
[F] generating an interactive visual representation of the building system location comprising the three-dimensional model of the building structural components overlayed with visual representations of the assets and the system level components having the dependency relationships with the assets;
[G] causing display of the interactive visual representation on a client device, receiving, from the client device, a selection of an asset of the assets displayed in the interactive visual representation of the building system location; and
[H] in response to the receiving the selection of the asset, causing: the asset to be displayed according to a first rendering schema; other assets of the assets to be displayed according to a second rendering schema based on dependency relationships.
Independent claim 17 recites: generate a hierarchical structured data representation of functionally distinct building systems([B0]), obtaining structured data for related building components that satisfy building system type ([E]) which, based on the claim language and in view of the application specification, represents a process aimed at: “generate a hierarchical structured data representation and obtaining structured data for related building components.”
This is a limitation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (and in view of the specification that indicates how the structured data is obtained), covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement (these being thought processes in identifying and creating the hierarchical representation structured data based on selection information received) mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind.
Accordingly, claim 17 recites an abstract idea.
Per Step 2A.2. it is determined that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements [A]-[D], [G]-[H], when considered individually, fail to amount to more than the judicial exception itself. Specifically:
- Element [A] constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f));
- Element [B] and non-bolded elements in [B0] constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f));
- Element [C] constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f));
- Element [D] amounts to linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) [R-01.20240]
- Element [F] constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f));
- Element [G] amounts to linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h))
- Element [H] constitutes mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Taken individually or in combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field . According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 17 does not contribute an inventive concept. That is, the additional elements when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05 and 2106.07) .
The additional elements, when considered individually, are limitations that the courts have found not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the judicial exception; [A]- [C], [F], [H] amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, while [D],[G], amount to no more than linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps [A]-[D], [F]-[H] that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea (“obtaining structured data for related building components”) could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 17 is deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), further recites:
[A] wherein retrieving the model data for the system level components comprises identifying respective upstream assets to the selected asset and respective downstream system level output components from the selected asset.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, obtaining model data identifying inputs and outputs for components covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements ” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 3 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 4, dependent on claim 3, further recites:
[A] identifying respective upstream system level components comprises identifying a breaker circuit associated with the asset; and
[B] identifying the respective downstream system level components comprises identifying a ventilation system component that is fed by the asset.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, identifying specific upstream components (breaker circuit) and identifying specific downstream components (ventilation system) for a building element covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 4 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 5, dependent on claim 1, further recites:
[A] wherein querying the asset database to determine location data for the selected asset and system level components associated with the asset comprises using three-dimension geometry for the selected asset to determine a relationship of the asset to the location and system level components.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, using three-dimension geometry to determine a relationship of a component to the location and other components covers performance of limitations expressing mathematical calculations. These are Mathematical Concepts, and, therefore, claim elements recite another abstract idea.
The recitation of another judicial exception (without additional elements in the claim), is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception (identified in the independent claim) into a practical application (2106.04(d) III.).
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim merely elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”). It does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified abstract idea would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Therefore, claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 6 (dependent on claim 1) further recites:
[A] receiving a selection of a sub-system of the system level components; and
[B] in response to receiving the selection of the sub-system: generating a three-dimensional model to render the sub-system in a first display scheme and other sub-systems of the system level components in a second display scheme.
The additional elements in this dependent claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”). It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 6 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 7 (dependent on claim 6) further recites:
[A] the first display scheme comprises a solid view of the sub-system; and
[B] the second display scheme comprises a partially transparent view of the other sub- systems.
The additional elements in this dependent claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”). It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 7 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 8 (dependent on claim 6) further recites:
[A] wherein extracting the dependency between the selected asset and the system level components comprises analyzing the set of asset schemas to determine respective upstream system level components to the selected asset and respective downstream system level components from the selected asset..
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, analyzing the set of schemas to determine upstream and downstream components covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 8 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 10 (dependent on claim 9) further recites:
[A] wherein querying the asset database to determine the location data for the selected asset comprises determining a location of the selected asset with respect to the building structural and architectural components.
The additional elements in this dependent claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f). When considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”). It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 10 is deemed ineligible
Claim 11 (dependent on claim 10) further recites:
[A] wherein generating the interactive visual representation of the building comprises indicating the location of the selected asset within the interactive visual representation.
The additional elements in this dependent claim amount to no more than linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). When considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”). It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 11 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 12 (dependent on claim 9) further recites:
[A] generating the interactive visual representation of the building comprises generating one or more layers comprising: a first layer comprising the three-dimensional model of the building structural and architectural components; a second layer comprising the visual representation of the selected asset; and one or more additional layers comprising the visual representations for the system level components.
The additional elements in this dependent claim amount to no more than linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). When considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”). It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 12 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 16 (dependent on claim 9) further recites:
[A] identifying model information associated with the selected asset; and
[B] retrieving, from the asset database, a digital service manual for the selected asset;
[C] wherein the interactive visual representation comprises an option to view the digital service manual for the asset.
The claim elements reciting identifying model information associated with a building component ([A]) covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite another abstract idea.
The additional elements in this dependent claim ([B], [C]) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, are not directed to any specific improvement of the claim, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“generate a hierarchical representation of building systems and establish relationships between building elements”). It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Therefore, claim 16 is deemed ineligible
Claim 19 (dependent on claim 17) further recites:
[A] in response to the receiving the selection of the asset, retrieving, from the asset database, a digital service manual for the asset;
[B] and causing the client device to display an option to view the digital service manual.
The additional elements in this dependent claim ([A], [B]) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “determining visual representations and modalities of displaying building elements in their surrounding context”. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, are not directed to any specific improvement of the claim, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“obtaining structured data for related building components”). It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Therefore, claim 19 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 20 (dependent on claim 17) further recites:
[A] Identifying the system level components having dependency relationships with the assets; and
[B] causing the system level components having dependency relationships with the assets to be displayed according to the first rendering schema.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, identifying associated system level components ([A]) covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III), and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea.
The additional elements in this dependent claim ([B]) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea (“determining visual representations and modalities of displaying building elements in their surrounding context”). These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, are not directed to any specific improvement of the claim, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Therefore, claim 20 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 7, 13-15, 18 further recite:
wherein receiving the request to display the visual representation of the asset comprises an asset identifier associated with the selected asset; and the asset identifier is used to retrieve the model data for the selected asset.
wherein the first display scheme comprises a solid view of the sub-system; and the second display scheme comprises a partially transparent view of the other sub- systems.
wherein the one or more additional layers are independently viewable.
wherein the system level components include input components to the asset and output components from the asset; and the hierarchical relationship between the asset and the system level components specifies which system level components are the input components and which system level components are the output components.
wherein the visual representation of the selected asset is based on three-dimensional model data for the selected asset; and the visual representation of the system level components is based on three-dimensional model data for the system level components.
wherein the first rendering schema comprises a solid view of the asset; and the second rendering schema comprises at least a partially transparent view.
These further elements in the dependent claims only limit other claim elements, like the request to display the visual representation of the asset of Claim 1; the first display scheme and the second display scheme of Claim 6; the one or more additional layers of Claim 12; the system-level components of Claim 9; the visual representation of the asset of Claim 15; the first rendering schema and the second rendering schema of Claim 17, by describing their nature, structure and/or content, thus further limiting the form of the transactions that are acted upon in the independent claims. The nature, form or structure of these elements themselves do not amount to more than linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Moreover, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the further elements in dependent claims 2, 7, 13-15, 18, do not perform any claimed method steps and are not part of the claimed system. They are outside the scope of the claimed invention and, as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“determining visual representations and modalities of displaying building elements in their surrounding context”), from a judicial exception into an eligible application, because they do not represent significantly more.
Therefore, claims 2, 7, 13-15, 18 are deemed ineligible.
In sum, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 12, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al (US 20140207774 ) in view of Bumbalough et al (US 20200057826), in further view of Sridharan et al (US 20210200713).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite essentially similar limitations. The analysis is performed on claim 1, claim 9 and 17 being rejecting under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 1 Walter discloses:
an interface processing system for displaying interrelated hierarchical building system models of a physical building, the interface processing system comprising: {See at least [Abstract] an interface tool for accessing building information management (BIM) data; [0064] According to another aspect of the previous embodiments, in the method for displaying a building information management image of a location on an electronic device the point of reference location is a user virtual location determined by a GPS embedded software application. [0087] allowing remote viewing of a facility by a user who is not physically present in the facility being viewed. } GPS and not being physical present in the facility being viewed interpreted that the building is a physical building.
a memory allocation defined by: {see at least Fig23, rc2305, rc2308}
a data store storing an executable asset; and {see at least Fig23, rc2305; [0181] storage device(s) 2305}
a working memory allocation; and {see at least Fig23, rc2308; [0179] working memory 2308}
a processor allocation configured to load the executable asset from the data store into the working memory allocation to instantiate an instance of a building management service configured to: {See at least Fig 23, rc2302 CPU(S); [Claim 49] One or more processor-readable storage devices having processor readable code… retrieving element data for one or more systems of related elements from the database in response to user interactions with the element images on the electronic device; accessing building information status data in real time.}
receive from a client application executing an operator interface on a client device, a request to display, within a virtual building system model, a visual representation of a selected asset located in the physical building within a virtual building system model; {see at least [0176] process request from database clients; [0065] open a separate dialog box; [0185] request services; [0051] retrieving element data for one or more systems of related elements from the database in response to user interactions in dialog box; [0031] program code for accessing building information status data in real time via one or more peripheral input devices and one or more display devices; [Title] Virtual Building Browser Systems And Methods} in broadest reasonable interpretation receiving a request is interpreted as requesting services; from a client application executing an operator interface on a client device interpreted as the software opening the dialog box to process a request from database clients, to display visual representation of an asset in a building within a virtual building system model as the accessing of building information status on display devices.
query an asset database comprising the hierarchical structured data associated with the selected asset, to determine location data for the asset and system level components associated with the asset; {see at least [0153] providing a query module wherein one or more data elements are associated with one or more related data elements from the data repository 1210; [0034] retrieving element data for one or more systems of related elements; [0167] location identification field 1728} } in broadest reasonable interpretation it is using the query module to access data repository where are related elements and obtain location data for each from the location identification field associated with each element - query interpreted as using the query module, asset database comprising data associated with the asset as data repository with related data elements, to determine location data for the asset as using the location identification field 1728 - which is location identification for all elements (i.e. both assets and system components associated with assets)
retrieve model data for the selected asset and model data for the system level components; {see at least Fig5; [0144] Retrieving element data for one or more systems of related elements from the database}
Walter does not disclose, however Bumbalough discloses:
use the location data to generate a digital model of a building system location associated with the asset, the digital model comprising a three-dimensional model of building structural components; {see at least [0036] Example embodiments can thus address building configuration variations in multiple systems including architectural, structural, HVAC, electrical, and piping. At the same time, with the ability to quickly generate real-time 3D building configurations of all or a portion of the building; (Claim 1) modifying the selected building information model elements to generate a location specific building information model.}
generate, based on the dependency relationship, an interactive visual representation of the building system location comprising the three-dimensional model of the building structural components overlayed with visual representations of the selected asset and the system level components; and {see at least (Claim 11) options rules defining relationships between building information model element options within the hierarchical structure, (Claim 12) wherein in response to a first building information model element option from a first layer of the base model being selected and a second building information model element option from a second layer of the base model being selected, generating an assembled three-dimensional location specific building information model of the building including the first building information model element option and the second building information model element option..} based on dependency relationships is interpreted as based on options rules defining relationships, interactive interpreted as in response, overlayed interpreted as assembled, structural components and asset and system level components as the first and respective second BIM element options.
cause display, via the client application executing on the client device, an interactive data set for displaying the interactive visual representation in the operator interface. {see at least [0038] offered via a network environment so various different terminals may access functionality associated therewith. As such, various (sometimes remotely located) client terminals; Fig1 rc20 “Client application”; (Claim 11) causing a display device to display a visual representation of the building information model’ } client devices interpreted as client terminals. Displaying the interactive visual representation in the operator interface upon sending to the client application and interactive data set interpreted as causing a display device to display the visual representation.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter to include the elements of Bumbalough. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages in accurate diagnostic and interventions when client devices display 3D spatial visual of an asset in context, with the interdependencies between asset and connected elements. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Bumbalough is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of retrieving data based on location and the overlay of representations before sending data back in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as retrieval by location and overlayed representation are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, as well as Bumbalough would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough.
Walter, Bumbalough does not disclose, however Sridharan discloses:
extract, using a set of asset schemas, a hierarchical relationship between the asset and the system level components; { see at least [0044] the semantic description schema defining the one or more BIM objects and relationships in a natural language; generating a hierarchy structure for the building based on the one of more BIM objects and the relationships } using a set of asset schema interpreted as the semantic description schema, a hierarchical relationship between the asset and the system level components interpreted as hierarchy structure for building based on BIM objects and the relationships.
generate, from a set of building information data sources, a hierarchical structured data representation of functionally distinct building systems, wherein , each building information data source of the set of building information data sources comprises information describing a respective physical building system of the physical building, each physical building system comprises at least one asset corresponding to a system level component of the physical building, each respective at least one asset of each respective physical building system associated with: a respective location in respect of the physical building; and at least one of: a respective upstream asset having a dependency relationship with the respective at least one asset, the respective upstream asset associated with a first different building system that is functionally distinct from the respective physical building system; or a respective downstream system level component having a dependency relationship with the respective at least one asset, the respective downstream asset associated with a second different building system that is functionally distinct from the respective physical building system; { [0044] generating a hierarchy structure for the building based on the one of more BIM objects and the relationships, the hierarchy structure including the semantic description of the one or more BIM objects and the one or more object relationships; and presenting, via a user interface of a user device, the hierarchy structure. [0050] In some embodiments, the operations further include generating a hierarchy structure for the first BIM file and the second BIM file, and the hierarchy structure defines physical relationships between building assets represented within the first BIM file and the second BIM file. [0167] . In general, the hierarchy generated by portfolio generator 530 describes a physical or spatial relationship between one or more building assets (e.g., represented by BIM objects) [0184] In the Brick schema, every entity in a building is represented by a tag-set, which is decomposed to multiple tags. Brick can model points, equipment, locations, measurement properties, etc. as entities via a tag-set. Tag-sets can be ordered as a hierarchy, for example, an equipment tag-set can be a high level class for an HVAC tag-set which in turn can be a high level class for an AHU tag-set.[269] Viewing such data in a 3D model may also provide an indication to the physical location of a problem asset, thereby decreasing troubleshoot and/or maintenance times by aiding a user in navigating to the problem asset. 0284] Interface 2900 is shown to include a number of objects that represent downstream building assets associated with AHU object 2714, including a duct object 2910 and terminal unit objects 2912 and 2914. Duct object 2910 and terminal unit objects 2912 and 2914 may be BIM objects that correspond to physical building assets within the building represented by 3D model 2710. Responsive to a selection of AHU object 2714 and/or an alarm associated with said object, an appearance of duct object 2910 and terminal unit objects 2912 and 2914 may alter (e.g., a color change, highlighting, etc.) to indicate that said objects are affected by AHU object 2714. Additionally, a text box 2916 is presented that includes information about AHU object 2714, such as an identification number, a name, and a location. [273] Such functionality, herein referred to as fault tracer logic, can provide the user with a visual indication of how an alarm or a fault in a particular building asset can affect upstream or downstream assets.[0296] s described above, relationship data can be useful in troubleshooting and/or servicing building assets, by determining how a fault in a first building asset may affect upstream or downstream assets of the first asset. [209] In other embodiments, a user may upload multiple BIMs each corresponding to something other than different zones. For example, in some implementations, each BIM may correspond to a different building subsystem, such as HVAC, lighting, fire protection, etc. In some such embodiments, the different BIMs may correspond to the same or overlapping zones or areas.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough to include the elements of Sridharan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of consistent, machine readable structure for hierarchical relationships, clarifying how assets integrate into systems for scalable analysis. visualizing BIM data as requested and to have advantages of a powerful representation that seamlessly allows to determine vertical (upstream/downstream) and “horizontal” (utilities to building structural elements) with location of in space, thus easy tracing and localization of faults and fault chains. All references are in the same field. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan.
Regarding claim 2, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Walter further discloses:
receiving the request to display the visual representation of the asset comprises an asset identifier associated with the asset; and {see at least Fig. rc 907 [0150] Retrieving element data from a database in response to a user’s interaction; [0151] associating one or more source data elements with one or more related target data elements from the data base repository; [0167] building identification field…manufacturer identification field… location identification field} asset identifier as the identification field.
the asset identifier is used to retrieve the model data for the asset. {see at least [0055] storing element data into a database that can organize elements based on the approach of the Construction Operations Building Information Exchange; and retrieving element data for one or more systems of related elements through user interactions; [0151] associating one or more source data elements with one or more related target data elements from the data base repository; [0167] building identification field…manufacturer identification field… location identification field}
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan.
Regarding claim 3, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Sridharan further discloses:
wherein retrieving the model data for the system level components comprises identifying input components to the asset and output components from the asset. {see at least [0065] identifying a first asset of the one or more building assets, determining at least one of an input asset or an output asset of the first asset within the BIM, identifying a fault condition for the first asset, and presenting, via a user interface, a representation of at least a portion of the BIM comprising the first asset and the at least one of the input asset or the output asset.} input components to the asset interpreted as the input asset, output component as the output asset.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan to include the further elements of Sridharan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of more easily locating faults and tracing fault propagation and ensuring compatibility of an asset within system. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Further elements by Sridharan are merely relied upon to present connected elements to the asset. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as presenting connecting elements are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan as well as elements further disclosed by Sridharan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in further view of Sridharan.
Regarding Claim 4, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Sridharan further discloses:
wherein: identifying the respective upstream level components comprises
identifying a breaker circuit associated with the selected asset; and {see at least [0106] devices to control, monitor, and manage equipment} breaker circuit interpreted as device to control equipment}
identifying the respective downstream components comprises identifying a ventilation system component that is fed by the asset. {see at least [0106} HVAC system} ventilation system interpreted as HVAC system.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan to include the further elements of Sridharan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of clarifying a specific common chain of connectivity within system. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Further elements by Sridharan are merely relied upon to present specific connected elements to the asset. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as presenting specific connecting elements are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan as well as elements further disclosed by Sridharan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan.
Regarding claim 12, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan disclose the limitations of claim 9. Bumbalough further discloses:
generating the interactive visual representation comprises generating one or more layers comprising: a first layer comprising the three-dimensional model of the building structural components; a second layer comprising the visual representation of the asset; and one or more additional layers comprising the visual representations for the system level components. {(Claim 12) wherein in response to a first building information model element option from a first layer of the base model being selected and a second building information model element option from a second layer of the base model being selected, generating an assembled three-dimensional location specific building information model of the building including the first building information model element option and the second building information model element option; (Claim 14) The method of claim 12, further comprising: generating at least one of a plumbing model, an electrical model, or a duct work model, for the assembled three-dimensional location specific building information model … Claim 15 two or more layers } interactive interpreted as in response, overlayed interpreted as assembled, building structural as first BIM element option, asset as second BIM from second layer, system level components as as the first and respective second BIM element options; system-level components as the plumbing model, one or more additional layers, as the two or more layers.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan to include further elements of Bumbalough. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of a more intuitive visualization. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Bumbalough is merely relied upon to selectively present specific data in specific layers. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as presenting specific data in specific layer are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan and further elements of Bumbalough would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in view of further elements of Bumbalough.
Regarding claim 15, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan disclose the limitations of claim 9. Bumbalough further discloses:
the visual representation of the asset is based on three-dimensional model data for the asset; {(Claim 11) display a visual representation of the building information model element; [0036] generate real-time 3D building configurations of all or a portion of the building with all of these building systems} asset interpreted as a portion of the building, one BIM element.
the visual representation of the system level components is based on three-dimensional model data for the system level components {[0036] multiple systems including architectural, structural, HV AC, electrical, and piping…generate real-time 3D building configurations of all or a portion of the building with all of these building systems; (Claim 11) display a visual representation of the building information model element options.} system level components interpreted as the multiple systems (architectural, structural, etc).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan to include further elements of Bumbalough. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of a accurate visualization based on the 3D model data. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Bumbalough is merely relied upon to indicate visual representation is based on 3D model data. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as making the visual representation from 3D model data are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan and further elements of Bumbalough would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in view of further elements of Bumbalough.
Regarding claim 16, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan disclose the limitations of claim 9. Walter, further discloses:
identifying model information associated with the asset; and retrieving, from the asset database, a digital service manual for the asset; wherein the interactive visual representation comprises an option to view the digital service manual for the asset. {see at least [0057] code for populating one or more operation and maintenance manuals into a building information data repository associated with the one or more searchable, relational databases and one or more physical asset elements} identifying model information associated with the asset and retrieving from the asset database interpreted as associated with searchable relational database and physical asset, a digital manual for the asset interpreted as the manuals, the interactive visual representation comprises an option interpreted as the populating the manuals.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan.
Regarding claim 19, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan disclose the limitations of claim 17. Walter further discloses:
in response to the receiving the selection of the asset, retrieving, from the asset database, a digital service manual for the asset; and causing the client device to display an option to view the digital service manual. {See at least [0057] code for populating one or more operation and maintenance manuals into a building information data repository associated with the one or more searchable, relational databases and one or more physical asset elements} identifying model information associated with the asset and retrieving from the asset database interpreted as associated with searchable relational database and physical asset, a digital manual for the asset interpreted as the manuals, the interactive visual representation comprises an option interpreted as the populating the manuals.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in view of further elements of Walter.
Regarding claim 20, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan disclose the limitations of claim 17. Sridharan further discloses:
Identifying the system level components associated with the assets; and causing the system level components associated with the assets to be displayed according to the first rendering schema . {see at least{see at least [0281] For example, responsive to the user selection of AHU object 2714, the visual appearance of AHU object 2714 and previously defined downstream objects just as ductwork and/or terminal units within 3D model 2710 may be altered. The visual appearance may alter by changing color or shading, flashing, or otherwise highlighting the selected graphical object and its associated upstream/downstream objects.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan to include the further elements of Sridharan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages to improve visualization of system level components with improved big picture perspective. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Further elements of Sridharan are merely relied upon to increase contrast in visualization. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as increase contrast in visualization are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, as well as Sridharan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in view of further elements of Sridharan.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al (US 20140207774 ) in view of Bumbalough et al (US 20200057826), in view of Sridharan et al (US 20210200713) ), and in further view of Jacobson (US 20170315697).
Regarding Claim 5, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan does not disclose, however Jacobson discloses:
wherein querying the asset database to determine location data for the asset and system level components associated with the asset comprises using three-dimension geometry for the asset to determine a relationship of the asset to the location and system level components. {see at least [Abstract] The system comprises a database configured for storing geometry elements and spatial elements, wherein the geometry elements define three-dimensional geometrical representation of a building's structure, wherein the spatial elements define three-dimensional representation of spaces in the building, wherein the geometry elements are mapped to spatial elements, wherein the spatial elements are associated with respective space nodes that identify the spaces located within the building} relationship to the location interpreted as spaces located within building; asset geometry interpreted as geometry elements stored.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan to include the further elements of Jacobson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantage of retrieval of data retrieval based on an easily recognizable feature (3D geometry). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Further elements by Jacobson are merely relied upon to facilitate a modality of data retrieval. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as presenting specific connecting elements are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan as well as elements disclosed by Jacobson would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in view of Jacobson.
Claims 6-7, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al (US 20140207774 ) in view of Bumbalough et al (US 20200057826), in view of Sridharan et al (US 20210200713) and in further view of Lavrov et al (US 20150169791).
Regarding claim 6, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan disclose the limitations of Claim1. Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan does not disclose, however Lavrov discloses:
receiving a selection of a sub-system of the system level components; {[0078] a selected physical component}
and in response to receiving the selection of the sub-system, generating a three-dimensional model to render the sub-system in a first display scheme and other sub-systems of the system level components in a second display scheme {see at least [0071] The BIM data may include a BIM model, which represents the physical components by, for example, including 3D geometry of the physical components; [0078] a selected physical component may be displayed differently than other physical components… the selected piece of equipment will be shown more clearly (e.g., highlighted) in the BIM model. For example, the selected piece of equipment may have an enhanced contrast in relation to surrounding elements or the surrounding elements may become temporarily translucent to cause the selected piece of equipment to stand out.} selection of sub-system interpreted as selected physical component (for example piece of equipment), the 3D model as the 3D geometry of the physical models rendered in a first display scheme and other sub-systems in a second display scheme interpreted as with enhanced contrast, the second display scheme as translucent.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan to include the elements of Lavrov. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of improved visualization contrasting various aspects of the system. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Lavrov is merely relied upon to illustrate visualization with contrasts. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as visualization with contrast are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan and Lavrov would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in further view of Lavrov.
Regarding claim 7, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Lavrov disclose the limitations of claim 6. Lavrov further discloses:
the first display scheme comprises a solid view of the sub-system; and {see at least [0078] selected elements may in turn be visually highlighted in the BIM model. In other words, a selected physical component may be displayed differently than other physical components of the BIM model that are displayed with the selected physical component. …, the selected piece of equipment will be shown more clearly (e.g., highlighted) in the BIM model.}
the second display scheme comprises a partially transparent view of the other sub- systems. {see at least [0078] the selected piece of equipment will be shown more clearly (e.g., highlighted) in the BIM model. For example, the selected piece of equipment may have an enhanced contrast in relation to surrounding elements or the surrounding elements may become temporarily translucent to cause the selected piece of equipment to stand out.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Lavrov to include the further elements of Lavrov. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of improved visualization contrasting various aspects of the system. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Lavrov evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Lavrov is merely relied upon to illustrate visualization with contrasts. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as visualization with contrast are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan and Lavrov would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in further view of Lavrov.
Regarding claim 13, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Lavrov disclose the limitations of claim 12. Lavrov further discloses:
wherein the one or more additional layers are independently viewable. {see at least [0013] The interaction module is further configured to enable a user to manipulate one or more aspects of the BIM model, such as a specific view, layer} independently viewable as specific layer to be manipulated.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Lavrov to include the further elements of Lavrov. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of seeing specific elements in isolation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Lavrov evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Further elements of Lavrov merely relied upon to illustrate specific elements for visualization in isolation. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as illustration of specific elements are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan as well as Lavrov would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in view of Lavrov.
Regarding claim 18, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan disclose the limitations of claim 17. Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan does not disclose, however Lavrov discloses:
the first rendering schema comprises a solid view of the asset; and {see at least
[0078] selected elements may in turn be visually highlighted in the BIM model. In other words, a selected physical component may be displayed differently than other physical components of the BIM model that are displayed with the selected physical component. …, the selected piece of equipment will be shown more clearly (e.g., highlighted) in the BIM model.}
the second rendering schema comprises at least a partially transparent view. {see at least [0078] the selected piece of equipment will be shown more clearly (e.g., highlighted) in the BIM model. For example, the selected piece of equipment may have an enhanced contrast in relation to surrounding elements or the surrounding elements may become temporarily translucent to cause the selected piece of equipment to stand out.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan to include the elements of Lavrov. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of improved visualization contrasting various aspects of the system. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Lavrov is merely relied upon to illustrate visualization with contrasts. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as visualization with contrast are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, as well as Sridharan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in further view of Lavrov.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al (US 20140207774 ) in view of Bumbalough et al (US 20200057826), in view of Sridharan et al (US 20210200713) in view of Lavrov et al (US 20150169791), and in further view of Sayyarrodsari et al (US 20210397171 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Lavrov disclose the limitations of claim 6. Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Lavrov does not disclose, however Sayyarrodsari discloses:
wherein extracting the hierarchical relationship between the asset and the system level components comprises analyzing the set of asset schemas to determine input components to the asset and output components from the asset. {[0196] Program generation component 2008 can also identify physical or functional relationships between these input and output devices, or between these devices and other machines or assets, based on analysis of the mechanical drawings in which these devices and assets are represented.} Program generation component interpreted as schema, input components and output components interpreted as the input and output devices, hierarchical relationship between the asset and system-level components interpreted as the functional relationship between assets and devices.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Lavrov to include the elements of Sayyarrodsari. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of ease of identification of relationships between asset and upstream/downstream elements. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Lavrov evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Sayyarrodsari is merely relied upon to illustrate the identification of relationships between BIM elements. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as identification of relationships are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, as well as Sridharan, Hall, Lavrov and Sayyarrodsari would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall/Lavrov in further view of Sayyarrodsari.
Claims 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al (US 20140207774 ) in view of Bumbalough et al (US 20200057826), in view of Sridharan et al (US 20210200713) in further view of Boggs et al ((US 20080062167)).
Regarding claim 10, Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall disclose the limitations of claim 9. Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan does not disclose, however Boggs discloses:
wherein querying the asset database to determine the location data for the asset comprises
determining a location of the asset with respect to the building structural components.{ [0014] the 3-D rendering module can be configured to render in the 3-D virtual model locations of objects within the structure for display to the user... The GUI module can be configured to display layers of the 3-D virtual model to the user for viewing structural elements and/or internal layouts of the structure. The GUI module can be configured to receive instructions from the user for navigating the 3-D virtual model to examine the structure … The structure can comprise a building or any other suitable type of facility.} querying the asset database to determine location of asset with respect to the building components interpreted as receiving instructions and configuration to render location of objects within the building structural elements.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan to include the elements of Boggs. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages in determining the location of an object in relation to building structure. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Boggs is merely relied upon to illustrate locating asset in building context. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as locating asset in building context are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, as well as Boggs would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in further view of Boggs.
Regarding claim 11, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Boggs disclose the limitations of claim 10. Boggs further discloses:
wherein generating the interactive visual representation of the building comprises indicating the location of the asset within the interactive visual representation. {see at least [0014] the 3-D rendering module can be configured to render in the 3-D virtual model locations of objects within the structure for display to the user} interactive interpreted as configured, location of assets interpreted as location of objects.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Boggs to include the further elements of Boggs. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of improved visual understanding of the asset location. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Boggs evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Boggs further is merely relied upon to offer visualization of asset at locations. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as visualization of asset at location are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, Boggs, as well as Boggs in further elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall/Boggs in further view of Boggs.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al (US 20140207774 ) in view of Bumbalough et al (US 20200057826), in view of Sridharan et al (US 20210200713) and in further view of Sayyarrodsari (US 20150169791).
Regarding claim 14, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan disclose the limitations of claim 9. Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan does not disclose, however Sayyarrodsari discloses:
the system level components include input components to the asset and output components from the asset; {see at least[[0196] functional relationships between these input and output devices, or between these devices and other machines or assets, based on analysis of the mechanical drawings in which these devices and assets are represented.} input components to the asset interpreted as input devices and output components from the asset as output devices.
the hierarchical relationship between the asset and the system level components specifies which system level components are the input components and which system level components are the output components. {see at least [0196] functional relationships between these input and output devices, or between these devices and other machines or assets, based on analysis of the mechanical drawings in which these devices and assets are represented. [0197] drawings can be analyzed to identify input and output devices ). Relationship that specifies which components are input and which are output interpreted as relationship which used in analysis of drawings identify input and output devices.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan, Hall, to include the elements of Sayyarrodsari. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have advantages of ease of identification of input and output relationships of an asset. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan evidently discloses the system for interactively visualizing BIM data as requested. Sayyarrodsari is merely relied upon to illustrate the identification of input-output relationships between BIM elements. As best understood by Examiner, since both system for visualization of BIM data, as well as identification of relationships are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Walter, Bumbalough, Sridharan as well as Sayyarrodsari would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Walter / Bumbalough/ Sridharan/Hall in further view of Sayyarrodsari.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hall et al. US 2016/0335731 SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING AND MANAGING INFORMATION
Abstract: A system and related method has a database that stores information indicative of a plurality of assets that are used in a building or system. A user interface of the system enables identifying a group of such assets and associating a portion of the assets with the identified group of assets. The assets included in the identified group of assets may collectively be located in different rooms of a building in which the assets are located and/or on different floors of a building in which the assets are located.
Suindykov l et al. US 11953871 Building Control System With Automatic Control Problem Formulation Using Building Information Model
Abstract: A controller for a building including one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations. The operations include parsing a computer-aided design (CAD) file or a building information model (BIM) file for the building to identify building equipment that operates to affect a variable state or condition of a zone of the building. The operations include generating one or more zone models describing one or more control relationships between the building equipment and the variable state or condition of the zone based on the CAD file or the BIM file. The operations include using the one or more zone models to perform a model-based operation for the building equipment.
Hijazi et al NIBU: An integrated framework for representing the relation among building structure and interior utilities in micro-scale environment
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188