DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-40 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on June 29, 2026.
Claims 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-40 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application.
Claims 1-14 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0321392 A1 van der Merwe et al. [herein “van der Merwe”] in view of US 2019/0385363 A1 in view of US 2019/0385363 A1 Porter, Bryce et al. [herein “Porter”].
Claims 15-17 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over van der Merwe and Porter as applied to claims 12 and 32 above, and further in view of US 2004/0042656 A1 Timor et al. [herein “Timor”].
Claims 18 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Merwe, Porter, and Timor as applied to claims 17 and 37 above, and further in view of US 2017/0132835 A1 Halliday et al. [herein “Halliday”].
Claims 19 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Merwe and Porter as applied to claims 5 and 35 above, and further in view of US 2009/0132436 A1 Pershing et al. [herein “Pershing”].
Claims 20 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Merwe, Porter and Pershing as applied to claims 19 and 39 above, and further in view of Halliday.
This action is made Non-Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 29, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-40 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed December 29, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 29, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9-18, 20, 26, 29-38, and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6, which cites “the points” in Ln. 2, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the points”. For the purpose of examination, “the points” will be interpreted as “the roof structure points”. Claim 26, having similar limitations of claim 6, is also objected.
Claim 9, which recites “the distributions of slopes of the roof structure points” in Ln. 1-2, should be “the distribution of slopes of the roof structure points”. Claim 29, having similar limitations of claim 9, is also objected.
Claim 9, which recites “the roof structure point set” in Ln. 3, should be “the point set”. Claim 29, having similar limitations of claim 9, is also objected.
Claim 20, which recites “the structure footprint” in Ln. 2, should be “the footprint of the structure”. Claim 40, having similar limitations of claim 20, is also objected.
All claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6, 9-18, 26, and 29-38 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6, which cites “a high probability of being positioned on the top surface of the structure” in Ln. 3, is improper because there has been a previous recitation of “a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure” in Claim 1. For the purpose of examination, “a high probability of being positioned on the top surface of the structure” will be interpreted as “the high probability of being positioned on the top surface of the structure”. Claim 40, having similar limitations of claim 20, is also objected.
Claim 9, which recites “a slope of the structure” in Ln. 5, should be “the slope of the structure”. Claim 29, having similar limitations of claim 9, is also objected.
All claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the term “high”, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (See MPEP § 2173.05(b)). Claim 20, having similar limitations as claim 1, is also rejected under similar. All claims dependent on an rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
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 1-40 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of a machine, and claims 21-40 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 21: The limitations of:
“selecting a plurality of roof structure points from said point set having a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure by one or more of: (a) classify points as being part of a roof structure, or (b) a projection onto an image having labeled pixels indicative of the roof structure”,
“determining a footprint of the structure associated with the plurality of roof structure points”, and
“determining at least one attribute of the structure based on the plurality of roof structure points”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally choose roof structure points by (a) determining which points have the largest distance from the ground as the points to be positioned on a top surface of a structure or (b) create a projection onto an image of the roof structuring having points or pixels to display a representation of the roof and labelling the points such as roof, wall, and patio from the projection and labels choose the points which are labeled as roof
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a layout of the roof structure points combined together to form a footprint of a roof structure, and
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the slope of a roof structure using the point slope formula and the selected roof structure points.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1 and 21 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 21: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “a system”, “a memory storing a point set” and “a processor in communication with the memory”, and “using a neural network configured to” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, the following additional element “receiving the point set from the memory” and “the neural network further configured to output a voxel representation of the roof structure with the plurality of roof structure points being characteristics of voxels of the voxel representation” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data outputting activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 21 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 21: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Furthermore, generating a voxel representation of a roof is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional insignificant extra solution activity (see Liang, Jianming, and Jianhua Gong. "A sparse voxel octree-based framework for computing solar radiation using 3d city models." ISPRS international journal of geo-information 6, no. 4 (2017): 106 on Pg. 1, “An effective three-dimensional (3D) data representation is required to assess the spatial distribution of the photovoltaic potential over urban building roofs and facades using 3D city models. Voxels have long been used as a spatial data representation”, Alkadri, Miktha Farid, Francesco De Luca, Michela Turrin, and Sevil Sariyildiz. "A computational workflow for generating a voxel-based design approach based on subtractive shading envelopes and attribute information of point cloud data." Remote Sensing 12, no. 16 (2020): 2561 on Pg. 21, “In order to perform self-shading envelopes, solar protection planes are applied on the voxels-05 by excluding voxels located on the upper part of the 3D polyhedra. This is because the upper voxels are considered as the roof or shelter for the remaining voxels located on the bottom envelopes”, and Li, Li, Jian Yao, Jingmin Tu, Xinyi Liu, Yinxuan Li, and Lianbo Guo. "Roof plane segmentation from airborne LiDAR data using hierarchical clustering and boundary relabeling." Remote Sensing 12, no. 9 (2020): 1363 on Pg. 5-6 show an algorithm and figure for segmenting a roof into sub voxels “Algorithm 1 Region growing-based coarse roof plane segmentation Input: The input building point clouds R3. Output: The coarse roof planes Pcoarse. 1. Organize R3 into voxels V3” and “we partition the original data R3 into many voxels. Every point belongs to a voxel, and a voxel contains a set of points. Let V3 denote all voxels”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 and 21 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the at least one attribute comprises a slope of the structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the slope of a roof structure using the point slope formula and the selected roof structure points.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 3 and 23, they recite additional limitations of “determines a distribution of slopes of the roof structure points” and “generates a slope distribution report indicative of prominent slopes of the roof structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the slope of a roof structure at each selected roof structure point using the point slope formula, and a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a report that contains a collection of the relative slopes of the roof structure which have the largest values.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 3 and 23, they recite an additional element recitation of “the processor” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3 and 23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claims 4 and 24, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the slope distribution report indicates a contribution by each slope toward the total roof structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a document that contains a collection of the relative slopes of the roof and contains a percentage of the individual slope of the total slope through simple arithmetic.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 5 and 25, they recite an additional limitation of “determines an area of the roof structure based on the footprint of the structure and the slope distribution report”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the area of the structure from the layout and slopes of the roof through the use of simple arithmetic and geometry.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 5 and 25, they recite an additional element recitation of “the processor” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 25 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claims 6 and 26, they recite an additional limitation of “selects the plurality of roof structure points by partitioning a region of interest into two point sets based on whether the points have a high probability of being positioned on the top surface of the structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally separate or draw with pen and paper roof structure points into a group of points that have a high probability of being positioned on the top surface of the structure and a group of points that do not have a high probability of being positioned on the top surface of the structure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 6 and 26, they recite an additional limitation of “the processor” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 26 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claims 7 and 27, they recite an additional limitation of “determines the footprint of the structure by determining a two-dimensional (2D) polygonal model indicative of the footprint of the structure in an XY plane corresponding to the point set”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a 2D model of the roof structure layout of the roof structure points.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 7 and 27, they recite an additional element recitation of “the processor” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 27 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claims 8 and 28, they recite an additional limitation of “refines the 2D polygonal model using at least one prior constraint”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper the 2D model of the roof structure layout by limiting the total size of the model.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 8 and 28, they recite an additional element recitation of “the processor” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8 and 28 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claims 9 and 29, they recite additional limitations of:
1) “determining a normal of each point of the roof structure point set”,
2) “orienting each normal for each point of the roof structure point set”,
3) “determining a slope of the structure at each roof structure point set utilizing each normal for each point of the roof structure point set”,
4) “removing outlier slopes”, and
5) “generating a histogram of slope values” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, these limitations can be conducted as the following:
a) a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a normal line that is perpendicular to each point of the roof structure point set,
b) a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a normal line that is perpendicular to each point of the roof structure point set and have the normal line be in the positive z-direction,
c) a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the slope of the normal line using the point slope formula,
d) a person can mentally remove or draw with pen and paper the slopes that do not lie inside a reasonable expectation for the roof structure slope, and
e) a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a histogram show all the calculated values for the slope of the roof structure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 9 and 29, they recite an additional element recitation of “the processor” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 9 and 29 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claims 10 and 30, they recite an additional limitation of “refining each normal for each point of the roof structure points utilizing a constraint or prior knowledge”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper normal line orientation of each point based on the symmetry of the roof.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 11 and 31, they recite an additional limitation of “discretizing each slope”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper the solution of the slope values by partitioning each of the roof structure points prior to determining the slope of the roof to yield a discrete slope for each roof structure point.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 12 and 32, they recite an additional limitation of “determining peak values in the histogram and determining whether to utilize the peak values as respective representative slope values of each peak”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper peak slope values by identifying local, global, and absolute peak maximums in the histogram and can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper if peak is a true peak by comparing the peak value to other respective slope values and peaks.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 13 and 33, they recite an additional limitation of “applying constraints to the histogram”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally alter or draw with pen and paper the histogram such as altering the resolution of the histogram.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 14 and 34, they recite an additional limitation of “determining prominent slope values by determining a mean of the slopes that contributes to a peak histogram bucket”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the mean of the peak slopes using simple arithmetic.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 15 and 35, they recite an additional limitation of “determining a width of each peak value”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the width of each peak by identify the peak values that lie between leftmost and rightmost portion of the peak that exceed a minimum peak threshold value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 16 and 36, they recite an additional limitation of “determining prominent slope values by selecting slope values that lie between a width left of a peak and the peak and between a width right of the peak and the peak”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally select or draw with pen and paper prominent slope values by identify the peak values that lie between leftmost and rightmost portion of the peak that exceed a minimum peak threshold value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 17 and 37, they recite an additional limitation of “removing slope values that do not contribute to any peak”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally remove or draw with pen and paper peak slope values that does not exceed a minimum peak threshold value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 18 and 38, they recite an additional limitation of “determining an area percentage of the roof structure for each prominent slope value”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the area percentage for each slope value using simple arithmetic.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 19 and 39, they recite an additional limitation of “determining a slope correction factor for each prominent slope value” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a slope correction factor adding a variable to the slope value until the slope value reaches a desired value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 20 and 40, they recite an additional limitation of “determining the area of the structure based on the area of the structure footprint, the prominent slope values, corresponding area percentages of the roof structure of the slope distribution report, and the slope correction factor for each prominent slope value” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the area of the structure through the use of simple arithmetic using the area of the structure layout, calculated area percentages for the slope value, and the slope correction value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-40 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-20 and 22-40 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1 and 21, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0321392 A1 van der Merwe et al. [herein “van der Merwe”] in view of US 2019/0385363 A1 in view of US 2019/0385363 A1 Porter, Bryce et al. [herein “Porter”].
As per claim 1, van der Merwe teaches “A system for estimating at least one attribute of a structure”. (Para. 0019, “Various embodiments are presented of a roof analysis tool for constructing a parameter set,” [A system for estimating at least one attribute] “where the parameter set is derived from mapping data for a map region, and where the parameter set describes the roofs for the buildings” [attribute of a structure]. Further see Para. 0019. The examiner has interpreted that a roof analysis tool for constructing a parameter set to describe the roof of building as a system for estimating at least one attribute of a structure.)
van der Merwe also teaches “a memory storing a point set; and a processor in communication with the memory”. (Para. 0025, “a server may begin determining a roof style for a building based on two sets of data, one set of data including building footprint data for a map region and another set of data including three-dimensional mesh data for the map region” [a point set]. Para. 0114, “memory 102 may store a subset of the modules and data structures identified above” [memory storing a point set]. Para. 0054, “The one or more processors 120 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 102 to perform various functions for device 100 and to process data” [processor in communication with the memory]. Further see Para. 0025, 0054, and 0114. The examiner has interpreted that memory that stores 3-D mesh data for a region and a processor that executes instructions in memory as a memory storing a point set; and a process in communication with the memory.)
van der Merwe also teaches “receiving the point set from the memory”. (Para. 0025, “a server may begin determining a roof style for a building based on two sets of data, one set of data including building footprint data for a map region and another set of data including three-dimensional mesh data for the map region” [a point set]. Para. 0114, “memory 102 may store a subset of the modules and data structures identified above” [point set from memory]. Para. 0200, “the roof analysis tool may have access to three-dimensional data set that corresponds to the same map region as the two-dimensional data” [receiving the point set]. Further see Para. 0025, 0054, and 0114. The examiner has interpreted that accessing 3-D data set stored in memory as receiving the point set from the memory.)
van der Merwe also teaches “selecting a plurality of roof structure points from said point set having a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure”. (Para. 0203, “From the three-dimensional mapping data, the roof analysis tool may identify a subset of all the triangles in the mapping data, where the subset of triangles correspond to a roof for a building in the map region” [selecting a plurality of roof structure points from said point set being positioned on a top surface of a structure]. Para. 0216, “the roof analysis tool on the server may provide the map tool on the mobile device with parameters including coordinates for the two planes of the gable roof. In this way, while still providing a compact parameterization of a roof because only coordinate values are transmitted, the map tool on the mobile device may render a roof for building 504 that is more accurate. The increased accuracy is because the pitch of the roof is reflected in the coordinates for the two planes” [having a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure]. Further see Para. 0203-0206 and 0216. The examiner has interpreted that identifying a subset of all the triangles in the mapping data that correspond to a roof for a building detailing the pitch of the roof in the coordinates as selecting a plurality of roof structure points from said point set having a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure.)
van der Merwe also teaches “determining a footprint of the structure associated with the plurality of roof structure points”. (Para. 0203, “the footprint data may be determined from two-dimensional mapping information corresponding to the same or at least an overlapping map region as for the three-dimensional mapping data”. Further see Para. 0203-0206. The examiner has interpreted that determining footprint data from two-dimensional mapping information corresponding to the same map region of the three-dimensional mapping data as determining a footprint of the structure associated with the plurality of roof structure points.)
van der Merwe also teaches “determining at least one attribute of the structure based on the plurality of roof structure points.” (Para. 0032, “another parameterization option is to use the x, y values themselves which may provide better resolution for steep angles, or roof planes angles that point sharply upward”. Further see Para. 0032-0038. The examiner has interpreted that providing resolution for roof plane angles that point sharply upward using x,y values (e.g., mapping data) as determining at least one attribute of the structure based on the plurality of roof structure points.)
van der Merwe does not specifically teach selecting points “by one or more of: (a) a neural network configured to classify points as being part of a roof structure, the neural network further configured to output a voxel representation of the roof structure with the plurality of roof structure points being characteristics of voxels of the voxel representation, or (b) a projection onto an image having labeled pixels indicative of the roof structure”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely modeling roof slopes from aerial imaging, Porter teaches “selecting a plurality of roof structure points from said point set having a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure by one or more of: (a) a neural network configured to classify points as being part of a roof structure, the neural network further configured to output a voxel representation of the roof structure with the plurality of roof structure points being characteristics of voxels of the voxel representation, or (b) a projection onto an image having labeled pixels indicative of the roof structure”. (Para. 0045, “the system assigns corner labels to the roof detected in the retrieved images. The corner labels indicate intersections between line segments. The corner labels can aid in identifying line segments that may have been missed in a first pass of identifying the line segments in the images. For example, the corner label can identify the missed line segments by adding constraints to the regions in which line segment intersections can happen. In an embodiment, the corners are assigned labels describing the type of segments that caused the corner to form. For example, the assigned label can identify an eave and eave corner, a flat ridge and a rake corner etc. FIG. 5D illustrates assignment of the system of the corner labels” [selecting a plurality of roof structure points from said point set having a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure]. Para. 0066, “The system can determine the elevation information using multiple images. In a first embodiment, the system generates a disparity map using the camera metadata and generating a point cloud. The point cloud is then projected onto views to infer elevations for the line segment” [by a projection onto an image]. Para. 0040 “the system assigns line type labels to the roof detected in the retrieved image. The line type labels indicate a type of line identified. For example, the line type labels can include eaves, rakes, hips, valleys, flat valleys, and ridges” and Para. 0042, “Each pixel can be assigned a label representing a vector. In a first example, flat ridges are assigned a label representing a vector of [0, 0, 1] as their direction, where an assignment of 1 indicates a vertical direction. In a second example, non-line pixels are assigned a label representing a vector of [0, 0, −1]. The non-line pixel can, for example, be a background pixel. Labels (e.g., 0-9) can be used to represent vectors such that a classifier is applied” [having labeled pixels indicative of the roof structure]. Further see Para. 0040-0045, 0049-0053 and 0066. The examiner has interpreted that assigning corner labels to the roof detected to identify line segments of eaves, eave corners, rakes, hips, valleys, flat valleys, and ridges of a roof by projecting a point cloud into a view to infer elevations for the line segments represented by the labels for pixels as selecting a plurality of roof structure points from said point set having a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure by a projection onto an image having labeled pixels indicative of the roof structure.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “by one or more of: (a) a neural network configured to classify points as being part of a roof structure, the neural network further configured to output a voxel representation of the roof structure with the plurality of roof structure points being characteristics of voxels of the voxel representation, or (b) a projection onto an image having labeled pixels indicative of the roof structure” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Porter, into that of van der Merwe because this modification of indicating parts of the roof for the advantageous purpose of generating an accurate depiction of a roof from aerial imaging (Para. 0003-0004 and 0066). Further motivation to combine be that van der Merwe and Porter are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling roof slopes from aerial imaging.
As per claim 2, van der Merwe teaches “wherein the at least one attribute comprises a slope of the structure.” (Para. 0036, “a roof analysis tool may interpret a roof to be either flat (or horizontal) and non-flat roofs” [slope]. Para. 0032, “another parameterization option is to use the x, y values themselves which may provide better resolution for steep angles, or roof planes angles that point sharply upward”. Further see Para. 0032-0038. The examiner has interpreted that providing resolution for roof plane angles that point sharply upward to interpret the roof as non-flat as wherein the at least one attribute comprises a slope of the structure.)
As per claim 3, van der Merwe teaches “wherein the processor determines a distribution of slopes of the roof structure points and generates a slope distribution report indicative of prominent slopes of the roof structure.” (Para. 0033, “given the calculation of normals for multiple points on a roof,” [determines a distribution of slopes of the roof structure points] “a Hough transformation may be performed on the normals to generate a two-dimensional (2D) histogram which can be interpreted as a probabilistic heat map, for example, as depicted in FIG. 6G, In this example, clusters in the 2D histogram 698, or heat map, are selected using a given mass threshold, for example 0.93 (or 93%) of a maximum value” [generates a slope distribution report indicative of prominent slopes of the roof structure]. Para. 0054, “processors 120 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 102 to perform various functions for device 100 and to process data” [the processor determines]. Further see Para. 0032-0038 and 0054. The examiner has interpreted that processors that execute programs to perform functions for calculating normals for multiple points on a roof and selecting those using a given mass threshold as wherein the processor determines a distribution of slopes of the roof structure points and generates a slope distribution report indicative of prominent slopes of the roof structure.)
As per claim 4, van der Merwe teaches “wherein the slope distribution report indicates a contribution by each slope toward the total roof structure.” (Para. 0033, “clusters in the 2D histogram 698,” [the slope distribution report] “or heat map, are selected using a given mass threshold, for example 0.93 (or 93%) of a maximum value. Further threshold may either be a fixed absolute value, a relative value such as a percentage of the maximum value” [indicates a contribution by each slope toward the total roof structure]. Further see Para. 0032-0038. The examiner has interpreted that the histogram clusters which are selected using a given mass threshold based on a relative value such as a percentage of the maximum value as wherein the slope distribution report indicates a contribution by each slope toward the total roof structure.)
As per claim 5, van der Merwe teaches “wherein the processor determines an area of the roof structure based on the footprint of the structure and the slope distribution report.” (Para. 0027, “given the area and coordinates for a footprint,” [based on the footprint of the structure] “the roof analysis tool may determine the corresponding area and coordinates for the footprint within the mesh data in order to extract the three-dimensional data that corresponds to the footprint” [determines an area of the roof structure]. Para. 0028, “Given the calculation of normals for the roof, the roof analysis tool may proceed to remaining calculations for identifying a roof type. In other embodiments, the roof analysis tool may use vertex normal, which may be calculated as the weighted average of all the surface normal of the triangles that surround a given vertex, where the given vertex is common to the adjacent triangles. In this example, the weighting is proportional to the surface area of the triangles” [based on the slope distribution report]. Para. 0054, “processors 120 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 102 to perform various functions for device 100 and to process data” [the processor determines]. Further see Para. 0027-0028 and 0054. The examiner has interpreted that processors that execute programs to perform functions for determining the three-dimensional data that corresponds to the footprint area and coordinates in addition to the normal that are weighted proportional to the surface area of the triangles as wherein the processor determines an area of the roof structure based on the footprint of the structure and the slope distribution report.)
As per claim 6, van der Merwe teaches “wherein the processor selects the plurality of roof structure points by partitioning a region of interest into two point sets based on whether the points have a high probability of being positioned on the top surface of the structure.” (Para. 0203, “From the three-dimensional mapping data, the roof analysis tool may identify a subset of all the triangles in the mapping data, where the subset of triangles correspond to a roof for a building in the map region” [selecting a plurality of roof structure points being positioned on a top surface of a structure]. Para. 0216, “the roof analysis tool on the server may provide the map tool on the mobile device with parameters including coordinates for the two planes of the gable roof. In this way, while still providing a compact parameterization of a roof because only coordinate values are transmitted, the map tool on the mobile device may render a roof for building 504 that is more accurate. The increased accuracy is because the pitch of the roof is reflected in the coordinates for the two planes” [having a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure]. Para. 0233, “a footprint may be divided into multiple regions, and height values may be correlated to the three-dimensional information for one or more locations within each of the regions” [by partitioning a region of interest]. Para. 0036, “a roof analysis tool may interpret a roof to be either flat (or horizontal) and non-flat roofs” [partitioning into two point sets]. Para. 0054, “processors 120 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 102 to perform various functions for device 100 and to process data” [the processor determines]. Further see Para. 0032-0038, 0054, 0203-0206, 0216, and 0233. The examiner has interpreted that processors that execute programs to perform functions identifying a subset of all the triangles in mapping data that correspond to a building roof detailing roof pitch reflected in the coordinates with increased accuracy to determine if a roof is flat and the dividing of the footprint into regions as wherein the processor selects the plurality of roof structure points by partitioning a region of interest into two point sets based on whether the points have a high probability of being positioned on the top surface of the structure.)
As per claim 7, van der Merwe teaches “wherein the processor determines the footprint of the structure by determining a two-dimensional (2D) polygonal model indicative of the footprint of the structure in an XY plane corresponding to the point set.” (Para. 0025, “a server may begin determining a roof style for a building based on two sets of data, one set of data including building footprint data for a map region and another set of data including three-dimensional mesh data for the map region” [corresponding to the point set]. “An example footprint, footprint 610, for a building in a map region may be seen in FIG. 6B, and where the footprint 610 corresponds to the building with roof plane 602 in FIG. 6A” [Fig. 6B shows a 2D polygonal model of the structure footprint, e.g., determining a two-dimensional (2D) polygonal model indicative of the footprint of the structure]. Fig. 6E in view of Fig. 6B shows that the footprint model 610 is in the XY plane. Para. 0054, “processors 120 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 102 to perform various functions for device 100 and to process data” [the processor determines]. Further see Para. 0025 and 0054. Therefore, the examiner has interpreted that processors that execute programs to perform functions for generating a footprint that corresponds to the building with a roof plane using 3D mesh data and footprint data as wherein the processor determines the footprint of the structure by determining a two-dimensional (2D) polygonal model indicative of the footprint of the structure in an XY plane corresponding to the point set.)
As per claim 8, van der Merwe teaches “wherein the processor refines the 2D polygonal model using at least one prior constraint.” (Para. 0223, “a user may select a configuration setting to display, within a map view of a map application, an isometric view of structures drawn without texturing, or without any objects that are not structures” [refines the 2D polygonal model using at least one prior constraint]. Para. 0054, “processors 120 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 102 to perform various functions for device 100 and to process data” [the processor determines]. Further see Para. 0054 and 0223. The examiner has interpreted that processors that execute programs to perform functions for displaying the map view in an isometric view of structures drawn without texturing as wherein the processor refines the 2D polygonal model using at least one prior constraint.)
As per claim 9, van der Merwe teaches “wherein the processor determines the distributions of slopes of the roof structure points by determining a normal of each point of the roof structure point set”. (Para. 0030, “To calculate the normal to the triangle,” [determining a normal of the roof structure point set] “the roof analysis tool may use the cross product of any two sides of the triangle. The roof analysis tool may repeat the calculation of a normal for each of the triangles corresponding to the mesh data corresponding to the footprint of a building” [distributions of slopes of the roof structure points of each point]. Para. 0192, “The roof analysis tool may then repeat this process to generate a normal for each of the points on the roof of the structure” [determining a normal of each point of the roof structure]. Additionally, Fig. 6D shows the normal vectors for each point of the roof structure. Para. 0054, “processors 120 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 102 to perform various functions for device 100 and to process data” [the processor determines]. Further see Para. 0030, 0054, and 0192. The examiner has interpreted that processors that execute programs to perform functions for calculating the normal for each of the triangles building foot print mesh data points as shown in Fig. 6D as wherein the processor determines the distributions of slopes of the roof structure points by determining a normal of each point of the roof structure point set.)
van der Merwe also teaches “orienting each normal for each point of the roof structure point set”. (Para. 0033, “the centroid of a given cluster may be taken as the average normal for the cluster and provide a nominal orientation for a roof plan”. Additionally, Fig. 6D shows each normal pointing for each point of the roof structure in the direction in which the plane of the roof is facing. Further see Para. 0033. The examiner has interpreted that providing a nominal orientation for the normal of roof plan and plane at each point as orienting each normal for each point of the roof structure point set.)
van der Merwe also teaches “determining a slope of the structure at each roof structure point set utilizing each normal for each point of the roof structure point set”. (Para. 0192, “The roof analysis tool may then repeat this process to generate a normal for each of the points on the roof of the structure” [each normal for each point of the roof structure point set]. Para. 0036, “if all or most of the normals have a rho angle close to zero and a psi angle close to 90 degrees,” [determining a slope utilizing each normal for each point] “then the normal is pointing relatively upward, indicating a flat roof” [slope of the structure]. Para. 0039, “the roof analysis tool may determine between whether or not the roof is a flat roof.” Further see Para. 0036-0039 and 0192. The examiner has interpreted that generating a normal for each of the points on the roof of the structure and determining the angles of the normal to indicate whether or not the roof is a flat roof as determining a slope of the structure at each roof structure point set utilizing each normal for each point of the roof structure point set.)
van der Merwe also teaches “removing outlier slopes”. (Para. 0205, “A problem that may arise when performing a Hough transformation on spherical coordinates for a flat roof is that the azimuth angles may range anywhere from 0-360 degrees due to noise in the three-dimensional mapping data. For example, for a flat roof, if the surface of the triangle on the roof is anything but perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the earth, then the slight degree of the normal from the perpendicular may exist in any direction. Therefore, to eliminate the range of azimuth angles in the spherical coordinates for the normal that are due to a range of z-axis values in the three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates for the normal” [removing outlier slopes]. Further see Para. 0203-0206. The examiner has interpreted that eliminating the range of azimuth angles for the normal due to noise in the three-dimensional mapping data as removing outlier slopes.)
van der Merwe also teaches “generating a histogram of slope values.” (Para. 0033, “given the calculation of normals for multiple points on a roof, a Hough transformation may be performed on the normals to generate a two-dimensional (2D) histogram which can be interpreted as a probabilistic heat map, for example, as depicted in FIG. 6G” [generating a histogram of slope values]. Fig. 6G shows the normal vector along with the angles in degrees (i.e., slope values). Further see Para. 0032-0038. The examiner has interpreted that generating a two-dimensional (2D) histogram of the normal with their respective values as generating a histogram of slope values.)
As per claim 10, van der Merwe teaches “refining each normal for each point of the roof structure points utilizing a constraint or prior knowledge.” (Para. 0035, “to determine a parameter set for planes that align and meet as the planes of a roof would align and meet, the roof analysis tool may perform additional steps such as mesh filtering and a convex hull analysis of classified roof plane triangles corresponding to the mesh filtering results. For example, given the determined clusters of normals, the roof analysis tool may classify each of the triangles in the three-dimensional mesh data corresponding to the points on the roof”. Further see Para. 0032-0038. The examiner has interpreted that filtering the mesh data to classify the roof triangles based on normal clusters as refining each normal for each point of the roof structure points utilizing a constraint or prior knowledge.)
As per claim 11, van der Merwe teaches “discretizing each slope.” (Para. 0192, “The roof analysis tool may then repeat this process to generate a normal for each of the points on the roof of the structure” [discretizing each slope]. Furthermore, Fig. 6D shows the normal as a distinct vector at each point on the roof (e.g., discretizing each slope). Further see Para. 0192. The examiner has interpreted that generating a normal for each of the points on the roof structure as shown in Fig. 6D as discretizing each slope.)
As per claim 12, van der Merwe teaches “determining peak values in the histogram and determining whether to utilize the peak values as respective representative slope values of each peak.” (Para. 0033, “histogram 699 is a Hough transform of roof triangle surface normals with a bin count greater than 4, and the four clusters are clusters 690, 692, 694, and 696” [determining peak values in the histogram]. Para. 0033, “the clusters may be used to detect if a roof is flat or not within a given probability” [utilize the peak values as respective representative slope values of each peak]. Further see Para. 0032-0038. The examiner has interpreted that generating a histogram containing a number of normal vectors greater than four in a cluster to be used to detect if a roof is flat or not as determining peak values in the histogram and determining whether to utilize the peak values as respective representative slope values of each peak.)
As per claim 13, van der Merwe teaches “applying constraints to the histogram.” (Para. 0032, “another parameterization option is to use the x, y values themselves which may provide better resolution for steep angles, or roof planes angles that point sharply upward”. Fig. 6G shows the normal vectors in the histogram. Further see Para. 0032-0038. The examiner has interpreted that using a different parameterization option to yield better resolution to the roof planes of the normal vectors in the histogram as applying constraints to the histogram.)
As per claim 14, van der Merwe teaches “determining prominent slope values by determining a mean of the slopes that contributes to a peak histogram bucket.” (Para. 0193, “roof analysis tool may determine a normal for the group of normals based on an average normal of the cluster.” Para. 0194, “Using a respective average normal for a respective group of normals, the roof analysis tool may iterate over each of normals and determine to which of the average normals the current normal being considered is closest to”. Fig. 6G shows the normal vectors in the histogram. Further see Para. 0192-0195. The examiner has interpreted that determining normals that are close to average normal vectors in the histogram as determining prominent slope values by determining a mean of the slopes that contributes to a peak histogram bucket.)
Re Claim 21, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 22, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 23, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 23 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 24, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 24 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 25, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 25 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Re Claim 26, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 26 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Re Claim 27, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 27 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Re Claim 28, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 28 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
Re Claim 29, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 9. Thus, claim 29 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9.
Re Claim 30, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 10. Thus, claim 30 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10.
Re Claim 31, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 11. Thus, claim 31 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 11.
Re Claim 32, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 12. Thus, claim 32 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 12.
Re Claim 33, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 13. Thus, claim 33 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 13.
Re Claim 34, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 14. Thus, claim 34 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 14.
Claims 15-17 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over van der Merwe and Porter as applied to claims 12 and 32 above, and further in view of US 2004/0042656 A1 Timor et al. [herein “Timor”].
As per claim 15, van der Merwe and Porter do not teach “determining a width of each peak value.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely modeling data and data signal processing in a histogram, Timor teaches “determining a width of each peak value.” (Para. 0050, “The inventors have chosen a technique for peak width estimation”. Further see Para. 0049-0053. The examiner has interpreted that estimating the width of peaks as determining a width of each peak value.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “determining a width of each peak value” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Timor, into that of van der Merwe and Porter because this modification of finding the size of the peaks for the advantageous purpose of reducing the complexing of the system by removing peaks (Timor, Para. 0092-0094). Further motivation to combine be that van der Merwe, Porter, and Timor are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling data and data signal processing in a histogram.
As per claim 16, van der Merwe and Porter do not teach “determining prominent slope values by selecting slope values that lie between a width left of a peak and the peak and between a width right of the peak and the peak.”
However, Timor teaches “determining prominent slope values by selecting slope values that lie between a width left of a peak and the peak and between a width right of the peak and the peak.” (Para. 0050, “The histogram meant here is an approximation to the continuous probability density function (PDF) of the intensity distributions around the points such as P1 and P2 in FIG. 1A.” Further see Para. 0049-0053. The examiner has interpreted that approximating the intensity distributions of a probability density function as determining prominent slope values by selecting slope values that lie between a width left of a peak and the peak and between a width right of the peak and the peak.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “determining prominent slope values by selecting slope values that lie between a width left of a peak and the peak and between a width right of the peak and the peak” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Timor, into that of van der Merwe and Porter because this modification of finding the peaks values within a certain peak width for the advantageous purpose of reducing the complexing of the system by removing peaks (Timor, Para. 0092-0094). Further motivation to combine be that van der Merwe, Porter, Timor are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling data and data signal processing in a histogram.
As per claim 17, van der Merwe and Porter do not teach “removing slope values that do not contribute to any peak.”
However, Timor teaches “removing slope values that do not contribute to any peak.” (Para. 0064, “Those of the K regions that are within a distance D multiplied by the mean(s) from the mean (x,y,s) point are then removed from the list of peak regions”. Para. 0070, “Non-linear anisotropic diffusion also removes noise at edges.” Further see Para. 0061-0064 and 0070. The examiner has interpreted that removing regions from the list of peak regions within a certain distance to remove noise at the edges of peaks as removing slope values that do not contribute to any peak.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “removing slope values that do not contribute to any peak” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Timor, into that of van der Merwe and Porter because this modification of removing peaks values for the advantageous purpose of reducing the complexing of the system and removing noise from the peaks (Timor, Para. 0092-0094 & 0070). Further motivation to combine be that van der Merwe, Porter, and Timor are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling data and data signal processing in a histogram.
Re Claim 35, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 15. Thus, claim 35 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 15.
Re Claim 36, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 16. Thus, claim 36 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 16.
Re Claim 37, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 17. Thus, claim 37 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 17.
Claims 18 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Merwe, Porter, and Timor as applied to claims 17 and 37 above, and further in view of US 2017/0132835 A1 Halliday et al. [herein “Halliday”].
As per claim 18, van der Merwe, Porter, nor Timor teach “determining an area percentage of the roof structure for each prominent slope value.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely finding the prominent maximum values in data, Halliday teaches “determining an area percentage of the roof structure for each prominent slope value.” (Para. 0106, “FIG. 14 illustrates an embodiment of a roofing diagram/listing for identified various known architectural elements and dimensions of a multi-dimensional building model in accordance with the present disclosure. As shown, the listing includes roofing sections with various pitches, area and percentage of total roof area.” Fig. 14 also shows a table demonstrating the different roof pitches along with its respective area and percentage of the roof structure. Further see Para. 0106. The examiner has interpreted that listing roofing sections with various pitches, area and percentage of total roof area as determining an area percentage of the roof structure for each prominent slope value.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “determining an area percentage of the roof structure for each prominent slope value” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Halliday, into that of van der Merwe, Porter, and Timor because this modification of including the percent of sloped roofs for the advantageous purpose of providing robust data analytics for the calculation of cost estimates (Halliday, Para. 0006 & 0044-0063). Further motivation to combine be that van der Merwe, Porter, Timor, and Halliday are analogous art to the current claim are directed to finding the prominent maximum values in data.
Re Claim 38, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 18. Thus, claim 38 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 18.
Claims 19 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Merwe and Porter as applied to claims 5 and 35 above, and further in view of US 2009/0132436 A1 Pershing et al. [herein “Pershing”].
As per claim 19, van der Merwe and Porter do not teach “determining a slope correction factor for each prominent slope value.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely modeling roof slopes from aerial imaging, Pershing teaches “determining a slope correction factor for each prominent slope value.” (Para. 0056, “an aerial image may be corrected by providing the operator 620 with a user interface control operable to adjust the scale and/or relative angle of the aerial image to correct for such errors”. [determining a correction factor for each value] Para. 0058, “operator 620 may accurately determine the pitch of each of the one or more roof sections” [each prominent slope value]. Further see Para. 0055-0059. The examiner has interpreted that adjusting the angle of the image to correct for errors in the pitch of each of the one or more roof sections as determining a slope correction factor for each prominent slope value.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “determining a slope correction factor for each prominent slope value” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Pershing, into that of van der Merwe and Porter because this modification of adjusting the peak values for the advantageous purpose of improving the accuracy of the roof slope model (Pershing, Para. 0059). Further motivation to combine be that van der Merwe, Porter, and Pershing are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling roof slopes from aerial imaging.
Re Claim 39, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 19. Thus, claim 39 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 19.
Claims 20 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Merwe, Porter, and Pershing as applied to claims 19 and 39 above, and further in view of Halliday.
As per claim 20, van der Merwe teaches “determining the area of the roof structure based on the area of the structure footprint, [the prominent slope values, corresponding area percentages of the roof structure of the slope distribution report, and the slope correction factor for each prominent slope value].” (Para. 0027, “given the area and coordinates for a footprint,” [based on the area of the structure footprint] “the roof analysis tool may determine the corresponding area and coordinates for the footprint within the mesh data in order to extract the three-dimensional data that corresponds to the footprint” [determining the area of the roof structure]. Further see Para. 0027. The examiner has interpreted that determining the three-dimensional data corresponding area and coordinates that corresponds to the footprint given the area and coordinates for a footprint as determining the area of the roof structure based on the area of the structure footprint.)
van der Merwe and Porter do not teach “[determining the area of the roof structure based on the area of thethe prominent slope values, [corresponding area percentages of the roof structure of the slope distribution report], and the slope correction factor for each prominent slope value.”
Pershing teaches “[determining the area of the roof structure based on the area of the structure footprint,] the prominent slope values, [corresponding area percentages of the roof structure of the slope distribution report, and] the slope correction factor for each prominent slope value.” (Para. 0056, “an aerial image may be corrected by providing the operator 620 with a user interface control operable to adjust the scale and/or relative angle of the aerial image to correct for such errors” [a correction factor for each value]. Para. 0058, “operator 620 may accurately determine the pitch of each of the one or more roof sections” [each prominent slope value]. Further see Para. 0055-0059. The examiner has interpreted that adjusting the angle of the image to correct for errors in the pitch of each of the one or more roof sections as a slope correction factor for each prominent slope value.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “the slope correction factor for each prominent slope value” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Pershing, into that of van der Merwe and Porter because this modification of adjusting the peak values for the advantageous purpose of improving the accuracy of the roof slope model (Pershing, Para. 0059). Further motivation to combine be that van der Merwe, Porter, and Pershing are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling roof slopes from aerial imaging.
van der Merwe, Porter, nor Pershing do teach “[determining the area of the roof structure based on the area of the structure footprint, the prominent slope values,] corresponding area percentages of the roof structure of the slope distribution report, [and the slope correction factor for each prominent slope value].”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely modeling roof slopes from captured imaging, Halliday teaches “determining the area of the roof structure based on the area of the structure footprint, the prominent slope values, corresponding area percentages of the roof structure of the slope distribution report, and the slope correction factor for each prominent slope value.” (Para. 0068, “using the dimensions from step 406, area is calculated for each architectural element” [determining the area of the structure based on the area of the structure footprint]. Para. 0106, “FIG. 14 illustrates an embodiment of a roofing diagram/listing for identified various known architectural elements and dimensions of a multi-dimensional building model in accordance with the present disclosure. As shown, the listing includes roofing sections with various pitches, area and percentage of total roof area.” Fig. 14 also shows a table demonstrating the prominent roof pitches along with its respective area and percentage of the roof structure. Further see Para. 0068 and 0106. The examiner has interpreted that calculating the area from the dimensions and listing roofing sections with various pitches, area and percentage of total roof area as determining the area of the roof structure based on the area of the structure footprint, the prominent slope values, corresponding area percentages of the roof structure of the slope distribution report.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “corresponding area percentages of the roof structure of the slope distribution report” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Halliday, into that of van der Merwe, Porter, and Pershing because this modification of including the percent of sloped roofs for the advantageous purpose of providing robust data analytics for the calculation of cost estimates (Halliday, Para. 0006 & 0044-0063). Further motivation to combine be that van der Merwe, Porter, Pershing, and Halliday are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling roof slopes from captured imaging.
Re Claim 40, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 20. Thus, claim 40 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims do not recite mental processes as they require the use of a computer. (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 11).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) recites “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions”, “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”, and “in evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) recites “Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 67, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1964 (2010) provides an example of additional elements that were not an inventive concept because they were merely well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry, which were not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012)”.
The examiner has provided the rational for the claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the rejection above. For example, the limitation of amended claims “selecting a plurality of roof structure points from said point set having a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure by one or more of: (a) classify points as being part of a roof structure, or (b) a projection onto an image having labeled pixels indicative of the roof structure” is a mental process as a person can identify parts of roof of a building structure. For example, a person can either (a) mentally determine that points located on higher up on a building structure have a high probability of being located on the roof of the building structure or (b) can create a 2D image of the building structure using pen and paper and while doing so can label points or pixels according as roof, wall, and sidewalks and can select from those points that are labeled as a roof to be a high probably of being the roof. With the limitations of “a neural network configured to classify points as being part of a roof structure”, the applicant is merely claim that this be done by a computer. Furthermore, with the amended limitation of “the neural network further configured to output a voxel representation of the roof structure with the plurality of roof structure points being characteristics of voxels of the voxel representation” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and such evidence that this additional element is well understood, routine, and conventional has been provided in the rejection above. Therefore, this additional element is an insignificant extra-solution activity as defined in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a mental concept as provided in the rejection above is proper under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) as well as recite a feature that is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the feature is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims are directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach each and every limitation in the amend claim 1 because cited references fail to teach “by one or more of: (a) a neural network configured to classify points as being part of a roof structure, the neural network further configured to output a voxel representation of the roof structure with the plurality of roof structure points being characteristics of voxels of the voxel representation, or (b) a projection onto an image having labeled pixels indicative of the roof structure” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. X).
MPEP § 2143.03 recites that “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.”
As provided above in the rejection to amended claim 1, Porter discloses “selecting a plurality of roof structure points from said point set having a high probability of being positioned on a top surface of a structure by one or more of: (a) a neural network configured to classify points as being part of a roof structure, the neural network further configured to output a voxel representation of the roof structure with the plurality of roof structure points being characteristics of voxels of the voxel representation, or (b) a projection onto an image having labeled pixels indicative of the roof structure” as assigning corner labels to the roof detected to identify line segments of eaves, eave corners, rakes, hips, valleys, flat valleys, and ridges of a roof by projecting a point cloud into a view to infer elevations for the line segment represented by the labels for pixels. By labeling parts of the roof using vectors for the pixels of the roof from the point cloud data to identify segments of roof, Porter teaches part (b) of the claim limitation. Additional citations from the relied upon references have been added to this mapping in the rejection above to the amended limitation.
Therefore, all of the limitations of the amended claims 1 are disclosed in van der Merwe or Porter, and the combination of these references renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over van der Merwe in view of Porter is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liang, Jianming, and Jianhua Gong. "A sparse voxel octree-based framework for computing solar radiation using 3d city models." ISPRS international journal of geo-information 6, no. 4 (2017): 106 teaches a method for representing building in a city models using voxels.
Alkadri, Miktha Farid, Francesco De Luca, Michela Turrin, and Sevil Sariyildiz. "A computational workflow for generating a voxel-based design approach based on subtractive shading envelopes and attribute information of point cloud data." Remote Sensing 12, no. 16 (2020): 2561 also teaches determining upper voxel of a building to be considered as the roof of a structure.
Tu, Xinyi Liu, Yinxuan Li, and Lianbo Guo. "Roof plane segmentation from airborne LiDAR data using hierarchical clustering and boundary relabeling." Remote Sensing 12, no. 9 (2020): 1363 teaches a segmenting points on a roof structure into a plurality of sub-voxel contain points on the roof.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights