DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Aug. 22nd, 2025 has been entered.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Aug. 11th, 2025. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 14-18, 20-23, 27, 35-36, 38-39 have been presented for examination.
Claim 1-4, 8-9, 14-18, 20-23, 27, 35-36, 38-39 are objected to because of informalities
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 14-18, 20-23, 27, 35-36, 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 14-18, 20-22, 35-36, 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaki, Tarek. Parametric modeling of blockwall assemblies for automated generation of shopdrawings and detailed estimates using BIM. 2016. American University in Cairo, Master's Thesis. AUC Knowledge Fountain in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in further view of Bock et al., “Automatic generation of the controlling-system for a wall construction robot”, 1996 and in further view of Yu, Seung-Nam, et al. "Feasibility verification of brick-laying robot using manipulation trajectory and the laying pattern optimization." Automation in Construction 18.5 (2009): 644-655.
Claim(s) 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaki, Tarek. Parametric modeling of blockwall assemblies for automated generation of shopdrawings and detailed estimates using BIM. 2016. American University in Cairo, Master's Thesis. AUC Knowledge Fountain in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in further view of Bock et al., “Automatic generation of the controlling-system for a wall construction robot”, 1996 and in further view of Yu, Seung-Nam, et al. "Feasibility verification of brick-laying robot using manipulation trajectory and the laying pattern optimization." Automation in Construction 18.5 (2009): 644-655 in further view of Matsufuji US 2005/0252118A1
Claim 1-4, 8-9, 17-18, 20-22, 34-36 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 42-45 of copending Application No. 17/603,834 in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in further view of Bock et al., “Automatic generation of the controlling-system for a wall construction robot”, 1996. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 14-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 42-45 of copending Application No. 17/603,834 in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in further view of Bock et al., “Automatic generation of the controlling-system for a wall construction robot”, 1996 and in further view of Zaki, Tarek. Parametric modeling of blockwall assemblies for automated generation of shopdrawings and detailed estimates using BIM. 2016. American University in Cairo, Master's Thesis. AUC Knowledge Fountain. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 23 and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 42-45 of copending Application No. 17/603,834 in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in further view of Bock et al., “Automatic generation of the controlling-system for a wall construction robot”, 1996 in further view of Matsufuji US 2005/0252118A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
This action is 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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the claim amendments
The Examiner notes that the present claim amendments are not, as per 37 CFR 1.52(a)(1)(v): “presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition”.
Also see MPEP § 502.05(I)(B)(4): “When the USPTO successfully receives PDF documents filed in accordance with the EFS-Web requirements, the USPTO will convert the PDF files submitted by users into Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) image files and then store the TIFF image files in the IFW as part of the official record, in addition to those drawings which are stored in the Supplemental Complex Repository for Examiners (SCORE) as part of the official record (i.e., color and grayscale drawings and drawings submitted in design applications).”
Regarding the objections
Maintained and updated.
With respect to the remarks, the Examiner notes these were objections not § 112(b) rejections because the claims, when read in view of the disclosure, were definite, but not as precisely clear as they could be due to informalities (to clarify, see In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1312, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014) such as discussed in MPEP § 2173.02)).
Also, to clarify, the Examiner notes that while there is “a number” of the “intersection layouts” and “a combination” of the intersection layouts, the issue is that the term “intersection layouts” is first recited for the element of “a number” of the element “intersection layouts”.
Regarding the Double Patenting Rejection
Maintained and updated below as necessitated by amendment. No remarks for consideration.
Regarding the § 112 Rejection
Updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, multiple conjunction terms are not used in the same list in the manner used, e.g. “aa), bb), cc), dd), and ee), ff), or gg)” is an indefinite list. Rather, what one would use would be the oxford comma properly.
(aa), (bb), (cc), (dd) and (ee), (ff), or gg. As the “or” is modifying the entire list, wherein the list includes the sub list of “(dd and ee)”, e.g. a shipping container holding apples, oranges, toys and watches.
A more exact and precise manner would be to state:
(aa);
(bb);
(cc);
(de), wherein (de) comprises (dd) and (ee);
(ff); or
(gg).
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained and updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks regarding the newly added claim limitations see the rejection below for clarity on how it is rejected, also it’s not an improvement to technology because “Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.")” per MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2).
To clarify, the claims contain no technological improvement or even implementation of these steps, but rather purely desired results, generally linked to a particular technological environment with the use of the block laying machine. A bricklayer must account for the exclusion zone of their physical hand (equivalent of the end effector) when laying bricks in the mental processes performed while laying the bricks. See ¶ 175: “In this regard, Figures 1A to 1 1C show how an end effector 1113 can be used to grasp a block 1171, with the location of the end effector effectively generating an exclusion zone adjacent the end effector. For the corner block layout formed from blocks 1272, 1273 in Figure 12A, this prevents the block laying machine placing the block 1272 if the block 1273 is already in place.” - a person’s hand has long been used to grasp and lay down blocks, wherein see fig. 12A – if block 1273 is in place, it means a persons hand can only pick the block 1272 and place it by holding the less than ½ of the block, i.e. there is an exclusion zone for a person’s hand where the two blocks meet (the line between the blocks) where, if for example the person’s thumb had to be placed in that zone it would be crushed by the act of laying down the block, or at the very least a person would find it very inconvenient to place 1273 first, as 1272 if placed first has no such limitations on hand movement.
Such is not a practical application for people may readily do this mentally as part of the manual process of bricklaying, and presumably do.
With respect to the remarks regarding the sequencing rules, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296. “
People for millennia have been laying blocks, e.g. bricks, in sequence, e.g. see the Pyramids in Ancient Egypt.
People are readily able to follow rules for sequencing the bricks, many of them would just be common sense to avoid injury (e.g. don’t crush the thumb as discussed above).
Or in the case of the wonders of the ancient world, pulleys, cranes, and other such mechanical contraptions were regularly used to place blocks, especially blocks that weighed substantially more than any person could lift. In using such contraptions people would have to mentally account for the part of the contraption that was to place the blocks, e.g. see:
Decker, “The Sky is the Limit: Human-Powered Cranes and Lifting Devices”, March 25th, 2010, URL: solar(dot)lowtechmagazine(dot)com/2010/03/the-sky-is-the-limit-human-powered-cranes-and-lifting-devices/ - see the numerous photos of cranes and other machine people have long used manually (some of which were even human powered) for laying bricks and blocks, and other objects. In operating such contraptions, people would have had to mentally evaluate how to place the objects while ensuring that there was sufficient space for the end effector/gripper of such contraptions. Even having cranes with horizontal movement predates the United States: “The first crane that allowed a horizontal movement of the load appeared in a 1550 book of Georgius Agricola, but a real-world version was only launched in 1666 by Frenchman Claude Perrault. A trolley was moved along the whole length of t e jib by means of a complicated rope system in which two ropes were wound and unwound via a spindle attached to the trolley. Let’s not forget that Greek and Roman cranes were capable of very limited horizontal movement, too, by lowering or raising the masts a bit. Moreover, the Greeks already designed a kind of slewing crane, which was a lifting device as described earlier but resting only on one mast, directed and kept in balance by extra men on the ground holding ropes”.
With respect to the particular machine test, MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II): “For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly").” – and people have long used machine, for millennia, to place bricks and blocks, wherein mental processes were routinely performed to evaluate how to operate the machine so as to place such objects.
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Withdrawn, new grounds as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, see how the new combination of prior art relied upon below teaches the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-4, 8-9, 14-18, 20-23, 27, 35-36, 38-39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims have numerous issues with antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending the claims such that the first recitation of each distinct element uses articles such as “a”/”an”, later recitations referring back to the same distinct element uses articles such as “the”/”said”, to use disambiguating modifiers (e.g., first, second, etc.) when there are multiple distinct elements with the same base term, and that the use of modifiers for each distinct element is kept consistent. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of these issues:
The independent claims have numerous recitations of “intersection layouts”, but the later recitations do not refer back to the first. The Examiner suggests using the article “the”. To clarify, the Examiner notes that while there is “a number” of the “intersection layouts” and “a combination” of the intersection layouts, the issue is that the term “intersection layouts” is first recited for the element of “a number” of the element “intersection layouts”.
The dependent claims have similar such issues, e.g.:
Claim 2 – “blocks” recited, with no reference to the blocks of claim 1.
Similar for the “blocks” element in claim 4 with the first cost
Claim 4 for “intersection layouts” which was recited in claim 1, i.e. “the combination of the intersection layouts”
Claim 8 – “intersection layouts” whereas claim 1 recites “intersection layouts”
Claim 9, preamble, “different block layouts” which is recited previously in claim 1
Claim 9 for “intersection layouts”
Claim 14 for “intersection layouts”
Claim 15 for “intersection layouts”
Claim 16: “a block layout” – the Examiner suggests a disambiguating modifier from the prior recitation, e.g. “an adjacent block layout” or “a second block layout”
Claim 17, “each block layout” does not explicitly refer back to the block layouts of claim 1, e.g. wherein each of the different block layouts include
Also, “blocks” – this appears to be intended to be referring back to the plurality of blocks, wherein there are subunits of courses of blocks, but does not explicitly do so
Claim 18 does not have the modifier “plurality” for the block layouts, as was amended into claim 1. Also, in claim 18 the “blocks” should refer back to the blocks of claim 1, or refer to block types, e.g. “a first block type for internal walls”
Claim 35 recites “before completion of the first block”, however the specification conveys that this is the first block course (¶ 218) – the Examiner interprets this in view of the disclosure as an obvious typographical clerical mistake in the claim itself, and suggests amending to expressly reflect the disclosure
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
See MPEP 2163(II)(A): "For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" and, thus, "[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.""
Also, see MPEP 2163(I) for Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claims 38 and 39 both require a re-sequencing of the blocks, i.e. in 38 it is to identify a clashing block and change the placement order, and claim 38 recites in somewhat similar language the same feature (after the block layout is first selected). See ¶ 175, which does not convey this level of particularly: “For the corner block layout formed from blocks 1272, 1273 in Figure 12A, this prevents the block laying machine placing the block 1272 if the block 1273 is already in place. Thus, in this instance a dependency is created requiring that the block 1273 is laid after the block 1272, making the block 1272 a parent block, with the block 1273 being a dependent child block.” When taken in combination with ¶ 197: “As mentioned above, the sequence is generated in accordance with sequence rules, which can be used for example to embody dependencies between the blocks.” And ¶ 202: “At step 1510, the processing device identifies sequence rules, defining restrictions on how blocks can be ordered within the sequence, for example based on dependencies required in order to allow the block laying machine to successfully place blocks.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites a series of limitations in the alternate, i.e. the “or” – however, several of these limitations refer back to the prior limitations, e.g. (gg) refers back to the element of “the criteria” however there is nothing to refer back to, as it’s an “or”, i.e. when (gg) is required no other limitation is required.
Furthermore, given the current organization in the claim, it is rife with § 112(b) issues, because it states: “(aa); (bb) and (cc), (dd) and (ee), (ff) or (gg)”. Given the striking of the “and” at the end in the August 2025 amendment as well as the amending of the limitation reference characters, the Examiner infers that the intended scope is that this is in the alternative, and interprets as such, which in such an interpretation this is replete with § 112(b), e.g. “wherein the one or more criteria” requires (cc), but its an “or”, e.g. the candidate block layout” in (bb) requires (aa), but its an “or”.
The Examiner suggests making this list an “and” for the last limitation, and striking the rest, i.e. (aa)…(ee); (ff); and (gg).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 14-18, 20-23, 27, 35-36, 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
In summary of the below, what is recited in the present claims is, at a high level of abstraction, the abstract idea of the mental process routinely used by many in the construction industry when designing/building masonry walls, i.e. that of mentally observing a construction plan and mentally evaluating how to layout the walls, wherein such a person readily mentally evaluates various possible layouts, and selects the layout to be used according to their own expertise and relevant building standards, a mental process that long predates the invention of the computer (e.g. the Pyramids of Ancient Egypt were assembled with large blocks), wherein these claims add nothing more to the mental process then simply the mere instructions to automate this mental process by the use of a computer as a tool (MPEP § 2106.05(f): “"claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”; MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I): “ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);…iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);” and wherein the claims further merely append a token post-solution activity of placing the blocks/bricks using a generic, off-the-shelf robotic arm with a generic, off-the-shelf boom and end effector (¶¶ 90-92) as a tool to automate the manual process long-performed by stone masons and other similar professionals to assemble the block layout (e.g. assemble a brick wall).
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 36 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claims 36, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is:
Step (e) for the “calculating…” is a math calculation in textual form.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
Steps b-g are a mental process. Step a may readily be considered as part of the mental process, or as an additional element, given the generality recited in step a. Such a mental process is readily performable by a stone mason working on the pyramids in ancient Egypt, or by a more recent person, e.g. a civil engineer or an architect or a structural engineer, or a bricklayer/mason, e.g. working on a modern building, or one in 1800’s (e.g. people performing the task of constructing numerous building in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia, that are made of red brick), or the Washington Monument, etc.
See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) for Electric Power Group: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
A person merely observes construction plans, e.g. plans on paper such as blueprints or schematics, observes walls and intersections in the plan, evaluates/judges a number of intersection layouts (i.e. judging/evaluating how to have the blocks, e.g. bricks, meet at intersections, e.g. a mental act performed such as when determining how to layout bricks, or other construction blocks, starting with the cornerstone of a building) so as to mentally determine a plurality of different block layouts, and then a mental judgement to select a layout, e.g. selecting the strongest one, or selecting the one that is fastest or easiest to lay down. A person is readily able to calculate, mentally, a block cost for each layout, e.g. by mentally tabulating the blocks in the layout, and then summing to get the number of blocks to be used (e.g. a mental process readily performed when ordering the blocks for the construction project, i.e. tally/estimate the number of blocks, and then order them from a store or the like).
For step (g), this is merely a person observing the desired block layout, either on paper as a simple 2D sketch, or in their own mind (and, the Examiner further notes people are readily able to visualize very complex layouts, e.g. see the art form of mosaics, wherein complex scenes have been laid out precisely by people for millennia, e.g. in the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul), mentally judge to follow sequencing rules based on the shape of their hand, and mentally evaluate the layout in a manner such as to produce an optimal layout pattern wherein the person’s hand does not interfere with the placement process (the exclusion zone for the end effector; in view of ¶ 175, is merely ensuring the sequence accounts for the object doing the placing, e.g. a hand, an end effector, a crane from centuries ago, etc.)
A person would readily be able to use physical aids in this process, e.g. pen and paper. Another very useful physical aid would be building a scale model of the building by using Lego bricks (example of the blocks), and performing this mental process when assembling the Lego bricks, such as by a child when building a scale model of their own house, or by a hobbyist creating a new model building, e.g. building a Lego model of the Supreme Court, or by an architect/engineer using the Legos to demonstrate to a client what the building will look like.
A computer is readily able to be used as a tool to implement such a process.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the claims do not even recite what the “blocks” are, i.e. given the generality recited, these blocks may be bricks, cinderblocks, wooden framing members, steel I-beams, etc., or simply Legos. ¶ 86 of the instant disclosure: “A "block" is a piece of material, typically in the form of a polyhedron, such as a cuboid having six quadrilateral and more typically substantially rectangular faces. The block is typically made of a hard material and may include openings or recesses, such as cavities or the like. The block is configured to be used in constructing a structure, such as a building or the like and specific example blocks include bricks, besser blocks [another term for cinderblocks, also called concrete building blocks as well as concrete masonry units, along with a few other names known to those skilled in the art], or similar” – e.g. Lego blocks, or cinderblocks, or bricks, or the wooden blocks used in the game Jenga, or the like; and ¶ 87: “The term "modular block" is defined as a block having a length divisible by its width resulting in an integer number” – e.g. in typical cuboidal Lego blocks, the number of studs is frequently used as a measure of its dimensions, e.g. a 4 stud by 2 stud Lego block, wherein dividing its length by its width results in the integer “2”, wherein Lego blocks typically following this type of sizing (e.g. 1x1; 2x1; 4x1; 2x2; 4x2; 6x2; 8x2; etc.)
To clarify on the Lego analogy, see Testuz, Romain Pierre, Yuliy Schwartzburg, and Mark Pauly. "Automatic generation of constructable brick sculptures." Eurographics 2013-Short Papers (2013): 81-84. Introduction: “LEGO , a popular toy construction system, is comparatively cheap and nearly ubiquitous. However, building arbitrary 3D models out of LEGO manually often involves significant trial-and-error. This [manual] process requires approximating a 3D model out of a limited set of pieces and ensuring the sculpture to be connected, stable and constructable”
Should further clarification be sought on how this is a mental process (in view of MPEP § 2111.01(I and III); also example 45 claim 1 for the Arrhenius equation in use since the 1800s; also FairWarning in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) for its discussion of the history of voting, i.e. the below is evidence of historical facts that POSITA would well-known in the field as common knowledge), but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, see the informative Bonwetsch, Tobias. Robotically assembled brickwork: Manipulating assembly processes of discrete elements. Diss. ETH Zurich, 2015 – chapter 3, § 3.1, starting on page 31 provides a brief discussion of the history of the “handcraft brickwork process” which has a “very long history” (footnote 97: “The firing of bricks can be traced back to 4500 BC, see J. W. P. Campbell and W. Pryce, Brick: A World History (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003)”) – i.e. the mental process of this claimed invention may very well have been practiced during the construction of buildings in the long period of history before the invention of the computer, e.g. § 3.1.1: “Efforts to formalise knowledge of brickwork can be seen in the pattern books that emerged in the eighteenth century, which covered both construction rules and design details… Pattern books articulating building knowledge first emerged in England, following the famous example of Palladio’s Quattro Libri dell’Architettura from 1570.120 Depicting the sections, elevations, and details of a building in measured drawings, the pattern books were intended on the one hand, to give building owners an impression of the details proposed…. The textbook of Wilhelm Behse first published in 1902, for instance, covers all aspects of bricklaying, including necessary mechanical tools and instructions on how to erect, for example, supportive formwork. 121 Besides figures and descriptive text Wilhelm Behse also includes formulas for instance for calculating the thickness of a wall under load (Figure 17).” – and see fig. 17 (of particular note, see instant fig. 11-13, which are much simpler drawings then the one produced in 1902). Then see § 3.1.2: “Design of brickwork is today clearly separated from execution and the direct hands-on process of bricklaying.126 Design is mediated through drawing. 127 Apart from capturing a design intention, technical drawings inform other parties involved in the building process on how to execute a design. This requires the knowledge of brickwork assembly to be translated and codified. The drawings are guided by handbooks of construction (see Section 3.1.1), as well as conventions and standards, in order to prevent misinterpretation” and footnote 127: “The advent of the drawing in the 15th century as an essential intellectual process for architectural practice started to separate the process of design from the physical making of a building. Ideas were now generated in drawings. Thereby the status of the profession of the architect was raised. Through a drawing, authorship could now be “assigned to the designer architect, instead of to the accumulated knowledge of different craftspeople. See J. Hill, “Building the Drawing,” Architectural Design 75, no. 4 (2005): 14”
For more history on various mechanical contraptions that have long been used by humans as an aid in block placement manual processes, see:
Decker, “The Sky is the Limit: Human-Powered Cranes and Lifting Devices”, March 25th, 2010, URL: solar(dot)lowtechmagazine(dot)com/2010/03/the-sky-is-the-limit-human-powered-cranes-and-lifting-devices/ - see the numerous photos of cranes and other machine people have long used manually (some of which were even human powered) for laying bricks and blocks, and other objects. In operating such contraptions, people would have had to mentally evaluate how to place the objects while ensuring that there was sufficient space for the end effector/gripper of such contraptions. Even having cranes with horizontal movement predates the United States: “The first crane that allowed a horizontal movement of the load appeared in a 1550 book of Georgius Agricola, but a real-world version was only launched in 1666 by Frenchman Claude Perrault. A trolley was moved along the whole length of t e jib by means of a complicated rope system in which two ropes were wound and unwound via a spindle attached to the trolley. Let’s not forget that Greek and Roman cranes were capable of very limited horizontal movement, too, by lowering or raising the masts a bit. Moreover, the Greeks already designed a kind of slewing crane, which was a lifting device as described earlier but resting only on one mast, directed and kept in balance by extra men on the ground holding ropes”.
Also see Zaki, Tarek. Parametric modeling of blockwall assemblies for automated generation of shopdrawings and detailed estimates using BIM. 2016. American University in Cairo, Master's Thesis. AUC Knowledge Fountain, see § 1.1.1 including ¶¶ 1-2: “Modular planning is a method for coordinating the dimensions of CMU units to simplify the construction process, minimize cutting and wastes in CMU units and lower the construction costs. According to (NCMA TEK 4-1A, 2002), careful planning minimizes cutting and fitting of units on the job, either to accommodate openings for doors and windows or to make the ends of walls lineup which are operations that affect the productivity of the masons and slow down the construction… Another two considerations in modular planning of walls is the allowances made for corners (L-Shaped) and for intersections of walls. For corners, general courses should be laid in alternating ways with an overlap nominal length of 200mm (assuming that the CMU units used have a length of 400mm) to provide a stiffer construction at the corners and maintain structural stability. While for intersecting walls (T-Shaped), courses of the two walls should be connected so that half of the units of each wall are embedded in the other wall (Sturgeon, 2010).” And § 1.2.3: “The precision and accuracy of the produced fabrication/shop drawings is highly dependent on the technical experiences and competences of the architects/engineers involved in conveying the design ideology from the design drawings to the shop drawings with enough level of detail to ease out the construction process…. Shopdrawings for Masonry are drafted by extracting layouts and section views from the tender BIM project, where its maximum level of detail would include the different wall types with the structural layers of each, the surfaces of walls with the texture, the location of the different inserts and any aesthetic details. The creation of the shopdrawings would typically include (1) general layout for the location and the components of each wall and (2) typical off-the-shelf detail drawings for the CMU, its reinforcement and accessories modeled on the extracted layouts as 2D geometric shapes that excludes any model information of definitive parameters, which bypasses the features of BIM…”
Further see in Zaki § 3.1 which discusses the results of “Face to face interviews took place with a number of 23 interviewees from the AEC industry… For this research, all interviewees have direct work experience and exposure in the phases of building design, tendering and construction.” (§ 3.1.1), e.g. see page 34 bullet points 3-5, then page 35: “The typical construction sequence starts by setting out and marking the location of the walls, vertical rebar dowels are drilled inside the concrete slab for a distance as specified in the project specifications of the design drawings and are cut with a lap splice equivalent to almost 500mm, the first course of blocks are laid to be used as a guidance for the above courses. The type of bond is typically running bond especially in walls that will receive a finish were the texture is not important. In corners, course have to provide some sort of interlocking behavior. Rebar is placed in locations as specified in the shop drawings, if the wall is non-load bearing then reinforcement is placed around the critical areas of the wall which are the wall edges and around the wall inserts. Lintels are place on top of wall inserts such as doors and windows with a jamb length as mentioned in the project specifications and is mostly equivalent to half a block. The top of wall is filled with compressible filler material. In conclusion, the construction method for walls is a typical common practice what differs is the information defined as per the design requirements and the information required in the project specifications. The contractor before commencement of the works provides a detailed method statement for the construction of all masonry elements in the project, the method should include all the construction details, references to sections of the project specifications, the amount of labor used, their productivity rates, the amounts and types of equipment used such as saws used, and any safety considerations to be taken into account during the construction.”, page 36: “…The procurement process starts with a quantity takeoff of the walls in the building. The quantity takeoff from the perspective of the engineer deferrers from the perspective of the contractor. The engineer calculates the wall as an area (length x height) while the contractor calculates walls in terms of number of blocks…”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
The preamble of claim 1 for its recitation of “implemented by one or more electronic processing devices”, and similar such limitations found in claim 36 are mere instructions to do it on a computer.
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
Step (a), should it be found not to be part of the abstract idea, would be considered as an insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering.
Step (g) contains a features associated with a “block laying head” and its end effector, however this is merely generally link the abstract idea of this step to a particular technological environment, but doing so causes no manipulative difference on how this generating would actually be done (to clarify, and as discussed above, this limitation with the exclusion zone is merely conveying that the placement order should account for the space required for the gripping mechanism of the robot, but such an abstract idea is readily performed by a human mind accounting for space to avoid crushing their hands/to make the layout process faster, or by humans using cranes from hundreds of years ago fully manually where they would mentally judge how to control the manual cranes).
Steps (h-i) are, when considered in view of the instant disclosure (e.g. ¶¶ 90-92), considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given the lack of restriction recited in how the block laying machine is to be controlled and its results-oriented nature (MPEP §2106.05(f)), they are also considered as a token post-solution activity, wherein the robot as recited in the claim is merely being used as a tool to automate a manual process (that of the stone mason or bricklayer) with no particular details for how it is to be used to automate the manual process (i.e. its purely results oriented, and ¶¶ 90-92 describe the use of generic, off-the-shelf components to be used; ¶¶ 103 and 110 describes a generic computer as the control system). This is also considered as generally linking to a particular technological environment, i.e. one wherein the block laying machine is used to place the blocks, rather then a person doing it manually.
To clarify, the “receiving…’ step in this is an insignificant extra-solution of mere data gathering recited in a generic manner, and the controlling is a purely result-oriented token post-solution activity. In stark contrast to Diamond v. Diehr as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e) and in example 45 of the Oct. 2019 PEG, dependent claims 2-4; and in stark contrast to MPEP § 2106.06(a): “As an example, a robotic arm assembly having a control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships is clearly not an attempt to tie up use of the mathematical relationships and would not require a full analysis to determine eligibility” – i.e. there is no particular recited in these present claims for how the controlling is to be performed in a particular technological manner; but rather this is simply “Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem") as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
To clarify on functional limitations, MPEP § 2173.05(g): “A functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step” – i.e. this part of the controlling limitation is entirely functional as it merely recites the desired result of the controlling, not how the controlling is performed in a particular manner
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
E.g. MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
The preamble of claim 1 for its recitation of “implemented by one or more electronic processing devices”, and similar such limitations found in claim 36 are mere instructions to do it on a computer.
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
Step (a), should it be found not to be part of the abstract idea, would be considered as an insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering.
Step (g) contains a features associated with a “block laying head” and its end effector, however this is merely generally link the abstract idea of this step to a particular technological environment, but doing so causes no manipulative difference on how this generating would actually be done (to clarify, and as discussed above, this limitation with the exclusion zone is merely conveying that the placement order should account for the space required for the gripping mechanism of the robot, but such an abstract idea is readily performed by a human mind accounting for space to avoid crushing their hands/to make the layout process faster, or by humans using cranes from hundreds of years ago fully manually where they would mentally judge how to control the manual cranes).
Steps (h-i) are, when considered in view of the instant disclosure (e.g. ¶¶ 90-92), considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given the lack of restriction recited in how the block laying machine is to be controlled and its results-oriented nature (MPEP §2106.05(f)), they are also considered as a token post-solution activity, wherein the robot as recited in the claim is merely being used as a tool to automate a manual process (that of the stone mason or bricklayer) with no particular details for how it is to be used to automate the manual process (i.e. its purely results oriented, and ¶¶ 90-92 describe the use of generic, off-the-shelf components to be used; ¶¶ 103 and 110 describes a generic computer as the control system). This is also considered as generally linking to a particular technological environment, i.e. one wherein the block laying machine is used to place the blocks, rather than a person doing it manually.
To clarify, the “receiving…’ step in this is an insignificant extra-solution of mere data gathering recited in a generic manner, and the controlling is a purely result-oriented token post-solution activity. In stark contrast to Diamond v. Diehr as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e) and in example 45 of the Oct. 2019 PEG, dependent claims 2-4; and in stark contrast to MPEP § 2106.06(a): “As an example, a robotic arm assembly having a control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships is clearly not an attempt to tie up use of the mathematical relationships and would not require a full analysis to determine eligibility” – i.e. there is no particular recited in these present claims for how the controlling is to be performed in a particular technological manner; but rather this is simply “Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem") as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
To clarify on functional limitations, MPEP § 2173.05(g): “A functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step” – i.e. this part of the controlling limitation is entirely functional as it merely recites the desired result of the controlling, not how the controlling is performed in a particular manner
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
Step (a) - MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
Step (g) for its “receiving” - MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);”
Furthermore, the use of brick/block laying robots, and similar such robots in the construction industry is WURC – see:
¶ 90 of the instant disclosure: “A robot arm is a programmable mechanical manipulator. In this specification a robot arm includes multi axis jointed arms, parallel kinematic robots (such as Stewart Platform, Delta robots), spherical geometry robots, Cartesian robots (orthogonal axis robots with linear motion) etc.”
Aguiar et al., “DESIGN, PROTOTYPING AND PROGRAMMING OF A BRICKLAYING ROBOT”, 2015, Abstract: “Several studies have described specialized robot for masonry works, most of them incorporating the human arm concept that requires complex programming and low productivity” and page 28, col. 1, last paragraph: “Generally, the bricklaying mechanism involves the concept of the human arm, as discussed in literature [4, 10, 11, 13]. This concept is based on a long arm with a vacuum gripper at the upper end, which is assembled onto a mobile base.” – as visually depicted in fig. 1
Previously cited in the July 2022 IDS: Pritschow, G., et al. "Technological aspects in the development of a mobile bricklaying robot." Automation in Construction 5.1 (1996): 3-13. See fig. 1-2 as discussed in § 2
Vähä, Pentti, et al. Survey on automation of the building construction and building products industry. VTT, 2013. § 4.4 for its discussion of fig. 1
Bonwetsch, Tobias. Robotically assembled brickwork: Manipulating assembly processes of discrete elements. Diss. ETH Zurich, 2015. Abstract: “Within the large family of computer controlled fabrication machines, industrial robots are especially well suited to be adopted for construction work, mainly because of their ability to perform variable assembly tasks.” – then see chapter 3, in particular § 3.2: “With the introduction of robotics in construction (see Section 2.2), automating brickwork by the means of applying robots was subject of intensive research in the latter half of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s. 133 In general, the process of bricklaying was considered to lend itself well to automating, since it mainly consists of a repetitive task, assembling identical discrete elements… Instead of utilizing available industrial robots with typical revolute axes, all the above-mentioned projects developed task-specific robots. While this allowed optimizing the robotic machine for the specific task to pick up and lay down bricks – particularly, in regards to overall weight, payload, stiffness, and reach – the flexibility to use the machine in other ways was at the same time considerably minimised.139 This implies that the possibility to adapt such specialised machines to other building processes, using different end-effectors and other materials than brick, or even use different brick sizes or execute other bond patterns is fairly limited (Figure 20).” And footnote 139: “A reason why task specific robots were developed is also that commercially available articulated arm robots were not a commodity as they are today” – then, see page 43: “Within the above mentioned projects, the most advanced robotic brickwork systems, which were prototypically tested on site, were the so-called ROCCO and the BRONCO projects.141” – and see fig. 21 which provides photographs of these, wherein the photographs visibly depict the end effector at the end of the arm, the end effector/block laying head at the end of boom – then see § 4.3.1: “Although, the discussed examples of robotic masonry systems were all concerned with the development of specialised machines performing the single task of bricklaying, already Juergen Laukemper observes that a six-axis articulated robot could be advantageous and viable for this undertaking… Indeed, to a large part, standard industrial robots follow this kinematic layout and mainly vary in size, reach, and the payload they can handle. Today, such industrial robots are a commodity and there is no need to build a specialised machine” – and see fig. 2.4 for such a “commodity” “industrial robot”, and see fig. 30 for a photograph of it, § 4.4.3 and fig. 33 for the end effector/brick laying head structure, e.g. fig. 37: “Experiment 1: Process steps of assembly. (left) Picking brick with end-effector from brick feed; (middle) placing brick; (right) manual application of adhesive.”; also see fig. 47-48, and fig. 60 provides a photograph that shows the robot is from the company “Kuka”. In addition to the above, see § 2.1 for a discussion of the development of industrial robots, e.g. fig. 7: “The KR 6 R900 sixx is part of the KUKA AGILUS family, which was introduced in 2012. Its kinematic design is noticeably similar to the robot models introduced in the 1970s, shown in Figure”, e.g. fig. 10: “Figure 10. Example of a tele-operated robot, the so called Mighty Hand by Kajima Corporation”
Previously cited in the July 2022 IDS: Yu, Seung-Nam, et al. "Feasibility verification of brick-laying robot using manipulation trajectory and the laying pattern optimization." Automation in Construction 18.5 (2009): 644-655. Abstract: “Brick handling in a construction road paving site or building construction site is traditionally performed by the handwork of humans. These types of tasks are absolutely laborious and time consuming” and § 1 ¶ 1: “Automated machines or robots are slowly beginning to work with human workers on selected project sites. First, they partially take on the dangerous, laborious jobs. After establishing them in those jobs, they will next move on to the repetitive jobs. In a construction site, brick laying and paving is one of the toughest tasks that at the same time requires skillful labor. This is why brick laying and paving tasks have been a target for automation like most construction tasks. In addition to the laborious, repetitive motion, several studies found that the brick-laying task causes several injuries…” – then see fig. 4 as discussed on page 647: “Fig. 4 shows the predefined working procedure of each task using the brick laying robot while considering the upper design strategy…” wherein the robot is carrying the bricks and “laying by calculated pattern” wherein as visually depicted there is a robot arm with an end effector for laying bricks, wherein the effector is at the end of a boom for positioning the head (the effector being the “robot gripper” in fig. 4) – also, see fig. 22 for a photograph of said robot
Saidi, Kamel S., Thomas Bock, and Christos Georgoulas. "Robotics in construction." Springer handbook of robotics. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016. 1493-1520. See fig. 57.16 on page 1505; then see § 57.3.4 including ¶¶ 1-3, and fig. 57.17
Steffani, H. F., J. Fliedner, and R. Gapp. "A vehicle for a mobile masonry robot." Proceedings of the IECON'97 23rd International Conference on Industrial Electronics, Control, and Instrumentation (Cat. No. 97CH36066). Vol. 3. IEEE, 1997. § I, including the second to last paragraph: “A masonry robot has to cover areas with 50 m2 and more. For this, two possibilities are available. You either can build one large crane like robot, which covers the whole area or a smaller mobile one which moves from one to another working point on the floor. For our project the second method was chosen”.
Feng, C., et al. "Towards autonomous robotic in-situ assembly on unstructured construction sites using monocular vision." Proceedings of the 31th international symposium on automation and robotics in construction. 2014. Abstract, § 2, also § 3 including its subsections and fig. 5-6
8
See the YouTube Videos cited in the July 2022 IDS, NPL documents # 19-22, from the instant assignee and published before the grace period of the instant effective filing date.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 2 is merely further limiting the mental process by limiting the mental judgement. E.g. the child has a limited number of Legos, and thus must mentally judge how to minimize the number of Legos used so they do not run out before creating their model building.
Claim 3 is merely stating for the person to perform some form of optimization algorithm to perform the mental judgment, e.g. “an iterative optimization algorithm” (¶ 137) – e.g. a mental trial-and-error process (the iterative) using pen and paper, or other physical aids, to optimize the block layouts, such as by creating a series of drawings, or a series of Lego models, wherein each drawing/model in the process is mentally evaluated/judged by the person so they provide judgements/opinions on how to make it better, and then create a new drawing/Lego model to represent the results of their judgement, and repeating this process a few times until they judge they are satisfied with the result. Furthermore, a computer using commonplace algorithms is readily able to be used as a tool to perform this step, e.g. applying generically recited algorithms such as “such as a Monte Carlo or Las Vegas algorithms, simulated annealing, or the like (¶ 137)”, evidenced as being WURC by the omission of any details on what these algorithms are or the steps to be performed by these algorithms in the instant disclosure (MPEP § 2164.01: “A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987); and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984)”) – for additional evidence see:
Kim et al., “Survey on Automated LEGO Assembly Construction”, 2014, WSCG 2014 Conference on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision § 5: “A variety of approaches have been proposed to solve the LEGO construction problem” and its subsections including the one discussing “Simulated Annealing” (Kim, page 94; instant disclosure ¶ 137) and page 96, ¶ 1: “To date, graph representations have been widely used to represent the LEGO structure and as solution methods, greedy algorithms, simulated annealing, beam search, cellular automata, and evolutionary algorithms have been used to automatically construct LEGO structure minimizing the number of bricks used and guaranteeing the stability of the built structure.”
Althofer et al., “Random Structures from Lego Bricks and Analog Monte Carlo Procedures”, 2013, provides an interesting discussion of how to do such an optimization using physical aids of a washing machine and Lego bricks, with human judgements, see: § 1 ¶¶ 1-2: “The washing machine together with Lego bricks is a primitive analog Monte Carlo agent.”, then see §§ 2.1-2.2 including their accompanying discussions of the photos, then see § 2.3 ¶¶ 1-2, then see §§ 3.2-4; also see § 4.1 including: “Varying levels of shaking may yield an effect like in the “Simulated Annealing” algorithm. In particular, decreasing levels of shaking may help to conserve interesting complexes that have been created in a “violent” early phase.
Kozaki, Takuya, Hiroshi Tedenuma, and Takashi Maekawa. "Automatic generation of LEGO building instructions from multiple photographic images of real objects." Computer-aided design 70 (2016): 13-22. Abstract, § 1 ¶ 1, and § 4.2 ¶1
Testuz, Romain Pierre, Yuliy Schwartzburg, and Mark Pauly. "Automatic generation of constructable brick sculptures." Eurographics 2013-Short Papers (2013): 81-84. § 1 ¶ 1
Zhou, Jie, Xuejin Chen, and Ying-qing Xu. "Automatic generation of vivid LEGO architectural sculptures." Computer Graphics Forum. Vol. 38. No. 6. 2019. Abstract, § 1 ¶ 1: “Brick elements are very popular in construction systems, and have been widely used in many areas, such as toy design and architectural fields. The LEGOR company has produced a large variety of bricks, and a large number of LEGO sculptures have been made all over the world by both kids and adults. Playing with LEGO bricks allows people to build their own sculptures by hand and stimulates their creativity. The magical power of the LEGO brick system mainly comes from two features: universality and versatility. The universality of LEGO bricks enables users to assemble different types of bricks together with a common connection structure. The versatility of the bricks allows users to build LEGO sculptures in various shapes with rich details. These two features make LEGO sculptures capable of expressing a wide range of objects, such as buildings, cars, spaceships and so on.” – then see the remaining portions of § 1, inclduing fig. 1 (a); and §§ 2.2-2.3 incl: “Various methods have been proposed to solve the LEGO construction problem [Tim98] since it was first presented. These systems typically follow the same pipeline. First, an input 3D model is voxelized. Then, cuboid bricks are used to generate brick layouts layer by layer to fill in the voxel representation. Finally, an optimization step is applied to the initial brick layout to satisfy different criteria…”
Claim 4 recites a math calculation in textual form of “calculating…”, wherein this is simple enough to be mentally performed by a mental evaluation such as one aided by pen, paper, and/or a calculator, e.g. using simple equations, e.g. simple summing up the number of blocks in each layout and using that as the cost, followed by a step of “selecting…” that is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 3, wherein as this step is now reciting “to minimize the block layout cost” which is also another math calculation in textual form (performing any form of optimization algorithm to minimize the results of math calculations, e.g. by iteratively performing said math calculations with varying parameters)
Claim 8 recites another step in the mental process of the “generating…iteratively” – e.g. iteratively performing a mental process such as the one discussed above for claim 1, followed by a “selecting…” step which is a mental judgement, followed by another mental step of a person mentally evaluating the selected layout so as to generate data related to the layout, e.g. writing out with pen and paper a material listing in the form of a table of how many blocks and of what type are needed (example of layout data), or writing out a table representing the layout, wherein each row in the table represents a single block by a mentally judged identifier (e.g. “1”, “2”, “Block 1”, “Block 2”, etc.), along with entries of the position and orientation (¶ 169 of the instant disclosure), followed by another mental process of generating the block sequence data (i.e. mentally judging how to assemble the blocks, and thus adding numbers to indicate the order of assembly; akin to the sequence in a Lego instruction manual for a Lego model), with an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering that is WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for claim 1, followed by a mental judgement of identifying sequence rules (e.g. judging that the large blocks are to go first in the sequence, or judging a rule of a color sequence, e.g. red for the bottom layer, blue for the next layer, white for the third layer, etc.), followed by the mental process of generating different block sequences – e.g. the table, as discussed above, or simple drawings with pen and paper, or entirely mental as a mental visualization, followed by a mental judgement
Claim 9 recites more steps in the mental process – mentally generating, e.g. by a mental evaluation, judgment, another block layout, mentally judging/evaluating it so as to modify it, mentally judging to compare the layouts, and mentally updating (another mental judgement/evaluation) the first layout, then another mental judgment, then more steps in the mental process of mental evaluations/judgements akin, e.g. mentally judging a wall layout using pen and paper for a building, etc. To be clear, this claim recites no technological implementation of how to perform these steps, i.e. it is simply reciting a mental trial-and-error process so as to mentally determine (by a series of mental judgements and evaluations) a better layout, with no particularity in how each of these steps are to be performed in a manner that is not simply a mental process. Physical aids are readily usable in such a mental process, e.g. a person, such as a child, iteratively modifying their Lego model by building it up, tearing it down, the building it up in a slightly improved manner using the ordinary creativity of the child, with mental judgements such as it “is better than the candidate block layout”
Claim 14 recites part of the mental process – mentally judging an intersection type, and then an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering that is WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for claim 1.
Claim 15 recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering that is WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for claim 1 followed by further limiting the mental process to use the obtained data, wherein the rules are recited in such generality that these are readily mental rules, e.g. ¶ 158: “For example, the layout rules could place restrictions on how blocks on different courses align, the types of blocks that can be used, limits on the number of partial blocks in any one wall, or course, or the” – e.g. a person, in building a Lego model, mentally judging that all of the longer blocks (e.g. ones with 8 by 2 studs) should be on parallel tracks in a North-South direction, and the shorter ones (e.g. ones with 4 by 1 studs) should be on parallel tracks in an East-West direction – or a person in the 1800’s doing such a mental process when assembling a log cabin – as another example, ¶ 158: “Layout rules might also specify how blocks are to be provided near features, such as electrical or plumbing cuts, roof stepping, windows, doorways, or other features” – mental judgements readily performed by people in the construction industry (or when building a model with Legos), e.g. when evaluating/judging how to frame a window or door, or the area for a bathtub.
Claim 16 is merely further limiting the mental process
Claim 17 is further limiting the mental process. The Examiner notes that a physical aid of graphing paper would be useful in this, i.e. using the grid of the graphing paper to represent possible courses, and then mentally judging to select one and/or two rows or columns in the grid as the courses for the block layout (e.g. based on observing a blueprint of a building, and judging where walls go) – or using the courses of a Lego base plate (i.e. a very large, flat Lego piece upon which models are typically built on)
Claim 18 is further limiting the mental process
Claim 20 is another step in the mental process, such as one aided by physical aids of graphing paper or Legos, in a similar manner as discussed above for claim 17
Claim 21 merely further limiting the mental process
Claim 22 is further limiting the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering that is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05((d)(II): “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” as well as “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);” as well as “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)” as well as ¶ 117: “Alternatively, the construction plan could be received from software, such as a Computer Aided Design (CAD) software application, which is used to construct the plan, such as an architectural software package ( e.g. Revit, ArchiCAD), or more general CAD package such as SolidWorks, or the like.”
Claim 23 is mere further limiting the mental process, e.g. use graph paper with square gird (or again, a Lego plate as discussed above for claim 17, wherein the studs on Legos are arranged in a regular square grid manner, and the Lego grid spacing is the spacing of minimum block dimension, i.e. a 1 stud Lego)
To clarify on the Lego analogy, see Testuz, Romain Pierre, Yuliy Schwartzburg, and Mark Pauly. "Automatic generation of constructable brick sculptures." Eurographics 2013-Short Papers (2013): 81-84. See fig. 1 which show a square grid formed by 1x1 Lego bricks
Claim 27 is reciting a mere data gathering step of extracting data from plan data that is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and” – then a mental step with the overlaying and a mental trial and error process of mental judgements/evaluations for the fitting different combinations
The Examiner notes for the overlaying, this is readily done with Legos, or by using translucent graph paper and colored markers so that layers of graph paper may be readily overlaid on top of each other
Claims 35 are rejected under a similar rationale as the limitations (h-i) in claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the “generating block sequence data…” in claim 34 is part of the mental process for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 8
To clarify, this is merely instructing the mental process to determine how to layout the blocks so that you place two bricks on the first layer, then place a brick on the second layer/course above it, then another on the first course, then another on the course above it, etc. Such is readily mentally performed as a mental process prior to the manual process of bricklaying, and this claim is directed to the mental processes performed by human during bricklaying, with a mere automation of the mental process with the computer, and a mere automation of the manual process of bricklaying with a generic machine WURC to those in the field of use as a token extra-solution activity (akin to the scissors of In re Brown, in MPEP § 2106.05(f and g)
Claims 38 limitation (aa) is merely another mental evaluation/judgement, akin to those discussed above, with the end effector as generally linking for reasons as discussed above for limitation (g); and (bb) is merely specifying another step in the mental process prior to the act of brick laying
Claim 39 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 38 and limitation (g) in claim 1.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 14-18, 20-22, 35-36, 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaki, Tarek. Parametric modeling of blockwall assemblies for automated generation of shopdrawings and detailed estimates using BIM. 2016. American University in Cairo, Master's Thesis. AUC Knowledge Fountain in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in further view of Bock et al., “Automatic generation of the controlling-system for a wall construction robot”, 1996 and in further view of Yu, Seung-Nam, et al. "Feasibility verification of brick-laying robot using manipulation trajectory and the laying pattern optimization." Automation in Construction 18.5 (2009): 644-655.
Yu was cited in the Dec. 2024 IDS.
Regarding Claim 1
Zaki teaches:
For the preamble, see Zaki, abstract, and see § 3.2.4.3.1: “The function of this algorithm is to stack brick elements inside each wall element in the BIM project; considering the different wall inserts (doors/windows/openings), running bond pattern, the different cut lengths depending on the layout and the cut height of brick for non-modular wall heights”
For step (a-b), see Zaki, abstract, and § 3.2.4.3.1 on page 57 ¶¶ 1-2: “The function of this algorithm is to stack brick elements inside each wall element in the BIM project; considering the different wall inserts (doors/windows/openings), running bond pattern, the different cut lengths depending on the layout and the cut height of brick for non-modular wall heights…This algorithm first requires inputs from the query algorithms to generate the surfaces that families will be placed upon. Figure 3.21 shows the custom node built for this algorithm which requires three inputs: (1) wall surfaces, (2) wall element, and (3) brick family type; and the output constructs the brick elements in the BIM project” and page 62 ¶ 1: “The global output from the algorithm constructs bricks within the walls in the BIM project as shown in Figure 3.26.” – to clarify, § 3.2.3.2 ¶ 1: “The native BIM project is any BIM project that contains walls made of masonry where the wall-assembly algorithms can query the wall types from the BIM model and construct the wall-assembly accordingly. The idea from this design was to test if the wall-assembly algorithm adapts to the different wall orientation cases. Some walls include wall inserts such as doors or/and windows as shown in Figure 3.7” and § 3.2.4.2.1: “A typical wall solid would have six faces/surfaces; however, wall elements with inserts/windows/doors would have more than six surfaces, thus an automated method is needed to select the wall surfaces that can act as base planes for the placement of the different assembly elements.” – in other words, as visibly depicted in the figures, e.g. fig. 3.23 and 3.26, this system is identifying walls in a BIM model representing data indicative of a construction plan, wherein this further includes identifying the “wall inserts (doors/windows/openings)” (§ 3.2.4.3.1 on pages 57 and 62) wherein these “inserts” as visibly depicted have intersections with the walls)
While Zaki does not explicitly teach the following (steps (c-f)), Zaki in view of Lee teaches steps c-f:
First, see Zaki, fig. 3.26 visibly depicts a brick block layout including for the intersections with the inserts, wherein fig. 3.27 provides a more clear visualization as discussed on page 62: “One of the outputs generated from this algorithm is that users can detect non modular layouts after execution of the algorithm as shown in Figure 3.27 for example, where the window is placed in a location that will generate a lot of waste due to cutting of bricks to fit the wall as highlighted.”– also, see chapter 4 provides a case study with a visual example of the resulting “Concrete blocks generation across the walls of the model” in fig. 4.5; also see fig. 4.6-4.7 on pages 104-105; also see Zaki § 3.2.4.3.2: “The function of this algorithm is to stack brick for intersecting walls forming L-corners [another example of an identified intersection of Zaki, and this algorithm generates the block layout for said intersection] since such walls require interlocking between brick elements [see fig. 3.30 on page 65 to visually clarify, as well as fig 3.3] in each of the two intersecting walls.” then, see Zaki page 129, last bullet point: “The model can be used for early detection of modular layout issues so designers could optimize the design of walls and provide a more sustainable design by optimizing the masonry layouts to produces the least amount of wastes due to cuts and fits of the different components.” - i.e. Zaki teaches generating one block layout which is a combination of intersection layouts for each intersection and wall layouts for each wall, e.g. fig. 4.5 visually depicts this; but Zaki does not teaching generating a plurality of such block layouts but rather only contemplates that “designers” would be able to do further optimizations to the “masonry layouts to produces the least amount of wastes due to cuts and fits of the different components”
As taken in view of Lee, abstract: “In this paper, we propose a genetic algorithm for a LEGO® brick layout problem. The task is to build a given 3D object with LEGO® bricks. A brick layout is modeled as a solution to a combinatorial optimization problem, through intermediate voxelization, which tries to maximize the connectivity and then minimize the number of used bricks” – and § 3.2 including ¶ 1: “We find a brick layout layer by layer by considering each layer in specific order, since each brick has to be placed in only one layer. For each layer, we first choose a voxel and place a bricks on that voxel in a greedy manner. All types of the bricks and all feasible arrangements are considered, and the one with the largest score is selected. We repeat it for every voxel in a layer, and repeat the whole process for each of the layer….”
Lee is considered analogous art as Lee is both 1) in the same field of endeavor of brick layout algorithms based on input computer models, and 2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the instant inventor of determining how to generate optimized brick layouts (instant disclosure, ¶¶ 184-187).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Zaki on “wall-assembly model that can automatically generate full virtual constructions of masonry walls in BIM to include all the wall-assembly” (Zaki, abstract) with the teachings from Lee on “a genetic algorithm for a LEGO® brick layout problem” (Lee, abstract) The motivation to combine would have been that “…A brick layout is modeled as a solution to a combinatorial optimization problem, through intermediate voxelization, which tries to maximize the connectivity and then minimize the number of used bricks …Experimental results showed that the algorithm produces efficient, and mostly optimal solutions for benchmark models. Unlike some previous works, our algorithm is not limited to assemble few specific objects, but it can deal with diverse kind of objects” (Lee, abstract)
While Zaki, in view of Lee, does not explicitly teach steps g-i, Zaki, in view of Lee, and in further view of Bock and Yu teaches steps g-i:
See Zaki, in view of Lee as discussed above, as taken in further view of Bock, abstract: “…This is designed and developed for a wall assembly robot in an European Esprit III project called ROCCO, Robot assembly system for Computer integrated Construction. The system consists of an off-line program for planning of complex assembly tasks and for generating robot actions. The execution is controlled through an adaptive user interface and gives the user the possibilities to switch in an on-line mode command…” – and see fig. 1 which shows that this takes a “CAD” model as input - § 1 ¶ 1: “Based on the architectural CAD-representation of the building, the assembly sequence and the correlated optimal working position of the mobile robot are determined. With the information about the position of the bricks on the palettes and in the wall and the position of the robot, the off-line robot program generates the assembly sequences. Fig.” – and see § 2 ¶ 2
Wherein fig. 1 shows the structure of the robot – it has an arm, with an end effector for placing blocks which is a block laying end mounted at the end of a boom, wherein as visibly depicted this robot is doing “Assembly On-site”, wherein fig. 2 depicts the interaction between the input data and the control system of the robot, including the data received by the robot – and § 5 discusses the “Wall assembly strategy” – i.e. this receives CAD data (e.g. the output of Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee) and then “generates the assembly sequences…” for assembling a block structure based on the received data, and then uses those sequences for commanding/controlling the robot to place the blocks for “Assembly On-site”)
With respect to (g), see Bock, § 4.1 for its description of fig. 5 the “Assemble” action, wherein the robot is to “approach…grapple…extract…[then] retract” so as to pick-up the bricks from the pallet (fig. 7), and POSITA would readily infer a similar such step of sub-steps for the “Place” activity. § 4.1 last paragraph: “To execute an activity, the children objects and the corresponding modules have to be called. At the end of the tree, Explicit Elementary Operations (01 give a numerical conversion of the activity “Action”. An interpreter reads the EEO-objects and sends the command to the robot or to a simulation tool.” – i.e. there is entered sequencing data for the placement of the blocks, wherein this is an order within a tree data structure, i.e. the program first does the “Transport” code and calls the module associated with it, then the “Pick_up”, then the “Transport” again, then the “Place”.
Then see § 5: “To achieve the assembly robot motions, all the different configurations of the wall have to be established.” And § 5.2: “To recognize the wall configuration, it is first necessary to identify the neighbour stones of the one to be set. These occupied places [i.e. ones already placed, see fig. 10] constitute the untouchable areas, in which the robot does not have to enter.”
Then see § 5.3: “With the data as computed above we defined the insertion vectors [see fig. 10]. They are perpendicular to the current stone surfaces and are oriented outside of the surfaces, like shown in Fig. 10. In this way, the contact surfaces and their orientations are known for each stone. The trajectory points of the insertion action can then be calculated with help of the end position and an offset in the direction given from the insertion vectors.”
In particular see fig. 10, which shows that the top-most brick must be inserted so as to contact wit the bricks on either side of the same course, and the bottom shows contact with a brick placed prior to it, and a brick placed perpendicular to it. Then see fig. 1, note the end effector is a C-gripper style. And “The trajectory points of the insertion action can then be calculated with help of the end position and an offset in the direction given from the insertion vectors”
Wherein, as Bock is building the entire wall, this would have been inferred to generate the placement order for the configurations, i.e. “Based on the architectural CAD-representation of the building, the assembly sequence and the correlated optimal working position of the mobile robot are determined. With the information about the position of the bricks on the palettes and in the wall and the position of the robot, the off-line robot program generates the assembly sequences.” (§ 1) and “The relevant information for the automatic command generation are the wall partitioning, the list of the working points, the palletisation and the geometry of the stones. The wall partitioning gives the final position of the stones. The optimisation program calculates the, order to assemble the stones, the position of the paletts, the number of pallets at a working point, and the number and the optimal place at the working points” (§ 2 ¶ 2)
But Bock does not teach that (g) is performed based on an exclusion zone – however, this would have been obvious when the insertion action of Bock was taken in further view of Yu, abstract: “This study proposes a manipulator integrated mobile system operated by the optimal laying pattern and trajectory algorithm. The pattern generator is designed by the “Fast Algorithm” which is motivated by Steudel's algorithm, and the manipulator trajectory generation algorithm is developed by the “Overlap Method” which is a treatment skill for robot-surrounded obstacles” – then see § 5.2, in particular see fig. 15, as discussed in § 5.2.3: “The previous chapter showed the horizontal thickness of a real robot and proposed the modified slice plane that was used to generate the obstacle area of an object. As a next step, the vertical thickness of the robot was considered. Fig. 15 illustrates the outlined margin of the robot manipulator and its realization on the proposed simulator. These assumptions on the boundary of the gripper and its load (brick) consider the total volume of the robot, including the robot arm, the gripper, and its load. Hence, when the modified slice plane (vertical thickness of the robot, gripper, and its load) is applied, the designed simulator considers the vertical thickness of the robot arm, including the gripper and its load, simultaneously.” – then see fig. 18, noting the “collision check” to avoid an “obstacle” (fig. 12, and accompanying description), and see fig. 19 and its accompanying description for further clarification, including in § 5.2.3: “If the gripper of the robot reaches this point, a collision between the gripper and the obstacle can be avoided by changing θ1. The definition of the collision or gap between the robot and place-down point and the obstacle is decided beforehand. The place-down point is calculated based on the base frame plane of the manipulator. Therefore, when the robot performs the brick-paving task, the place down point has to be considered first. Through these several treatments, the intermediate via points are decided as shown in Fig. 18…. This method deals with every surrounding obstacle of the robot in every unit step of the process (“unit step” means one cycle of pick and place task)…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the claimed invention from Zaki, as was modified above, on a system for generating optimal brick layouts with the teachings of Bock on a software control system for a robot to do wall assembly with “stones” [blocks; as visibly depicted] The motivation to combine would have been that “The ROCCO project intends to automate the construction process from the design to the construction on the building place” as well as “The system consists of an off-line program for planning of complex assembly tasks and for generating robot actions. The execution is controlled through an adaptive user interface and gives the user the possibilities to switch in an on-line mode command.” (Rocco, abstract and § 1 ¶ 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Zaki, as modified above, including the teaching of Bock on the robot for bricklaying as discussed above with the teachings from Yu on a “laying pattern and trajectory algorithm” (Yu, abstract). The motivation to combine would have been that “This study proposes a manipulator integrated mobile system operated by the optimal laying pattern and trajectory algorithm. The pattern generator is designed by the “Fast Algorithm” which is motivated by Steudel's algorithm, and the manipulator trajectory generation algorithm is developed by the “Overlap Method” which is a treatment skill for robot-surrounded obstacles” (Yu, abstract), also see § 6 last paragraph: “As shown in the Fig. 21, the computing time of …algorithm that considered the volume of the robot is remarkably different depending on the situation encountered at every step. However, the Overlap Method produces fast and stable computation results regardless of the place-down position and configurations of surrounding obstacles.”
To further clarify, § 1 ¶ 2: “First, they did not consider the importance of an optimized brick-laying pattern generation; hence, the constructor should design the laying pattern of the wall or load separately and check the possibility of the robot to perform the laying task. Second, they did not pay attention to the motion optimization of the robot arm based on the brick laying position and surrounding obstacles. Motion and trajectory optimization can increase the efficiency of the entire task.”
Regarding Claim 2
Zaki, in view of Lee teaches this claim, see: Zaki, as was discussed above, incl. page 129 last paragraph, “The model can be used for early detection of modular layout issues so designers could optimize the design of walls and provide a more sustainable design by optimizing the masonry layouts to produces the least amount of wastes due to cuts and fits of the different components.”; as was taken in view of Lee, as was discussed above, § 3.2, then see § 4.2 for the “Object Function”: “We have two objectives to achieve; high connectivity and a less number of bricks. Connectivity is measured by the total number of connected components in the model. Our goal is to minimize both the number of connected components and the number of bricks. It is still more important to minimize the number of connected components than the number of bricks…”
With respect to part blocks, see Zaki § 1.1.1: “Modular planning is a method for coordinating the dimensions of CMU units to simplify the construction process, minimize cutting and wastes in CMU units and lower the construction costs. According to (NCMA TEK 4-1A, 2002), careful planning minimizes cutting and fitting of units on the job, either to accommodate openings for doors and windows or to make the ends of walls lineup which are operations that affect the productivity of the masons and slow down the construction… Thus in planned designs, the vertical dimensions are equal to multiples of the nominal block height, while the horizontal dimension of the wall is equal to multiples of the nominal block length” as clarified on page 50 – and table 4.26 on page 123 for “CMU Length” wherein this shows full blocks of length “390”, and then part blocks that are approximately ¼ part block (the “90”), about ½ part block (the “190”), and about ¾ part block (the “290”) – (to clarify on the BRI of part blocks, ¶ 199: “…or part blocks such as quarter blocks, half blocks or three quarter blocks “ and ¶ 147 – and then see MPEP § 2144.05(I): “Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) – i.e. these teachings of Zaki, in view of Lee, § 3.2: “Size factor is used to increase the efficiency. The total number of bricks may decrease if larger bricks are used each time. Moreover, using a larger brick may provide more chance of connection to the bricks in the above and below layers. We therefore take the size of the brick into account and use it as a size factor” and Lee § 3.1: “We only use the regular bricks of size 1×n and 2×n, where n is either 1, 2, 4, 6, or 8 [the 2x8 being akin to the nominal full size CMU of Zaki, as in Zaki all other sizes are smaller than the largest]. The brick could be rotated but it should not be placed diagonally.” – thus, Zaki providing a technique to optimize so as to minimize both the number of full blocks used, and the number of part blocks
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3
Zaki, in view of Lee, as was cited above for claim 1, teaches using a genetic algorithm for the optimization (see the citations to Lee for claim 1, and see Lee’s title).
Regarding Claim 4
Zaki, in view of Lee teaches this claim, see:
Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee for claim 2, including the “Object Function” bullet point on Lee page 1217 as well as the “Size Factor” on page 1217, wherein these are both used in Lee’s optimization algorithm, also see § 3.2: “We find a brick layout layer by layer by considering each layer in specific order, since each brick has to be placed in only one layer. For each layer, we first choose a voxel and place a bricks on that voxel in a greedy manner. All types of the bricks and all feasible arrangements are considered, and the one with the largest score is selected”
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8
Zaki, in view of Lee and Bock and Yu teaches this claim, see:
For step aa: Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee for claim 1, including § 3.2: “We find a brick layout layer by layer by considering each layer in specific order, since each brick has to be placed in only one layer. For each layer, we first choose a voxel and place a bricks on that voxel in a greedy manner. All types of the bricks and all feasible arrangements are considered, and the one with the largest score is selected. We repeat it for every voxel in a layer, and repeat the whole process for each of the layer.” as was discussed above it; and § 4.1: “…Given a brick layout, we can create several new solutions by splitting some bricks and merging them again with various orders and various combinations...” – see § 4.2 to further clarify) – as was taken in further view of Bock and Yu for the use of the robot and the like for how to place the blocks as discussed above for claim 1.
For step bb: (Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as was discussed above)
For step (cc)(I’): (Zaki, fig. 4.5 and 4.6 provide visual examples of layout data that was generated for the layout of Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above for doing this with optimization)
For step (cc)(ii’) – these are not required by the recitation of “and/or” at step (i)
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9
Zaki, in view of Lee teaches this claim, see:
As an initial matter, this is a list of limitations (aa-gg), wherein the conjunction phrase for this list is “or” -see step (f)(ii). As such, under the BRI only any one of these steps is actually required.
For limitations (aa) to (cc), see Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above, include seeing § 3.2 ¶ 1 and §§ 4.1-4.2)
For step (ff) and its sub step (ii) (again, note the “and/or”, this time also between these sub-steps) - see Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above, include seeing § 3.2 ¶ 1 and §§ 4.1-4.2)
For (gg)(i) see Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above, include seeing § 3.2 ¶ 1 and §§ 4.1-4.2, wherein algorithm 1 in § 4.2 shows that the iterations are repeated “until Stop Condition” and ¶ 1 discusses this is a “3000-generation steady-state GA” – i.e. 3000 evolutions/iterations
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14.
Zaki, in view of Lee teaches:
Zaki, page 2: “Another two considerations in modular planning of walls is the allowances made for corners (L-Shaped) and for intersections of walls. For corners, general courses should be laid in alternating ways with an overlap nominal length of 200mm [example of a layout rule for an intersection type of corner] (assuming that the CMU units used have a length of 400mm) to provide a stiffer construction at the corners and maintain structural stability. While for intersecting walls (T-Shaped), courses of the two walls should be connected so that half of the units of each wall are embedded in the other wall [example of a second layout rule used] (Sturgeon, 2010).” - i.e. for each type of intersection, there is a retrieved corresponding layout rule that is used to select the possible intersection layouts for each course, e.g. fig. 3.30 on page 65 shows the application of this rule to a corner as part of the “Brick Stacker L-Corners Algorithm” (title of § 3.2.4.3.2; see ¶ 1 for clarification) – i.e. in Zaki, the list returned has only two possible intersection types for each course (page 65: “For example, in horizontal walls, the first brick that has any odd key (1,3,5,…) will be removed, and in vertical walls the first brick that has any even key (0,2,4,…) will be removed thus generating the interlocking behavior” – and vice-versa)
Regarding Claim 15.
Zaki, in view of Lee teaches:
Zaki, page 2: “Another two considerations in modular planning of walls is the allowances made for corners (L-Shaped) and for intersections of walls. For corners, general courses should be laid in alternating ways with an overlap nominal length of 200mm [example of a layout rule for an intersection type of corner] (assuming that the CMU units used have a length of 400mm) to provide a stiffer construction at the corners and maintain structural stability. While for intersecting walls (T-Shaped), courses of the two walls should be connected so that half of the units of each wall are embedded in the other wall [example of a second layout rule used] (Sturgeon, 2010).” - i.e. for each type of intersection, there is a retrieved corresponding layout rule that is used to select the possible intersection layouts for each course
Regarding Claim 16.
Zaki, in view of Lee teaches:
The method according to claim 15, wherein the layout rules are dependent on a block layout of an adjacent block course. (Zaki, page 2: “Another two considerations in modular planning of walls is the allowances made for corners (L-Shaped) and for intersections of walls. For corners, general courses should be laid in alternating ways with an overlap nominal length of 200mm [example of a layout rule for an intersection type of corner] (assuming that the CMU units used have a length of 400mm) to provide a stiffer construction at the corners and maintain structural stability. While for intersecting walls (T-Shaped), courses of the two walls should be connected so that half of the units of each wall are embedded in the other wall [example of a second layout rule used] (Sturgeon, 2010).” - i.e. for each type of intersection, there is a retrieved corresponding layout rule that is used to select the possible intersection layouts for each course, e.g. fig. 3.30 on page 65 shows the application of this rule to a corner as part of the “Brick Stacker L-Corners Algorithm” (title of § 3.2.4.3.2; see ¶ 1 for clarification) – wherein in this example in Zaki, the list returned has only two possible intersection types for each course: page 65: “For example, in horizontal walls, the first brick that has any odd key (1,3,5,…) will be removed, and in vertical walls the first brick that has any even key (0,2,4,…) will be removed thus generating the interlocking behavior” – and vice-versa
Regarding Claim 17.
Zaki, in view of Lee, teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein each block layout includes at least one of: aa) a single block course of blocks; and, bb) two block courses of blocks. (Zaki as was discussed above, e.g. fig. 4.5 shows that there are numerous courses/rows of blocks in the output block layout, as was taken in view of Lee for optimizing block layouts above)
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18.
Zaki, in view of Lee, teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the block layouts can include blocks having different block types and wherein the different block types include :
aa) blocks for internal walls; bb) blocks for external walls; (Zaki, fig. 4.5 shows there are blocks for both internal and external walls)
cc) full blocks; dd) quarter blocks; ee) half blocks; and/or ff) three quarter blocks. (Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above for claim 2), i.e. see Zaki § 1.1.1: “Modular planning is a method for coordinating the dimensions of CMU units to simplify the construction process, minimize cutting and wastes in CMU units and lower the construction costs. According to (NCMA TEK 4-1A, 2002), careful planning minimizes cutting and fitting of units on the job, either to accommodate openings for doors and windows or to make the ends of walls lineup which are operations that affect the productivity of the masons and slow down the construction… Thus in planned designs, the vertical dimensions are equal to multiples of the nominal block height, while the horizontal dimension of the wall is equal to multiples of the nominal block length” as clarified on page 50 – and table 4.26 on page 123 for “CMU Length” wherein this shows full blocks of length “390”, and then part blocks that are approximately ¼ part block (the “90”), about ½ part block (the “190”), and about ¾ part block (the “290”) – (to clarify on the BRI of part blocks, ¶ 199: “…or part blocks such as quarter blocks, half blocks or three quarter blocks “ and ¶ 147 – and then see MPEP § 2144.05(I): “Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) – i.e. these teachings of Zaki, in view of Lee, § 3.2: “Size factor is used to increase the efficiency. The total number of bricks may decrease if larger bricks are used each time. Moreover, using a larger brick may provide more chance of connection to the bricks in the above and below layers. We therefore take the size of the brick into account and use it as a size factor” and Lee § 3.1: “We only use the regular bricks of size 1×n and 2×n, where n is either 1, 2, 4, 6, or 8 [the 2x8 being akin to the nominal full size CMU of Zaki, as in Zaki all other sizes are smaller than the largest]. The brick could be rotated but it should not be placed diagonally.” – thus, Zaki providing a technique to optimize so as to minimize both the number of full blocks used, and the number of part blocks
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20.
Zaki, in view of Lee, teaches this claim. See Zaki, fig. 4.5 shows the block layout was generated for each of the courses for each wall, e.g. fig. 4.6 shows the courses for a singular wall [courses being rows of blocks]); as taken in view of Lee as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21.
Zaki teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the plan data is indicative of wall segments defining at least wall lengths and wall end points. (Zaki, § 3.2.1 # 2: “Wall-assembly algorithms module contains two sub-modules; (1) a number of 2 algorithms that capture the profiles of the masonry walls in the BIM project and to query each wall’s parameters such as length, height, width and type” - see § 3.2.4.2.2 for clarification
Regarding Claim 22.
Zaki teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein acquiring the plan data includes acquiring the plan data: aa) using user input commands; bb) from a computer aided design package; and/or, cc) from a data store. (Zaki, as discussed above; to clarify, page 100-101: “The following Table 4.1 summarizes the construction information extracted from the as-built shop drawings, detailed drawings and project specifications. This information is then used in executing the wall-assembly model, then a comparison between the as-built and the model is conducted.”)
Regarding Claim 34.
Zaki, in view of Lee and Bock and Yu teaches this:
Zaki, in view of Lee as discussed above; as taken in further view of Bock, abstract: “…This is designed and developed for a wall assembly robot in an European Esprit III project called ROCCO, Robot assembly system for Computer integrated Construction. The system consists of an off-line program for planning of complex assembly tasks and for generating robot actions. The execution is controlled through an adaptive user interface and gives the user the possibilities to switch in an on-line mode command…” – and see fig. 1 which shows that this takes a “CAD” model as input - § 1 ¶ 1: “Based on the architectural CAD-representation of the building, the assembly sequence and the correlated optimal working position of the mobile robot are determined. With the information about the position of the bricks on the palettes and in the wall and the position of the robot, the off-line robot program generates the assembly sequences [example of generated block sequence data]. Fig.” – and see § 2 ¶ 2
Wherein fig. 1 shows the structure of the robot – it has an arm, with an end effector for placing blocks which is a block laying end mounted at the end of a boom, wherein as visibly depicted this robot is doing “Assembly On-site”, wherein fig. 2 depicts the interaction between the input data and the control system of the robot, including the data received by the robot – and § 5 discusses the “Wall assembly strategy” – i.e. this receives CAD data (e.g. the output of Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee) and then “generates the assembly sequences…” for assembling a block structure based on the received data, and then uses those sequences for commanding/controlling the robot to place the blocks for “Assembly On-site”)
Regarding Claim 35.
Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee and Bock and Yu as discussed above for claim 33, including § 1 ¶ 1: “With the information about the position of the bricks on the palettes and in the wall and the position of the robot, the off-line robot program generates the assembly sequences.” , include seeing §§ 4-5, wherein the sequence is depicted by fig. 8 which shows the “Possible insertion cases” – in particular, note the top two, wherein the first brick in the topmost course was inserted first, then the second one follows, also fig. 1 visibly depicts that a sequence was followed for the assembly, wherein as visibly depicted in fig. 1 multiple courses are being laid simultaneously [i.e. the top course is having a brick placed on top of the bricks of the course below it which is not yet complete]; also see fig. 8 which shows several insertion cases for multiple courses being laid simultaneously
To clarify on the BRI, the instant disclosure ¶ 218: “…by laying blocks of at least some courses simultaneously. In other words, instead of laying every block of one course before commencing laying of blocks in the next course (i.e. course by course construction), blocks in two or more courses may be laid sequentially so that in effect two or more courses of blocks are constructed in parallel” – e.g. fig. 1 and 8 of Bock which visibly depicts this)
Regarding Claim 36.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 1 as was discussed above, wherein Zaki teaches: A system for designing block layouts for use in block placement during construction, the system comprising: one or more processing devices configured to: (Zaki, abstract)
Regarding Claim 38
Taught by the combination of prior art relied upon above, in particular see Bock and Yu as discussed in the above combination. In Bock, §§ 5.2-5.3 as discussed above, there are already bricks laid down, and the system is to find a trajectory to insert the new brick into the existing courses (e.g. fig. 1 and 10), wherein Bock does not teach a method of obstacle avoidance in such a determination, but Yu, as was cited above does, wherein in Yu it is to avoid any obstacle, including other bricks (Yu, as discussed above), i.e. § 5.3.2: “This method deals with every surrounding obstacle of the robot in every unit step of the process (“unit step” means one cycle of pick-and- place task). As the shapes of the obstacles, especially palletized bricks, are changed at every step, this approach has the advantage of being able to calculate the pick-and-place path.” And to clarify, in § 5.3.2: “If the gripper of the robot reaches this point, a collision between the gripper and the obstacle can be avoided by changing θ1. The definition of the collision or gap between the robot and place-down point and the obstacle is decided beforehand. The place-down point [where the brick is to be placed down] is calculated based on the base frame plane of the manipulator. Therefore, when the robot performs the brick-paving task, the placedown point has to be considered first [the placement, including the order of placement; see fig. 5, noting the “Proceeding Direction”]. Through these several treatments, the intermediate via points are decided as shown in Fig. 18.”
Regarding Claim 39
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 38 above.
Claim(s) 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaki, Tarek. Parametric modeling of blockwall assemblies for automated generation of shopdrawings and detailed estimates using BIM. 2016. American University in Cairo, Master's Thesis. AUC Knowledge Fountain in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in further view of Bock et al., “Automatic generation of the controlling-system for a wall construction robot”, 1996 and in further view of Yu, Seung-Nam, et al. "Feasibility verification of brick-laying robot using manipulation trajectory and the laying pattern optimization." Automation in Construction 18.5 (2009): 644-655 in further view of Matsufuji US 2005/0252118A1
Regarding Claim 23.
While Zaki, in view of Lee and Bock, does not explicitly teach the following, Zaki, in view of Lee and Bock and in further view of Matsufuji teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a grid is used in designing the block layouts and: aa) the grid comprises square grid elements; bb) dimensions of the grid elements are indicative of a minimum block dimension; and, cc) the minimum block dimension is a block width. (Zaki, § 3.2.4.3.5: “This algorithm has three functions, (1) to place the designed vertical reinforcement rebar elements inside walls; where the vertical rebar aligns with the center line of the cores in the CMUs used, (2) to place the minimum vertical reinforcement in case of non-load bearing walls and (3) to place vertical dowel rebar by its embedded length inside the concrete slab and accounting for its splice length with the vertical reinforcement in the wall.” – e.g. fig. 3.42 which shows the locations of the vertical rebar, but does not show that it aligns with the centerline of the cores of the CMUs [the holes in cinderblocks])
As taken in view of Matsufuji, abstract: “A method for planning the construction of a brick wall, a brick allocating program, and a brick allocating System for allocating bricks, metal plates, and bolts and nuts in a DUP construction method is provided, in which a grid pattern XY coordinate System forming Square grids is Specified, and odd number layer tightening grids (C) and even number layer tightening grids (B) are alternately set in X- and Y-directions. The brick (10) of an end part of the wall is positioned on a reference grid (Y) So that a first Square half part of the brick having a bolt hole [akin to a hole for vertical rebar for CMUs] (30) matches the odd or even number layer tightening grid. The bricks of the odd or even number layer are Successively arrayed from the reference grid, and the metal plates are disposed in Such a manner that at least one bolt hole (53) of the metal late (50) is located on the odd or even number layer tightening grids” – see fig. 13-15 to clarify, wherein this also visually shows that the dimensions of the grid elements are indicate of the brick width
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Zaki, as was modified above, on “a wall-assembly model that can automatically generate full virtual constructions of masonry walls in BIM to include all the wall-assembly details” with the teachings from Matsufuji on “A method for planning the construction of a brick wall, a brick allocating program, and a brick allocating System for allocating bricks, metal plates, and bolts and nuts in a DUP construction method is provided…” (Matsufuji, abstract). The motivation to combine would have been that as per Matsufuji ¶ 103: “As set forth above, according to the aforementioned method (grid method) for allocating the bricks, plates and bolts with use of the grid plan, allocation and So forth for the bricks 10, plates 50, bolts 60 and nuts 70 can be determined accurately, simply, promptly and Systematically before construction or during construction…”
Regarding Claim 27.
Zaki, in view of Lee, Bock, and Matsufuji teaches:
The method according to claim 23, further comprising extracting wall segments from the plan data and overlaying the wall segments onto the grid so that each wall segment is indicative of a number of grid elements, wherein the generating of different block layouts includes fitting different combinations of blocks onto one or more of the number of grid elements associated with each wall segment. (Zaki, as was taken in Lee as discussed above, including Lee § 3.2: “We find a brick layout layer by layer by considering each layer in specific order, since each brick has to be placed in only one layer. For each layer, we first choose a voxel and place a bricks on that voxel in a greedy manner. All types of the bricks and all feasible arrangements are considered, and the one with the largest score is selected. We repeat it for every voxel in a layer, and repeat the whole process for each of the layer.”
As taken in further view of Matsufuji, abstract and fig. 13-15 as discussed above, then see in Matsufuji ¶¶ 92-93: “The plan of house made by a constructor or the like is inputted to the PC… The grid coordinate Systems are displayed on the display device as illustrated on FIGS. 13 to 15 in conditions that the plan [of the house, including the walls] is overlaid on the grid coordinate Systems. In general, the architectural module for designing a house does not conform to a multiple of a dimensional unit of a brick (220(110)x110x85), and therefore, operations are required for coordinating the wall positions and dimensions of the house plan with the grids. These operations includes a grid adaptation operation of the wall positions and the wall dimensions by adjusting the dimensions and a Setting operation of the number of brick layers in correspondence to the height of the wall… AS the result of Such a grid adaptation operation, the wall positions and the wall dimensions indicated on the plan of the house (the original drawing), i.e., the wall Structure information is adjusted to be the planar positions and the planar dimensions adapted for the grids on the display device, as illustrated on FIGS. 14(A) and 15(A). As the result of such a setting operation, the wall Structure information is Set to be the wall height suitable for the unit dimension of the brick” – wherein POSITA would have found it obvious to use Lee’s “layer by layer” optimization technique using the grid of Matsufuji because, as discussed in Matsufuji ¶ 103: “As set forth above, according to the aforementioned method (grid method) for allocating the bricks, plates and bolts with use of the grid plan, allocation and So forth for the bricks 10, plates 50, bolts 60 and nuts 70 can be determined accurately, simply, promptly and systematically before construction or during construction” )
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 23.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-4, 8-9, 17-18, 20-22, 34-36 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 42-45 of copending Application No. 17/603,834 in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in further view of Bock et al., “Automatic generation of the controlling-system for a wall construction robot”, 1996. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 14-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 42-45 of copending Application No. 17/603,834 in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in further view of Bock et al., “Automatic generation of the controlling-system for a wall construction robot”, 1996 and in further view of Zaki, Tarek. Parametric modeling of blockwall assemblies for automated generation of shopdrawings and detailed estimates using BIM. 2016. American University in Cairo, Master's Thesis. AUC Knowledge Fountain. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 23 and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 42-45 of copending Application No. 17/603,834 in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in further view of Bock et al., “Automatic generation of the controlling-system for a wall construction robot”, 1996 in further view of Matsufuji US 2005/0252118A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1:
Steps (a)-(d) – see the ‘834, claim 42, steps a-e. They are substantially the same.
As to step (g), see (b) in combination with (c) of the co-pending claim 1. Note even in the ordered combination (the generating in the co-pending occurs prior to the acquiring, see co-pending spec ¶ 237 to clarify on the BRI of the antecedents).
While steps (e-f) are not recited in the ‘834 claimed invention, these would have been obvious when the ‘834 claimed invention as taken in view of Lee, abstract: “In this paper, we propose a genetic algorithm for a LEGO® brick layout problem. The task is to build a given 3D object with LEGO® bricks. A brick layout is modeled as a solution to a combinatorial optimization problem, through intermediate voxelization, which tries to maximize the connectivity and then minimize the number of used bricks” – and § 3.2 including ¶ 1: “We find a brick layout layer by layer by considering each layer in specific order, since each brick has to be placed in only one layer. For each layer, we first choose a voxel and place a bricks on that voxel in a greedy manner. All types of the bricks and all feasible arrangements are considered, and the one with the largest score is selected. We repeat it for every voxel in a layer, and repeat the whole process for each of the layer….” As well as Lee, § 3.2: “Size factor is used to increase the efficiency. The total number of bricks may decrease if larger bricks are used each time. Moreover, using a larger brick may provide more chance of connection to the bricks in the above and below layers. We therefore take the size of the brick into account and use it as a size factor” and Lee § 3.1: “We only use the regular bricks of size 1×n and 2×n, where n is either 1, 2, 4, 6, or 8. The brick could be rotated but it should not be placed diagonally.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from co-pending claimed invention with the teachings from Lee on “a genetic algorithm for a LEGO® brick layout problem” (Lee, abstract) The motivation to combine would have been that “…A brick layout is modeled as a solution to a combinatorial optimization problem, through intermediate voxelization, which tries to maximize the connectivity and then minimize the number of used bricks …Experimental results showed that the algorithm produces efficient, and mostly optimal solutions for benchmark models. Unlike some previous works, our algorithm is not limited to assemble few specific objects, but it can deal with diverse kind of objects” (Lee, abstract)
While steps (h-i) are not recited in the ‘834 for the particularity recited in the ‘803 claim, these would have been obvious when the ‘834 claimed invention was taken in view of Lee and in further view of Bock, abstract: “…This is designed and developed for a wall assembly robot in an European Esprit III project called ROCCO, Robot assembly system for Computer integrated Construction. The system consists of an off-line program for planning of complex assembly tasks and for generating robot actions. The execution is controlled through an adaptive user interface and gives the user the possibilities to switch in an on-line mode command…” – and see fig. 1 which shows that this takes a “CAD” model as input - § 1 ¶ 1: “Based on the architectural CAD-representation of the building, the assembly sequence and the correlated optimal working position of the mobile robot are determined. With the information about the position of the bricks on the palettes and in the wall and the position of the robot, the off-line robot program generates the assembly sequences. Fig.” – and see § 2 ¶ 2
Wherein fig. 1 shows the structure of the robot – it has an arm, with an end effector for placing blocks which is a block laying end mounted at the end of a boom, wherein as visibly depicted this robot is doing “Assembly On-site”, wherein fig. 2 depicts the interaction between the input data and the control system of the robot, including the data received by the robot – and § 5 discusses the “Wall assembly strategy” – i.e. this receives CAD data (e.g. the output of Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee) and then “generates the assembly sequences…” for assembling a block structure based on the received data, and then uses those sequences for commanding/controlling the robot to place the blocks for “Assembly On-site”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the claimed invention from co-pending claims 1 and 42, on a system to generate block layouts and a block sequence with the teachings from Bock on a software control system for a robot to do wall assembly with “stones” [blocks; as visibly depicted] The motivation to combine would have been that “The ROCCO project intends to automate the construction process from the design to the construction on the building place” as well as “The system consists of an off-line program for planning of complex assembly tasks and for generating robot actions. The execution is controlled through an adaptive user interface and gives the user the possibilities to switch in an on-line mode command.” (Rocco, abstract and § 1 ¶ 1)
Claims 2-3:
The ‘843 claimed invention, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above for claim 1.
Claim 4:
The ‘843 claimed invention, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above for claim 1, including the abstract of Lee, for the same rationale to combine as discussed above for claim 2; include seeing “Object Function” bullet point on Lee page 1217 as well as the “Size Factor” on page 1217, wherein these are both used in Lee’s optimization algorithm, also see § 3.2: “We find a brick layout layer by layer by considering each layer in specific order, since each brick has to be placed in only one layer. For each layer, we first choose a voxel and place a bricks on that voxel in a greedy manner. All types of the bricks and all feasible arrangements are considered, and the one with the largest score is selected”)
Claim 8:
An obvious variant of ‘843 claims 1 and 42 (taken together) – sub-step (ii) of instant claim 8 is a substantial duplicate of ‘843 claim 1. Note the “and/or” between sub-steps (i) and (ii).
With respect to step (a-b), this would have been an obvious variant of claim 42, because this is merely duplicating the generation of the different layouts iteratively (MPEP 2144.04(V)(B), and if not an obvious variant then the Examiner submits this would have been obvious when claims 1 and 42 were taken in view of Lee as discussed above for claim 1.
Claim 9:
Note the “and/or” at (f)(ii), i.e. only one of these steps (a-g) is required under the BRI.
Step (a) is an obvious variant of step (d) of claim 42 of the ‘843, i.e. step d generates a plurality of different block layouts, step (a) of the instant merely requires a single candidate layout, e.g. one of the plurality, or simply perform this step one more time.
Also, see dependent claim 43 of the ‘843.
Claims 17 and 20:
Instant claim 17 is an obvious variant of co-pending claims 1 and 42, wherein co-pending claim 1 states: “a) acquiring block layout data indicative of block layouts for a number of block courses;” and co-pending claim 42 adds to this method the steps of instant claim 1 as discussed above, wherein instant claim 17 then recites: “wherein each block layout includes at least one of: a) a single block course of blocks; and, b) two block courses of blocks” – i.e. instant claim 17 is an obvious variant wherein co-pending claim 42 is used to generate a block layout for at least a single block course (a single row of blocks), wherein co-pending claim 1 already suggests that block layouts are for a number of block courses.
Instant claim 20 is rejected under a similar rationale as instant claim 17.
Claim 18
This would have been obvious when claims 1 and 42 of the ‘843 were taken in view of Lee as discussed above for claim 1. Lee, abstract: “In this paper, we propose a genetic algorithm for a LEGO® brick layout problem. The task is to build a given 3D object with LEGO® bricks. A brick layout is modeled as a solution to a combinatorial optimization problem, through intermediate voxelization, which tries to maximize the connectivity and then minimize the number of used bricks” – and § 3.2 including ¶ 1: “We find a brick layout layer by layer by considering each layer in specific order, since each brick has to be placed in only one layer. For each layer, we first choose a voxel and place a bricks on that voxel in a greedy manner. All types of the bricks and all feasible arrangements are considered, and the one with the largest score is selected. We repeat it for every voxel in a layer, and repeat the whole process for each of the layer….” As well as Lee, § 3.2: “Size factor is used to increase the efficiency. The total number of bricks may decrease if larger bricks are used each time. Moreover, using a larger brick may provide more chance of connection to the bricks in the above and below layers. We therefore take the size of the brick into account and use it as a size factor” and Lee § 3.1: “We only use the regular bricks of size 1×n and 2×n, where n is either 1, 2, 4, 6, or 8. The brick could be rotated but it should not be placed diagonally.” – the 2x8 is an example of a full block, and a 2x4 or 1x8 are examples of half blocks as they are half the size, etc.
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above.
Claim 21:
See the ‘834, dependent claim 44.
Claim 22:
See the ‘834, dependent claim 45.
Claims 34-35:
The ‘834 claims 1 and 42, as taken in view of Bock as discussed above for claim 1.
To clarify on claim 35, Bock § 1 ¶ 1: “With the information about the position of the bricks on the palettes and in the wall and the position of the robot, the off-line robot program generates the assembly sequences.” , include seeing §§ 4-5, wherein the sequence is depicted by fig. 8 which shows the “Possible insertion cases” – in particular, note the top two, wherein the first brick in the topmost course was inserted first, then the second one follows, also fig. 1 visibly depicts that a sequence was followed for the assembly, wherein as visibly depicted in fig. 1 multiple courses are being laid simultaneously; also see fig. 8 which shows several insertion cases for multiple courses being laid simultaneously
To clarify on the BRI, the instant disclosure ¶ 218: “…by laying blocks of at least some courses simultaneously. In other words, instead of laying every block of one course before commencing laying of blocks in the next course (i.e. course by course construction), blocks in two or more courses may be laid sequentially so that in effect two or more courses of blocks are constructed in parallel” – e.g. fig. 1 and 8 of Bock which visibly depicts this)
Claim 36:
Instant claim 36 is an obvious variant of co-pending claims 1 and 42, as instant claim 36 is merely an obvious difference in statutory category (i.e. co-pending claim 42 recites “a method” performed “in one or more electronic processing devices”, instant claim 36 is “A system” performing the same steps with “one or more electronic processing devices” to perform these steps; in other words, co-pending claim 42 is for a method executed by a generic computer, and instant claim 36 is for generic computer executing the method; these are obvious variants).
Regarding Claim 14.
While the co-pending claims 1 and 42 do not recite the following feature, nor is it obvious in view of Lee and Bock, this feature would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 42 were taken in view of Lee, Bock, and Zaki:
determining possible intersection layouts for an intersection by: a) determining an intersection type; and, b) retrieving a list of intersection layouts associated with the intersection type. (The co-pending claims 1 and 42, including the steps b-e and the recited sub-steps of claim 42, as taken in view of Zaki “Another two considerations in modular planning of walls is the allowances made for corners (L-Shaped) and for intersections of walls. For corners, general courses should be laid in alternating ways with an overlap nominal length of 200mm (assuming that the CMU units used have a length of 400mm) to provide a stiffer construction at the corners and maintain structural stability. While for intersecting walls (T-Shaped), courses of the two walls should be connected so that half of the units of each wall are embedded in the other wall (Sturgeon, 2010).” – i.e. for each type of intersection, there is a rule of what possible intersections are associated with the type of intersection, e.g. for L-shaped corners, “general courses should be laid in alternating ways with an overlap nominal length of 200mm”, e.g. fig. 3.30 on page 65 shows the application of this to a corner as part of the “Brick Stacker L-Corners Algorithm” (title of § 3.2.4.3.2; see ¶ 1 for clarification) – i.e. in Zaki, the list returned has only two possible intersection types for each course (page 65: “For example, in horizontal walls, the first brick that has any odd key (1,3,5,…) will be removed, and in vertical walls the first brick that has any even key (0,2,4,…) will be removed thus generating the interlocking behavior” – and vice-versa)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the claimed invention of the co-pending claims 1 and 42 with the teachings from Zaki on “a wall-assembly model that can automatically generate full virtual constructions of masonry walls in BIM to include all the wall-assembly details” The motivation to combine would have been that “The model was validated with a case study project where the as-built shopdrawings, the as-built quantities and the drafting time of the shopdrawings were compared to the model outputs. The results highlight the model’s robust features in terms of: accurately creating shopdrawings exactly similar to the case study’s as-built drawings, providing materials quantity takeoffs with low variances compared to the case study’s as-built quantities and significant productivity improvements in terms of the time required by engineers to draft the shopdrawings and doing quantity estimates. Thus, using this model, a Contractor could significantly improve his productivity, effectively plan for material procurement and generate potential savings in his overhead costs.” (Zaki, abstract)
Also, by following the rule for corner intersection types of Zaki, page 2, this would “provide a stiffer construction at the corners and maintain structural stability” (Zaki, page 2).
Regarding Claim 15.
While the co-pending claims 1 and 42 do not recite the following feature, nor is it obvious in view of Lee and Bock, this feature would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 42 were taken in view of Lee, Bock, and Zaki:
… determining possible intersection layouts for an intersection by: a) retrieving layout rules; and, b) using the layout rules to select intersection layouts. (The co-pending claims 1 and 42, including the steps b-e and the recited sub-steps of claim 42, as taken in view of Zaki “Another two considerations in modular planning of walls is the allowances made for corners (L-Shaped) and for intersections of walls. For corners, general courses should be laid in alternating ways with an overlap nominal length of 200mm (assuming that the CMU units used have a length of 400mm) to provide a stiffer construction at the corners and maintain structural stability. While for intersecting walls (T-Shaped), courses of the two walls should be connected so that half of the units of each wall are embedded in the other wall (Sturgeon, 2010).” – i.e. for each type of intersection, there is a rule of what possible intersections are associated with the type of intersection, e.g. for L-shaped corners, “general courses should be laid in alternating ways with an overlap nominal length of 200mm”, e.g. fig. 3.30 on page 65 shows the application of this to a corner as part of the “Brick Stacker L-Corners Algorithm” (title of § 3.2.4.3.2; see ¶ 1 for clarification) – i.e. in Zaki, the list returned has only two possible intersection types for each course (page 65: “For example, in horizontal walls, the first brick that has any odd key (1,3,5,…) will be removed, and in vertical walls the first brick that has any even key (0,2,4,…) will be removed thus generating the interlocking behavior” – and vice-versa)
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 14.
Regarding Claim 16.
The co-pending claims 1 and 42, as was taken in view of Zaki teaches: The method according to claim 15, wherein the layout rules are dependent on a block layout of an adjacent block course. (The co-pending claims 1 and 42, as was taken in view of Zaki page 2 ¶ 2 and fig. 3.30 on page 65, along with § 3.2.4.3.2 as was discussed above)
Regarding Claim 23.
While the co-pending claims 1 and 42 do not recite the following feature, nor is it obvious in view of Lee and Bock, this feature would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 42 were taken in view of Lee, Bock, and Matsufuji:
…a) the grid comprises square grid elements; b) dimensions of the grid elements are indicative of a minimum block dimension; and,c) the minimum block dimension is a block width. (Co-pending claims 1 and 42, including for its step (d-e) and the recited sub-steps, as taken in view of Matsufuji, abstract: “A method for planning the construction of a brick wall, a brick allocating program, and a brick allocating System for allocating bricks, metal plates, and bolts and nuts in a DUP construction method is provided, in which a grid pattern XY coordinate System forming Square grids is Specified, and odd number layer tightening grids (C) and even number layer tightening grids (B) are alternately set in X- and Y-directions. The brick (10) of an end part of the wall is positioned on a reference grid (Y) So that a first Square half part of the brick having a bolt hole [akin to a hole for vertical rebar for CMUs] (30) matches the odd or even number layer tightening grid. The bricks of the odd or even number layer are Successively arrayed from the reference grid, and the metal plates are disposed in Such a manner that at least one bolt hole (53) of the metal late (50) is located on the odd or even number layer tightening grids” – see fig. 13-15 to clarify, wherein this also visually shows that the dimensions of the grid elements are indicate of the brick width)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the claimed invention of co-pending claims 1 and 42 with the teachings from Matsufuji on “A method for planning the construction of a brick wall, a brick allocating program, and a brick allocating System for allocating bricks, metal plates, and bolts and nuts in a DUP construction method is provided” (Matsufuji, abstract). The motivation to combine would have been that as per Matsufuji ¶ 103: “As set forth above, according to the aforementioned method (grid method) for allocating the bricks, plates and bolts with use of the grid plan, allocation and So forth for the bricks 10, plates 50, bolts 60 and nuts 70 can be determined accurately, simply, promptly and Systematically before construction or during construction…”
Regarding Claim 27.
Co-pending claims 1 and 42 were taken in view of Lee, Bock, and Matsufuji teaches this: See co-pending claims 1 and 42, including for its step (d-e) and the recited sub-steps, as taken in view of Matsufuji, abstract and fig. 13-15 as discussed above, then see in Matsufuji ¶¶ 92-93: “The plan of house made by a constructor or the like is inputted to the PC… The grid coordinate Systems are displayed on the display device as illustrated on FIGS. 13 to 15 in conditions that the plan [of the house, including the walls] is overlaid on the grid coordinate Systems. In general, the architectural module for designing a house does not conform to a multiple of a dimensional unit of a brick (220(110)x110x85), and therefore, operations are required for coordinating the wall positions and dimensions of the house plan with the grids. These operations includes a grid adaptation operation of the wall positions and the wall dimensions by adjusting the dimensions and a Setting operation of the number of brick layers in correspondence to the height of the wall… AS the result of Such a grid adaptation operation, the wall positions and the wall dimensions indicated on the plan of the house (the original drawing), i.e., the wall Structure information is adjusted to be the planar positions and the planar dimensions adapted for the grids on the display device, as illustrated on FIGS. 14(A) and 15(A). As the result of such a setting operation, the wall Structure information is Set to be the wall height suitable for the unit dimension of the brick”)
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
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 at (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.
/David A Hopkins/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188