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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Oct. 28th, 2025 has been entered.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Oct. 28th, 2025. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-8, 13, 17,22, 33, 40, 42-46 have been presented for examination.
Claim 2-3,5-8, 13, 17,22, 33, 40, 42-45 are objected to because of informalities
Claims 1-8, 13, 17,22, 33, 40, 42-46 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) 1-7, 22, 33, 40, 42-46 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.
Claims 8, 13, and 17 are not rejected under§ 102/103. The closest combination of prior art is the one relied upon, but it does not fairly teach the ordered combination of features found in these dependent claims.
Claims 1-7, 22, 33, 40, 42-46 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 17/603,803 (reference application) in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in 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 because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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
Withdrawn in view of the amendments. New objections below.
Regarding the Double Patenting Rejection
Maintained and updated below as necessitated by amendment. No remarks for consideration.
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, updated below 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 ¶ 186: “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 for the newly added limitations, see how the new combination of prior art relied upon below teaches the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 2-3,5-8, 13, 17,22, 33, 40, 42-45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 42 recites a potentially ambitious subjective term of “possible” in the phrase “possible intersection layouts”, however when interpreted in view of ¶ 136 and fig. 5-6 as discussed in ¶ 136, the Examiner construes this as requiring merely that “each type of intersection will have a number of different possible block layouts for the intersection” as depicted in the figures, and suggests amending the claim to remove such ambiguous language and more positively recite the standard in ¶ 136, e.g. “a combination of intersection layouts including at least one associated intersection layout corresponding to a type of each of the intersections” or the like
Almost every single dependent claim contain the substantially the same labels/reference characters (MPEP § 608.01(m)) as the independent claims, e.g. a) and a) again – this renders the use of such labels as unclear. The Examiner suggests amending the dependents to use different labels.
The claims have 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 list of these issues:
Claim 22 “different block sequences” is previously recited but does not refer back to the prior recitation
Claim 22, limitation (g)(i-ii) recites “blocks” twice but this was previously recited
Similar at limitation (h)
Claim 40, (a-b) recites “blocks” however these appears to be intended to be distinct from the recitations in the independent. The Examiner suggests disambiguating terms, e.g. “a first set/plurality of blocks” or the like
Claim 42 is objected to as well because it recites “each intersection”, which appears to be intended in view of ¶ 136 to refer back to each of the identified intersections, but does not do so explicitly. The Examiner suggests “each of the intersections”.
Claim 43 “block layout data” was previously recited in claim 1 – the Examiner also suggests amending this to more clearly reflect its either a step before or a sub step of (a) in view of ¶ 237. To clarify, by lack of any clear connection expressly in these claims, and without the light of the specification as a guide, this creates substantial ambiguity under § 112(b)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 13, 17,22, 33, 40, 42-46 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 blocks of walls (e.g. bricks in a wall), wherein such a person readily mentally evaluates various possible layouts of the blocks, 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);”
The token post-solution activity of the block laying machine, recited in a high level of generality such that it is no more then broadly automating the manual process of a brick layer using a WURC robot (evidence below) does not integrate the abstract idea itself into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
To further clarify on the analysis of the brick laying machine, see the discussion of the scissors in the act of cutting hair in In re Brown in MPEP § 2106.05(g and f), as step (e) is akin to that additional element in In re Brown, with a purely results-oriented (MPEP § 2106.05(f) for Electric Power Group (EPG) warning about results-oriented limitations) “selecting a block sequence…so as to [achieve a desired result]” with no particular recitations in this limitation in how this desired result is to be achieved by the selection, i.e. step (d) is an abstract idea due to the high level of generality (EPG in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)) recited in the selecting, readily done as a mental process of a mental judgement with the exercise of the opinion of the person (akin to an engineer picking an assembly sequence so as to minimize the time required to assemble a Ford Model T or other such objects).
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 46 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claims 46, 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. The independent claims recite a mental process, some dependent claims add a math concept, wherein the math concept is, in some cases, recited in such generality and simple enough that a person is readily able to mentally evaluate the math with physical aids (Benson v. Gottschalk in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I and III as well as III subsection B and C).
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 mental process recited in claim 1 is:
Steps (b-d) in claim 1 recite a mental process, such as one performed by a bricklayer or a mason, e.g. in the construction of brick townhomes such as in Alexandria Virginia (wherein such homes well predate the existence of a computer), but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer.
A person, e.g. a bricklayer, is readily able to identify sequence rules for bricklaying, e.g. that bricks on the lowest course are to be laid first, and bricks on higher courses (courses being the term of art referring to a row of bricks) are to be laid on top of the first bricks (typically, as readily and commonly visually observed, each brick is laid so that its center lies at the region between the two bricks below it), wherein a person performing such a mental process would readily be able to also handle intersections, e.g. at corners of walls, a practice that long predates computers (e.g. the Pyramids of Ancient Egypt, the Walls of Constantinople, etc.).
To perform such a task repetitively to generate multiple block sequences is nothing more then a mental trial-and-error process in the planning of a building. E.g. choose one location for a cornerstone, mentally evaluate how to lay the bricks around that cornerstone; then try the cornerstone at a different location and perform a similar mental process, and repeat this process a few more times (e.g. try the cornerstone at each corner of a square, resulting in a different sequence/pattern of bricks for each cornerstone location). The selection of which one to use is merely a mental judgement, with a desired result (e.g. the bricklayer selecting the sequence that has the least movement of their hands; but broadly automating this manual task with a generic block laying machine).
Also, the Examiner notes that physical aids may readily be used in this process, e.g. using Lego bricks, or pencil and graphing paper (e.g. a sheet of translucent graphing paper for each layer of bricks, allow them to be overlaid on top of each other so as to better be mentally evaluated). Or this may be purely a mental process using a mental visualization in the persons mind, e.g. for a simple structure such as a shed or dog-house, or in the imagination of a child when playing with Legos (to clarify, the term “block” is defined in ¶ 97 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 [also called cinderblocks] , or similar” – a Lego brick is readily within the scope of this definition).
As a clarifying point on the use of physical aids, see ¶ 231 which describes the use of a “grid system” – and ¶ 232 which discusses overlaying a “wall segments” [e.g. from a floorplan] onto said grid. Such an act is readily performed by a person simply taking translucent graphing/grid paper (the grid on the paper representation the 2D grid in ¶ 231), and tracing out the walls which are to have sequences of bricks applied to it, a task that has most likely been mentally performed before, e.g. by a person building a small brick wall, and faced with the mental task of quantifying how many bricks to buy at the hardware store, so they draw plans for the wall in a detailed manner so as to tabulate the number of bricks to purchase; or since the claims readily encompass only having one course of blocks, a person forming a similar task to evaluate how many paving stones they need to create a patio, as such mental processes would be prudent to perform before actually buying the materials and then building the patio or the wall, so as to ensure that one has enough blocks.
With respect to the “exclusion zone” feature (¶ 186), this is merely conveying that the placement sequence should ensure that there is sufficient space in the sequence between bricks/blocks to allow for movement of the grasping head. This is no different then the mental process of a bricklayer in determining how to layout a sequence of bricks, and ensuring that they don’t need to crush their hands (or thumb/other fingers) or otherwise contort their hands in some unusual manner when placing the bricks/blocks, i.e. when a person mentally observes a wall/structure to be made of brick (e.g. a dog house, the USPTO headquarters façade/sidewalk, etc.), the person will presumably mentally judge/evaluate how to layout the brick/block pattern so as to ensure ease of placement, i.e. one brick after another.
E.g. in doing this with Legos, a person, e.g. a child, would readily judge that a fast, efficient, manner of building an L-shaped wall is to start with one of the two corner pieces (assuming they use rectangular blocks only), lay down a first course from that brick in one direction, then do the first course in the other direction. Then, they would alternate the sequence so as to ensuring overlapping intersections so as to ensure each course strengthens the weak spots of the courses below it. In do so, they would readily also ensure that the placement of all Lego’s is done with ease of placement for their hands.
Now suppose the person’s sibling comes along and steals a part of the wall (e.g. a middle part, let’s say 6 courses of bricks, for about 40% of one area of the wall, in a V-shape) – the simple mental solution to ensure an exclusion zone for their hand would be to replace the lowest brick first, then the next layer, then next, etc.
To just generally link such a mental task presumably routinely and long performed by humans (the Examiner noting the size of blocks historically used, e.g. the Pyramids at Giza have blocks no single human could even lift, but was built long prior to computers and the British Empire) to merely being done with a generic machine to replace the hand of a human does not make this any less abstract, furthermore people are and have long been well-equipped to do such a process mentally, and presumably have done so, for in those ancient building pre-dating computers it was common, for at least monuments (e.g. the Washington Monument in DC) to use blocks substantially larger than what any person could lift, and as such people invented mechanical contraptions such as cranes and other such machinery, long before computers were invented, so as to move and place blocks on walls. In using such machinery, people would have had to operate it, and had to account for an exclusion zone around the grasping mechanism of the crane to ensure that the crane would not be damaged during the construction.
To minimize the distance travelled is similarly readily able to be done mentally, e.g. the person first places the blocks onto stockpiles surrounding the structure, e.g. one next to each wall to be built, then the person is readily able to mentally evaluate how to sequence the blocks so as to ensure a complete build with minimal distance their hands/body would travel.
To further clarify, see Electric Power Group as cited to in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). With respect to the use of rules, also see FairWarning in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The present independent claims steps (a-d) recite nothing more then a mental process as discussed above, with mere instructions to do it on a computer, with an intended/desired result at (d) without any particularity in how this result is to be achieved (MPEP § 2106.05(f) for EPG), wherein the result to be achieved is readily accomplished by a mental judgement as discussed above.
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 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. 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 use of the electronic processing devices recited in claims 1 and 46, and the system with its similar recitations in claim 46.
Step (e) is also considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given the result-oriented nature of this limitation with no restriction on how the block laying machine is to carry out this task. See the discussion of In re Brown in MPEP § 2106.05(g and f).
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):
The “laying head of a block laying machine” in (d) is merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment wherein a generic machine is used in place of a bricklayer performing a manual task of laying bricks.
Similar rationale for the “end effector…” in limitation (a)
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
Step (a) is mere data gathering
Step (e) is a token post-solution activity of an insignificant application, akin to In re Brown in MPEP § 2106.05(g) for the cutting of hair with scissors, with a broadly claims generic machine used to do mere automation of the manual task (akin to if the cutting of hair in In re Brown was to be carried out by a generic “hair cutting machine” rather than a barber or similar professional with scissors).
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 use of the electronic processing devices recited in claims 1 and 46, and the system with its similar recitations in claim 46.
Step (e) is also considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given the result-oriented nature of this limitation with no restriction on how the block laying machine is to carry out this task. See the discussion of In re Brown in MPEP § 2106.05(g and f).
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):
The “laying head of a block laying machine” in (d) is merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment wherein a generic machine is used in place of a bricklayer performing a manual task of laying bricks.
Similar rationale for the “end effector…” in limitation (a)
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
Step (a) is mere data gathering
Step (e) is a token post-solution activity of an insignificant application, akin to In re Brown in MPEP § 2106.05(g) for the cutting of hair with scissors, with a broadly claims generic machine used to do mere automation of the manual task (akin to if the cutting of hair in In re Brown was to be carried out by a generic “hair cutting machine” rather than a barber or similar professional with scissors).
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) - this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in 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 (e) is considered WURC in view of the below evidence:
¶ 101 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 and 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 adding additional steps in the mental process of additional mental evaluations/judgments, e.g. mentally determine in a process akin to the one above an initial plan to layout the bricks of a building, then mentally evaluate the layout so as to further modify, e.g. to make better in a trial-and-error mental process, a path segment of the building, e.g. a wall.
Claim 3 adds additional mental steps, akin to the ones discussed above
Claim 4 adds additional mental steps, akin to the ones discussed above
¶ 186: “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.”; ¶ 203: “Specifically, this typically involves selecting the nearest block to the current block, unless this cannot be selected by virtue of a dependency on another block, which has not yet been placed. In this instance, the next nearest block, or the parent block in the dependency can be selected instead”, ¶ 268: “Once a next nearest block 2402 is selected dependency rules are checked at step 2020, to ensure the next nearest block 2402 can be positioned before other blocks” – a mental observation/judgement, in the process of stacking blocks on top of one-another so as to create a building
Claim 5 adds addition mental steps in the mental act of determining how to layout the block design of a building. See ¶ 272 – i.e. a person mentally first checking for the nearest brick to another brick by a mental observation (applying the closest neighbour sequence rule), and checking other nearby blocks as well
Claim 6 adds more mental steps of a mental evaluation following by another mental trial-and-error process of mental evaluations/judgments/opinions akin to the one in the independent claim
Claim 7 is merely adding more mental steps, akin to the ones discussed above.
Claim 8 is adding both mental steps and math calculations in textual form, wherein the math calculations are recited with such generality that they may readily be done mentally, or with physical aids such as pen, paper, and/or a calculator, or other aids
E.g. “calculating a path segment length…” – e.g. use a 12 inch ruler, measure the number of increments between two blocks (each increment being 12 inches), and add them together, or achieve the same result by using a tape measure of sufficient length. This is also a math calculation in textual form.
E.g. “calculating a number of closer blocks…” – mental observation of these, tabulate the results wherein the table includes an entry for each block, then add up the number of the blocks observed. This is also a math calculation in textual form.
To clarify, while the claims recite a particular mental process, it is still readily able to be performed mentally given the high level of generality in the analysis steps recited – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A): “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);” - wherein the various rules, when read in view of the disclosure, are nothing more than the simple mental rules that people, e.g. masons and bricklayers, routinely follow - ¶ 184: “The sequence rules typically specify limitations on the order in which the blocks can be positioned, known as dependencies, and can be defined based on physical limitations associated with equipment placing the blocks, and/or limitations on viable construction.”; ¶ 189: “Each block sequence specifies an order in which blocks should be placed and is generated at least in part based on the sequence rules, thereby ensuring any dependency requirements are met.”; ¶ 208: “In this regard, it will be appreciated that the first block in a sequence of an upper course should advantageously be provided proximate a final block in a sequence of a lower course,”; ¶ 220: “For example, the sequence rules could place restrictions on the order in which blocks can be positioned during the build. This could be based on dependencies, such as the need to place a parent block, before a dependent child block is positioned, or could include limitations on the supply of blocks, for example requiring that all full blocks are positioned first, or that all partial blocks are positioned sequentially”, etc. – the instant disclosure merely conveys the application of generic rules to achieve the functional effect of “viable construction”, and buildings made of bricks following such rules well predate the invention of a computer, e.g. bricks are laid in rows/courses, each course above it alternating in a manner that a brick in a higher course has its center typically above the region between two lower bricks, corners laid with a similar alternating pattern, wherein the effect of these rules is readily mentally observable in most typical brick/block construction, e.g. of the Washington Monument. As to re-working/modifying bad path segments (e.g. walls that are laid out incorrectly), this is readily a mental process, and presumably has been performed many time before, including before the invention of the computer (e.g. a mason re-working the bad work of another mason).
See FairWarning in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) # 2: “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.”
Claim 13 is merely adding more steps to the mental process, rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above.
Claim 17 is merely adding more steps to the mental process, rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above. Again, as discussed above, this is merely reciting a detailed mental trial-and-error process in the construction of a block building. While such a process may not be needed for a simple building, it would readily be able to performed for a simple building, and complex buildings following such a mental process have been built long before the advent of the computer, e.g. Vatican City, e.g. Notre Dame Cathedral, etc.
Claim 22 is adding more steps to the mental process, akin to the ones discussed above, and adding math calculations in textual form, recited in such generality that a person would readily be able to perform them using physical aids (e.g. an engineer or architect doing a cost analysis for a building to ascertain how many blocks are needed and what the cost of them is, and performing a mental trial-and-error process akin to the one above so as to minimize the cost). The additional element of the block laying robot is rejected under a similar rationale as the similar recitations in claim 1.
The feature including “using an optimization algorithm” is merely math calculations in textual form when read in view of ¶¶ 137 and 139; and is also readily performable as a mental task given that the claims recite no details on this – i.e. a person mentally performing a mental trial-and-error processes in an effort to reduce the cost of a wall by minimizing the number of blocks used. Furthermore, a computer using commonplace algorithms is readily able to be used as a tool to perform this step (see ¶ 196) 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…”
In sum, this claim, much like the claims above, merely adds more particularity to the abstract idea itself by making it a multi-step process, akin to “…“a medley of mental processes that, taken together, amount only to a multistep mental process,” such that the steps can be practically performed in the human mind, PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1316-18 (Fed. Cir. 2021).” – as discussed in the July 2024 Fed. Register notice, and the additional elements do not integrate it into a practical application nor amount to significantly more for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 33 is rejected under a similar rationale as above, i.e. it’s merely adding more steps to the mental process.
Claim 40 is merely further limiting the mental process to a generic description of what block types are to be used, which may also be considered at prong 2 and 2B (should it be found not to be abstract) as generally linking to a field of use
Claim 42 is rejected under a similar rationale as above, i.e. it’s merely adding more steps to the mental process.
Claim 43 is adding another mental step, e.g. the person, having performed the mental process, decides to create drawings of the block layout that was selected, or create a tabulated listing of the blocks to be used, or uses Legos to create a scale model of the building with the selected layout, ¶ 180 of the instant disclosure: “Otherwise, at step 948 block layout data representing the block layout for the entire building is generated, allowing this to be saved for subsequent use. In this regard the block layout data typically includes a block identifier, position and orientation data or each block in the layout, thereby allowing the block layout data to be used in downstream processes.” And in ¶ 180: “In one example, an optional representation of the block layout could be generated at step 950, allowing this to be reviewed by a user, and optionally modified as required, for example to ensure the final layout is aesthetically appealing.” – i.e. the data generated is simple enough that a person may readily review it; and ¶ 219: “The manner in which the block layout data is acquired will vary depending on how it is created, but typically this is received from CAD software that includes a plug-in, which performs the block layout design process.” – mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, wherein CAD is WURC – see ¶ 128: “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 44 is merely further limiting what data is to be gathered, wherein such data is readily mentally evaluated – e.g. blueprints for a building would have wall lengths and end points, and have been used long before the invention of the computer in a purely mental fashion
Claim 45 further limiting the mere data gathering, wherein such limitations are 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);” and “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);” , wherein CAD is WURC – see ¶ 128: “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.”
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) 1-7, 22, 33, 40, 42-46 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 of the related US application 17/603,803.
Regarding claim 1
Zaki teaches:
The preamble and step (a) – 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 [examples of block layout data]…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.” e.g. fig. 3.23 and 3.26
Step (b), but not the exclusion zone feature: Zaki, as discussed above, then see page 59, ¶ 2: “The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between courses [example of a rule that was identified and use].” – and a second example on the paragraph split between pages 60-61: “In some cases, where wall heights are not modular (multiples of the brick thickness = 200mm), mason may cut brick element horizontally with a height less that the actual height of the brick to fill in the non-modular voids on top of the wall… For the top most curve, the brick family is placed as well but this time the height parameter of the bricks for this specific ISO line is altered to take the stored value which is the difference between the highest point in the surface to the height of the wall. The output for this point can be visualized as shown in Figure 3.25.” – e.g. see fig. 3.25; also see § 3.2.4.3.2 ¶ 1: “The function of this algorithm is to stack brick for intersecting walls forming L-corners since such walls require interlocking between brick elements in each of the two intersecting walls [another rule example]” – e.g. see fig. 3.30 as discussed on page 65)
While Zaki alone does not explicitly teach the following limitations, Zaki in view of Lee teaches:
Limitation (c-d): Zaki, as discussed above, including the figures which show a block sequence was generated for each wall – to further clarify on the sequence, see page 60-61 for the “list[s]” denoted by “PntSeq” wherein “ISO lines divided by PntSeq to be used to place bricks” (fig. 3.24) – wherein “Where “Lf” is the length of the brick family + 10mm the thickness of the mortar join” – i.e. a block sequence is generated with an order as per the list (the “n” in the list) based on the sequence rules discussed above, and used to then generate the block layouts as visually depicted
Then 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 sequence per wall, e.g. fig. 4.5 visually depicts this; but Zaki does not teaching generating a plurality of such block sequences 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….”
The Examiner notes that in this combination the system of the prior art combination would have resulted in selecting a brick/block layout which minimized the number of bricks used and maximized the connectivity (Lee, as cited above). Such a layout of bricks with a minimal number of blocks and maximized connectivity between the blocks would have resulted in a layout that minimized the distance a person’s hand moved during the assembly process, because it would have reduced the number of blocks to be assembled (each block to move is another movement required by the person doing the assembly; so thus a minimal amount of blocks results in less hand movement to retrieve and place the number of blocks). In other words, this would have been a latent advantage/property of having minimized the number of blocks (MPEP § 2145 (II)) which POSITA would have readily recognized.
As a point of clarity, note the Examiner stated a person’s hand, for Bock is relied upon for the machine being used to automate the manual process below.
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 teach the use of a block laying machine in the manner claimed, this would have been taught when Zaki, in view of Lee was taken in further view of Bock:
For limitation (e) – see Zaki, in view of Lee as discussed above, as taken in further view of Bock, abstract, fig. 1, § 1 ¶ 1 and § 2 ¶ 2, then see fig. 2 and § 5.
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, in view of Lee, on a system
to generate block layouts in a CAD system 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." (Bock, abstract and § 1 ¶ 1).
An additional motivation to combine would have been that this would have been automating a manual activity - see MPEP § 2144.04(III) for In re Venner.
For (b) for the exclusion zone feature, while the combination of art cited above does not teach this, it would have been obvious when the combination above was taken in further view of Yu.
See the combination above, including the reliance on Bock. In particular, 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)
As taken in view of Yu - 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 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:
Step a: (Zaki, as was cited above for claim 1, teaches generating the block sequences for each wall of a building of Zaki using the sequence rules of Zaki, e.g. see fig. 3.25-3.6 as discussed above, and the sequence rules discussed above – to clarify on the first block sequence, see page 60 for the “PntSet” which is the sequence of blocks in one course/one Iso line to be arranged, e.g. “After constructing this sequence the item{0} is added to the point sequence as the first item [first block].”)
Step b-c: Zaki, as was discussed above for claim 1, then see 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.” 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.” – to clarify, the path segments of Zaki are the ones in which the courses of blocks are laid out on – see fig. 3.23 as discussed on page 59: “The next step is splitting the array of ISO lines per surface into two sets of array, one representing the even ISO lines and the other representing the odd ISO lines. The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between courses” – and see the detailed description which continues to page 61, including fig. 3.24: “ISO lines [as visually depicted, these are lines representing path segments for the blocks to be laid on] divided by PntSeq to be used to place bricks”
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….” – to clarify, the Examiner notes that the layers of Lee are akin to the Iso lines of Zaki, e.g. Lee § 3.2 first bullet point: “Two bricks cover each other when they are placed in two consecutive layers and are connected up and down”, e.g. § 3.1 ¶ 2: “Each brick in a layout is placed only in horizontal direction and it consists of the voxels from the same layer of the array” – i.e. in Zaki, the isolines are representing the layers “used to place bricks” (Zaki, fig. 3.24 caption), analogous to Lee’s use of layers, and Lee’s technique is to optimize “layer by layer [isoline by isoline; path segment by path segment] by considering each layer in specific order…” (Lee, § 3.2 ¶ 1) thus it would have been modifying the path segments of Zaki by optimizing the brick layout on each path segment/isoline of Zaki, and solving the problem discussed above in Zaki of “optimizing the masonry layouts to produces the least amount of wastes due to cuts and fits of the different components” (Zaki, as cited above)
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3
Zaki teaches this feature, see:
Zaki, page 60: “Each ISO line in the even list is divided by a point sequence denoted by “PntSeq” as shown in Equation 10 & 11, where the distance between each of the points are equal. So for example, if the length of the wall is 3000mm and Lf of the brick is 200 then PntSeq = {0,200,400,600,…, 3000}…After constructing this sequence the item{0} is added to the point sequence as the first item… Where “Lf” is the length of the brick family + 10mm the thickness of the mortar joint” – i.e. this places the “first item [first block]” on the isoline, determines the next nearest block to be placed in the sequence, generates a path segment extending from the block to the next nearest block (in particular, “the thickness of the mortar join” between the blocks), assigning the next nearest block to the sequence (eq. 12-13), and repeating this until all blocks are included in the sequence)
Regarding Claim 4
Zaki teaches this feature, see:
Zaki, page 60: “Each ISO line in the even list is divided by a point sequence denoted by “PntSeq” as shown in Equation 10 & 11, where the distance between each of the points are equal. So for example, if the length of the wall is 3000mm and Lf of the brick is 200 then PntSeq = {0,200,400,600,…, 3000}…After constructing this sequence the item{0} is added to the point sequence as the first item… Where “Lf” is the length of the brick family + 10mm the thickness of the mortar joint” – i.e. this places the “first item [first block]” on the isoline, determines the next nearest block to be placed in the sequence, generates a path segment extending from the block to the next nearest block (in particular, “the thickness of the mortar join” between the blocks), assigning the next nearest block to the sequence (eq. 12-13), and repeating this until all blocks are included in the sequence
With respect to dependency requirements/rules, first to clarify on the BRI see the instant disclosure ¶ 175: “More typically however the costs will include rules around dependencies of blocks, such as whether one type of block can be positioned adjacent another, alignment of blocks or joins between courses, and the like.” And ¶¶ 186-188 and ¶ 208: “As mentioned above, the sequence is generated in accordance with sequence rules, which can be used for example to embody dependencies between the blocks. In another example, sequence rules can be dependent on a block sequence of an adjacent block course.” - e.g. see Zaki, page 59: “The next step is splitting the array of ISO lines per surface into two sets of array, one representing the even ISO lines and the other representing the odd ISO lines. The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between course [example of dependency requirement/rule being satisfied]”
Regarding Claim 5
Zaki teaches this feature, see: Zaki, page 60: “Each ISO line in the even list is divided by a point sequence denoted by “PntSeq” as shown in Equation 10 & 11, where the distance between each of the points are equal. So for example, if the length of the wall is 3000mm and Lf of the brick is 200 then PntSeq = {0,200,400,600,…, 3000}…After constructing this sequence the item{0} is added to the point sequence as the first item… Where “Lf” is the length of the brick family + 10mm the thickness of the mortar joint” – i.e. this places the “first item [first block]” on the isoline, determines the next nearest/closest neighbour block to be placed in the sequence, generates a path segment extending from the block to the next nearest block (in particular, “the thickness of the mortar join” between the blocks), assigning the next nearest block to the sequence (eq. 12-13), and repeating this until all blocks are included in the sequence
With respect to dependency requirements/rules, first to clarify on the BRI see the instant disclosure ¶ 175: “More typically however the costs will include rules around dependencies of blocks, such as whether one type of block can be positioned adjacent another, alignment of blocks or joins between courses, and the like.” And ¶¶ 186-188 and ¶ 208: “As mentioned above, the sequence is generated in accordance with sequence rules, which can be used for example to embody dependencies between the blocks. In another example, sequence rules can be dependent on a block sequence of an adjacent block course.” - e.g. see Zaki, page 59: “The next step is splitting the array of ISO lines per surface into two sets of array, one representing the even ISO lines and the other representing the odd ISO lines. The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between course [example of dependency requirement/rule being satisfied, wherein the second course has the closest neighbor rule being overridden by the dependency rule]” – i.e. page 60: “for the odd list…After constructing this sequence the item{0} is added to the point sequence as the first item.”
Regarding Claim 6
Zaki in view of Lee teaches this feature, see:
Steps a-b: Zaki, as was discussed above for claim 1, then see 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.” 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.” – to clarify, the path segments of Zaki are the ones in which the courses of blocks are laid out on – see fig. 3.23 as discussed on page 59: “The next step is splitting the array of ISO lines per surface into two sets of array, one representing the even ISO lines and the other representing the odd ISO lines. The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between courses” – and see the detailed description which continues to page 61, including fig. 3.24: “ISO lines [as visually depicted, these are lines representing path segments for the blocks to be laid on] divided by PntSeq to be used to place bricks”
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….” – to clarify, the Examiner notes that the layers of Lee are akin to the Iso lines of Zaki, e.g. Lee § 3.2 first bullet point: “Two bricks cover each other when they are placed in two consecutive layers and are connected up and down”, e.g. § 3.1 ¶ 2: “Each brick in a layout is placed only in horizontal direction and it consists of the voxels from the same layer of the array” – i.e. in Zaki, the isolines are representing the layers “used to place bricks” (Zaki, fig. 3.24 caption), analogous to Lee’s use of layers, and Lee’s technique is to optimize “layer by layer [isoline by isoline; path segment by path segment] by considering each layer in specific order…” (Lee, § 3.2 ¶ 1) thus it would have been modifying the path segments of Zaki by optimizing the brick layout on each path segment/isoline of Zaki, and solving the problem discussed above in Zaki of “optimizing the masonry layouts to produces the least amount of wastes due to cuts and fits of the different components” (Zaki, as cited above)
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7
Zaki, in view of Lee teaches this feature:
Steps a-b: Zaki, as was taken in view as discussed above for claim 6, wherein Lee § 3.2 discusses: “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…The score is defined in a way that maximizing the score of the arrangements may lead to minimizing the penalty of the entire layout. Note that the score is defined on an arrangement of a brick, and the penalty is defined on the entire layout. The score is a weighted sum of three factors, and the factors used are as follows…. Cover factor is used to increase the connectivity. Two bricks cover each other when they are placed in two consecutive layers and are connected up and down. Having more connection with the other bricks may increase the connectivity of the layout, and a perpendicular connection may provide more chance of connection to the others. We therefore count the number of covered bricks and use it as a cover factor, and the score is doubled when bricks are perpendicular.” – wherein a low cover factor would indicate a bad path segments as a low cover factor would indicate that the path segment on that layer has a greater distance to a number of closer neighboring blocks (the covering/connected blocks on other layers
to further clarify, § 4.1 ¶ 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.” – i.e. the system would modify bad paths so as to improve the cover factor factor, e.g. § 4.3 ¶ 2: “One way is to split blocks near the boundary of the connected components. If a solution is not connected and there exists more than one connected component, we define the space that divides the bricks into multiple connected components to be the boundary of the components. To connect the divided parts, we have to merge adjacent bricks that are from the different components into a single brick.”)
The rationale is the same as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22.
Zaki, in view of Lee, teaches this feature (in particular, the Examiner notes the use of “and/or” at the end of limitation (h), i.e. only a single one of these is required)
Step (a): (Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above for claim 1, incl. 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”)
Step b and b(i), and again note “and/or” at (b)(v): Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above for claim 1, incl. 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”; note the “at least one of” in this limitation; for the cost see § 3.2: “The score is defined in a way that maximizing the score of the arrangements may lead to minimizing the penalty of the entire layout. Note that the score is defined on an arrangement of a brick, and the penalty is defined on the entire layout. The score is a weighted sum of three factors, and the factors used are as follows…” – also, note another “at least one of” for this listing
The other subparts of limitation (b): Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above for claim 1, incl. 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”; note the “at least one of” in this limitation; for the cost see § 3.2: “The score is defined in a way that maximizing the score of the arrangements may lead to minimizing the penalty of the entire layout. Note that the score is defined on an arrangement of a brick, and the penalty is defined on the entire layout. The score is a weighted sum of three factors, and the factors used are as follows…Cover factor is used to increase the connectivity. Two bricks cover each other when they are placed in two consecutive layers and are connected up and down [example of a cost associated with dependency]…Size factor is used to increase the efficiency. The total number of bricks may decrease if larger bricks are used each time [example of a cost associated with block type changes]. Moreover, using a larger brick may provide more chance of connection to the bricks in the above and below layers…”
Step b, sub step vi: (Zaki, as was discussed above for the sequence rules, as taken in view of Lee § 3.2 as discussed above which has costs associated with the sequence rules discussed in Lee, in particular note in Zaki page 59, ¶ 2: “The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between courses [example of a rule that was identified and use].” And § 3.2.4.3.2 ¶ 1: “The function of this algorithm is to stack brick for intersecting walls forming L-corners since such walls require interlocking between brick elements in each of the two intersecting walls [another rule example]” – and see Lee, for the “Cover factor” cost: “Cover factor is used to increase the connectivity. Two bricks cover each other when they are placed in two consecutive layers and are connected up and down. Having more connection with the other bricks may increase the connectivity of the layout, and a perpendicular connection may provide more chance of connection to the others. We therefore count the number of covered bricks and use it as a cover factor, and the score is doubled when bricks are perpendicular.”
Step c: Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above for claim 1, in particular 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” – also see § 4: “In this section, we propose a genetic algorithm to solve the brick layout problem by evolving the solutions.” – and § 4.2
Step e and sub step i (Zaki, as cited above – in particular, see Zaki pages 59-61 which discuss the generation of a first candidate block sequence, and 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.” )
Step e and sub step ii for 1-3: Zaki, as taken in view of Lee as discussed above, in particular in 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…The order of the voxels and layers considered may affect the quality of the solution. We tried both a heuristic ordering and a randomized ordering. Since the heuristic ordering was not significantly better than the randomized ordering in the experiment, we choose the latter one. It was also reported that using randomness in the ordering may consistently produce a good solution [12].” – to clarify, § 4.1 ¶ 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.”)
Step (e) sub step iii - Zaki, as taken in view of Lee as discussed above, in particular in 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…” and see in § 3.: “The score is defined in a way that maximizing the score of the arrangements may lead to minimizing the penalty of the entire layout. Note that the score is defined on an arrangement of a brick, and the penalty is defined on the entire layout. The score is a weighted sum of three factors, and the factors used are as follows...” – to clarify, § 4.1 ¶ 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.”)
Step (e) sub step iii, sub step 1 and its sub steps a-c (note the and/or) Zaki, pages 59-62 as discussed above, including in particular page 60 which generates two “point sequences” for the blocks to be placed on, wherein this includes distances for “the thickness of the mortar join” and sequence rules as discussed above, and the results for all courses are shown in fig. 3.25-3.27
Step (e) sub step iii, sub step 2 and its sub steps a-b (note the and/or)
Zaki, as taken in view of Lee as discussed above, in particular in 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…The order of the voxels and layers considered may affect the quality of the solution. We tried both a heuristic ordering and a randomized ordering. Since the heuristic ordering was not significantly better than the randomized ordering in the experiment, we choose the latter one. It was also reported that using randomness in the ordering may consistently produce a good solution [12].” – to clarify, § 4.1 ¶ 1: “Given a brick layout, we can create several new solutions by splitting some [note the “some”, i.e. some selected blocks, including a selected block] bricks and merging them again with various orders and various combinations.”)
Limitation f: Zaki, page 59: “The next step is splitting the array of ISO lines per surface into two sets of array, one representing the even ISO lines and the other representing the odd ISO lines. The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between courses”
Limitation i Zaki, pages 59-62 as discussed above – there are multiple courses in the sequences as visually depicted and discussed above; for the different types see the last paragraph on page 60 then see page 61 and fig. 3.25)
Regarding Claim 33.
Zaki, in view of Lee, teaches (and again, note the “and/or” at limitation (c))
Limitation c
Zaki, as discussed above on pages 59-62 for the candidate block sequence; as was taken in view Lee, as discussed above, including Lee abstract and § 3.2 ¶¶ 1-2: “…The score is defined in a way that maximizing the score of the arrangements may lead to minimizing the penalty of the entire layout. Note that the score is defined on an arrangement of a brick, and the penalty is defined on the entire layout. The score is a weighted sum of three factors, and the factors used are as follows….” And § 4.1 ¶ 1)
Limitation d
Zaki, as taken in view of Lee as discussed above, in particular in 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…” and see in § 3.: “The score is defined in a way that maximizing the score of the arrangements may lead to minimizing the penalty of the entire layout. Note that the score is defined on an arrangement of a brick, and the penalty is defined on the entire layout. The score is a weighted sum of three factors, and the factors used are as follows...”
then see in § 4.2: “We implemented a 3000-generation steady-state GA with
the following operators” – and see algorithm 1 in § 4.2, i.e. this is 3000 total iterations performed)
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 40.
Zaki in view of Lee teaches:
A method according to claim 33, wherein the different block types include at least one of: a) blocks for internal walls; b) blocks for external walls; (Zaki, fig. 4.5 shows there are blocks for both internal and external walls)
c) full blocks; d) quarter blocks; e) half blocks; and, f) three quarter blocks. (Zaki, as was taken in view of Lee as discussed above, 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 42.
Zaki, in view of Lee teaches:
A method according to claim 1, further comprising:
a) acquiring plan data indicative of a construction plan; b) identifying walls and intersections within the construction plan; c) identifying a number of available intersection layouts for each intersection; and (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)
d) generating different block layouts, each block layout including: i) a combination of intersection layouts including a possible intersection layout for each intersection; ii) at least one wall layout for each wall generated based on the combination of intersection layouts; and, e) wherein the selecting the block sequence includes selecting one of the different block layouts. (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….”
Regarding Claim 43.
Zaki, in view of Lee teaches this: Zaki, fig. 3.26 provides a visual example of “The output from the brick stacker algorithm, showing the brick stacker build definition (right)” which this visualization is an example of generated block layout data)
Regarding Claim 44.
Zaki teaches:
A method according to claim 42, wherein the plan data is indicative of 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 45.
Zaki teaches this feature: 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 46.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 1, wherein Zaki teaches:
A system for designing a block sequence for use in placing blocks during construction, the system including one or more electronic processing devices configured to: (Zaki, abstract)
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.
Claims 1-7, 22, 33, 40, 42-46 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 17/603,803 (reference application) in view of Lee, “Finding an Optimal LEGO® Brick Layout of Voxelized 3D Object Using a Genetic Algorithm”, 2015 in 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 because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claim 1 is an obvious variant of co-pending claims 1 and 8 (note in particular, limitations (a) and (g-h) in the co-pending claim 8; further note in co-pending claim 8 limitation (c) and its sub limitations, most particularly (1-4). Instant claim 46 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 1, wherein there is an additional obvious variation of statutory category.
As to instant limitation (b), see (g) in the co-pending for an obvious variant.
There is a distinction that is not merely an obvious variant, which is in instant claim 1 the recitation of “so as to minimize a distinct travelled by a laying head of a block laying machine”.
This distinction would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 8 were taken in view of Lee and Zaki, in particular, see:
Limitation (d): The limitation of co-pending claim 8 substantially similar as the instant limitation (d), taken in view of Zaki, abstract, and § 3.2.4.3.1 inclduing pages 57 and 62, then § 3.2.3.2 ¶ 1, also § 3.2.4.2.1 and fig. 3.23 and 3.26; then see page 59 ¶ 2 and the paragraph split between pages 60-61, also see fig. 3.25 and § 3.2.4.3.2, then fig. 3.30 on page 65 – in particular see the figures which show a block sequence was generated for each wall – to further clarify on the sequence, see page 60-61 for the “list[s]” denoted by “PntSeq” wherein “ISO lines divided by PntSeq to be used to place bricks” (fig. 3.24) – wherein “Where “Lf” is the length of the brick family + 10mm the thickness of the mortar join” – i.e. a block sequence is generated with an order as per the list (the “n” in the list) based on the sequence rules discussed above, and used to then generate the block layouts as visually depicted
Then 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 sequence per wall, e.g. fig. 4.5 visually depicts this; but Zaki does not teaching generating a plurality of such block sequences 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 further 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….”
The Examiner notes that in this combination the system of the co-pending claimed invention in view of the prior art combination would have resulted in selecting a brick/block layout which minimized the number of bricks used and maximized the connectivity (Lee, as cited above). Such a layout of bricks with a minimal number of blocks and maximized connectivity between the blocks would have resulted in a layout that minimized the distance a person’s hand moved during the assembly process, because it would have reduced the number of blocks to be assembled (each block to move is another movement required by the person doing the assembly; so thus a minimal amount of blocks results in less hand movement to retrieve and place the number of blocks). In other words, this would have been a latent advantage/property of having minimized the number of blocks (MPEP § 2145 (II)) which POSITA would have readily recognized.
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 the co-pending claimed invention, with the teachings from Zaki on “the development of a wall-assembly model that can automatically generate full virtual constructions of masonry walls in BIM to include all the wall-assembly details” (Zaki, abstract) The motivation to combine would have been that “…The model could be used for easy extraction of fully detailed shopdrawings, detailed material quantity takeoff for effective procurement plans and for checking modular design issues to minimize wastes in cutting and fitting of the different wall components… 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)
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)
Regarding the dependent claims:
Regarding Claim 2
While the co-pending claims 1 and 8 do not recite the following features, these would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 8 were taken in view of Zaki and Lee:
Step a: (Zaki, as was cited above for claim 1, teaches generating the block sequences for each wall of a building of Zaki using the sequence rules of Zaki, e.g. see fig. 3.25-3.6 as discussed above, and the sequence rules discussed above – to clarify on the first block sequence, see page 60 for the “PntSet” which is the sequence of blocks in one course/one Iso line to be arranged, e.g. “After constructing this sequence the item{0} is added to the point sequence as the first item [first block].”)
Step b-c: Zaki, as was discussed above for claim 1, then see 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.” 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.” – to clarify, the path segments of Zaki are the ones in which the courses of blocks are laid out on – see fig. 3.23 as discussed on page 59: “The next step is splitting the array of ISO lines per surface into two sets of array, one representing the even ISO lines and the other representing the odd ISO lines. The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between courses” – and see the detailed description which continues to page 61, including fig. 3.24: “ISO lines [as visually depicted, these are lines representing path segments for the blocks to be laid on] divided by PntSeq to be used to place bricks”
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….” – to clarify, the Examiner notes that the layers of Lee are akin to the Iso lines of Zaki, e.g. Lee § 3.2 first bullet point: “Two bricks cover each other when they are placed in two consecutive layers and are connected up and down”, e.g. § 3.1 ¶ 2: “Each brick in a layout is placed only in horizontal direction and it consists of the voxels from the same layer of the array” – i.e. in Zaki, the isolines are representing the layers “used to place bricks” (Zaki, fig. 3.24 caption), analogous to Lee’s use of layers, and Lee’s technique is to optimize “layer by layer [isoline by isoline; path segment by path segment] by considering each layer in specific order…” (Lee, § 3.2 ¶ 1) thus it would have been modifying the path segments of Zaki by optimizing the brick layout on each path segment/isoline of Zaki, and solving the problem discussed above in Zaki of “optimizing the masonry layouts to produces the least amount of wastes due to cuts and fits of the different components” (Zaki, as cited above)
Regarding Claim 3
While the co-pending claims 1 and 8 do not recite the following features, these would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 8 were taken in view of Zaki and Lee:
Zaki, page 60: “Each ISO line in the even list is divided by a point sequence denoted by “PntSeq” as shown in Equation 10 & 11, where the distance between each of the points are equal. So for example, if the length of the wall is 3000mm and Lf of the brick is 200 then PntSeq = {0,200,400,600,…, 3000}…After constructing this sequence the item{0} is added to the point sequence as the first item… Where “Lf” is the length of the brick family + 10mm the thickness of the mortar joint” – i.e. this places the “first item [first block]” on the isoline, determines the next nearest block to be placed in the sequence, generates a path segment extending from the block to the next nearest block (in particular, “the thickness of the mortar join” between the blocks), assigning the next nearest block to the sequence (eq. 12-13), and repeating this until all blocks are included in the sequence)
Regarding Claim 4
While the co-pending claims 1 and 8 do not recite the following features, these would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 8 were taken in view of Zaki and Lee:
Zaki, page 60: “Each ISO line in the even list is divided by a point sequence denoted by “PntSeq” as shown in Equation 10 & 11, where the distance between each of the points are equal. So for example, if the length of the wall is 3000mm and Lf of the brick is 200 then PntSeq = {0,200,400,600,…, 3000}…After constructing this sequence the item{0} is added to the point sequence as the first item… Where “Lf” is the length of the brick family + 10mm the thickness of the mortar joint” – i.e. this places the “first item [first block]” on the isoline, determines the next nearest block to be placed in the sequence, generates a path segment extending from the block to the next nearest block (in particular, “the thickness of the mortar join” between the blocks), assigning the next nearest block to the sequence (eq. 12-13), and repeating this until all blocks are included in the sequence
With respect to dependency requirements/rules, first to clarify on the BRI see the instant disclosure ¶ 175: “More typically however the costs will include rules around dependencies of blocks, such as whether one type of block can be positioned adjacent another, alignment of blocks or joins between courses, and the like.” And ¶¶ 186-188 and ¶ 208: “As mentioned above, the sequence is generated in accordance with sequence rules, which can be used for example to embody dependencies between the blocks. In another example, sequence rules can be dependent on a block sequence of an adjacent block course.” - e.g. see Zaki, page 59: “The next step is splitting the array of ISO lines per surface into two sets of array, one representing the even ISO lines and the other representing the odd ISO lines. The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between course [example of dependency requirement/rule being satisfied]”
Regarding Claim 5
While the co-pending claims 1 and 8 do not recite the following features, these would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 8 were taken in view of Zaki and Lee:
Zaki, page 60: “Each ISO line in the even list is divided by a point sequence denoted by “PntSeq” as shown in Equation 10 & 11, where the distance between each of the points are equal. So for example, if the length of the wall is 3000mm and Lf of the brick is 200 then PntSeq = {0,200,400,600,…, 3000}…After constructing this sequence the item{0} is added to the point sequence as the first item… Where “Lf” is the length of the brick family + 10mm the thickness of the mortar joint” – i.e. this places the “first item [first block]” on the isoline, determines the next nearest/closest neighbour block to be placed in the sequence, generates a path segment extending from the block to the next nearest block (in particular, “the thickness of the mortar join” between the blocks), assigning the next nearest block to the sequence (eq. 12-13), and repeating this until all blocks are included in the sequence
With respect to dependency requirements/rules, first to clarify on the BRI see the instant disclosure ¶ 175: “More typically however the costs will include rules around dependencies of blocks, such as whether one type of block can be positioned adjacent another, alignment of blocks or joins between courses, and the like.” And ¶¶ 186-188 and ¶ 208: “As mentioned above, the sequence is generated in accordance with sequence rules, which can be used for example to embody dependencies between the blocks. In another example, sequence rules can be dependent on a block sequence of an adjacent block course.” - e.g. see Zaki, page 59: “The next step is splitting the array of ISO lines per surface into two sets of array, one representing the even ISO lines and the other representing the odd ISO lines. The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between course [example of dependency requirement/rule being satisfied, wherein the second course has the closest neighbor rule being overridden by the dependency rule]” – i.e. page 60: “for the odd list…After constructing this sequence the item{0} is added to the point sequence as the first item.”
Regarding Claim 6
While the co-pending claims 1 and 8 do not recite the following features, these would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 8 were taken in view of Zaki and Lee:
Steps a-b: Zaki, as was discussed above for claim 1, then see 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.” 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.” – to clarify, the path segments of Zaki are the ones in which the courses of blocks are laid out on – see fig. 3.23 as discussed on page 59: “The next step is splitting the array of ISO lines per surface into two sets of array, one representing the even ISO lines and the other representing the odd ISO lines. The reason for this splitting is to facilitate the generation of the running bond pattern, where the first course starts with a full-length brick and the second course starts with a half-length brick then an overlap of a half brick between courses” – and see the detailed description which continues to page 61, including fig. 3.24: “ISO lines [as visually depicted, these are lines representing path segments for the blocks to be laid on] divided by PntSeq to be used to place bricks”
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….” – to clarify, the Examiner notes that the layers of Lee are akin to the Iso lines of Zaki, e.g. Lee § 3.2 first bullet point: “Two bricks cover each other when they are placed in two consecutive layers and are connected up and down”, e.g. § 3.1 ¶ 2: “Each brick in a layout is placed only in horizontal direction and it consists of the voxels from the same layer of the array” – i.e. in Zaki, the isolines are representing the layers “used to place bricks” (Zaki, fig. 3.24 caption), analogous to Lee’s use of layers, and Lee’s technique is to optimize “layer by layer [isoline by isoline; path segment by path segment] by considering each layer in specific order…” (Lee, § 3.2 ¶ 1) thus it would have been modifying the path segments of Zaki by optimizing the brick layout on each path segment/isoline of Zaki, and solving the problem discussed above in Zaki of “optimizing the masonry layouts to produces the least amount of wastes due to cuts and fits of the different components” (Zaki, as cited above)
Regarding Claim 7
While the co-pending claims 1 and 8 do not recite the following features, these would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 8 were taken in view of Zaki and Lee:
Steps a-b: Zaki, as was taken in view as discussed above for claim 6, wherein Lee § 3.2 discusses: “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…The score is defined in a way that maximizing the score of the arrangements may lead to minimizing the penalty of the entire layout. Note that the score is defined on an arrangement of a brick, and the penalty is defined on the entire layout. The score is a weighted sum of three factors, and the factors used are as follows…. Cover factor is used to increase the connectivity. Two bricks cover each other when they are placed in two consecutive layers and are connected up and down. Having more connection with the other bricks may increase the connectivity of the layout, and a perpendicular connection may provide more chance of connection to the others. We therefore count the number of covered bricks and use it as a cover factor, and the score is doubled when bricks are perpendicular.” – wherein a low cover factor would indicate a bad path segments as a low cover factor would indicate that the path segment on that layer has a greater distance to a number of closer neighboring blocks (the covering/connected blocks on other layers
to further clarify, § 4.1 ¶ 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.” – i.e. the system would modify bad paths so as to improve the cover factor factor, e.g. § 4.3 ¶ 2: “One way is to split blocks near the boundary of the connected components. If a solution is not connected and there exists more than one connected component, we define the space that divides the bricks into multiple connected components to be the boundary of the components. To connect the divided parts, we have to merge adjacent bricks that are from the different components into a single brick.”)
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding Claim 22
Instant claim 22 an obvious variant of co-pending claim 8. To clarify, note in claim 22 “and/or” at limitation (h), i.e. only one of these limitations listed out is required.
In the co-pending claim 8, see limitations (a-b) for the iteratively generating then the selecting steps in (a-b) – in the instant claim 22, see limitation (c). These limitations are obvious variations of each other.
Regarding Claim 33.
While the co-pending claims 1 and 8 do not recite the following features, these would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 8 were taken in view of Zaki and Lee:
Limitation c
Zaki, as discussed above on pages 59-62 for the candidate block sequence; as was taken in view Lee, as discussed above, including Lee abstract and § 3.2 ¶¶ 1-2: “…The score is defined in a way that maximizing the score of the arrangements may lead to minimizing the penalty of the entire layout. Note that the score is defined on an arrangement of a brick, and the penalty is defined on the entire layout. The score is a weighted sum of three factors, and the factors used are as follows….” And § 4.1 ¶ 1)
Limitation d
Zaki, as taken in view of Lee as discussed above, in particular in 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…” and see in § 3.: “The score is defined in a way that maximizing the score of the arrangements may lead to minimizing the penalty of the entire layout. Note that the score is defined on an arrangement of a brick, and the penalty is defined on the entire layout. The score is a weighted sum of three factors, and the factors used are as follows...”
then see in § 4.2: “We implemented a 3000-generation steady-state GA with
the following operators” – and see algorithm 1 in § 4.2, i.e. this is 3000 total iterations performed)
Regarding Claim 40.
The co-pending claimed invention, in view of Lee, teaches:
A method according to claim 33, wherein the different block types include at least one of: a) blocks for internal walls; b) blocks for external walls; c) full blocks; d) quarter blocks; e) half blocks; and, f) three quarter blocks. (Co-pending claim 8, for its recitation of “generating different block sequences…based on the sequence rules…selecting one of the block sequences…”
As was taken in view of Lee, abstract, §§ 3.1-3.2 and 4.1 ¶1 as discussed above, wherein § 3.1 ¶ 2 states: “We only use the regular bricks of size 1×n and 2×n, where n is either 1, 2, 4, 6, or 8.” And § 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”
Instant claim 42 is an obvious variant of co-pending claims 1 and 8 as read in ordered combination, as being a substantial duplicate thereof (limitation of “iteratively generating block layouts using different combinations of intersection block layouts; and,” in claim 8 is not recited in the present claim 42; as well as limitations “selecting one of the iteratively generated block layouts and at least one of: i) generating layout data using selected block layout(s);”).
Instant claim 43 is an obvious variant of by co-pending claim 8 by its recitation of “generating layout data using selected block layouts”.
Instant claim 44 is an obvious variant of co-pending claim 8 – the copending claim 1 recites: “acquiring plan data indicative of a construction plan;” and the preamble recites that this is “for designing block layouts for use in block placement during construction” – POSITA would regularly find it obvious that such a construction plan would be for constructing a building, e.g. an obvious variant of a construction plan would be a blueprint or similar such well-known and long-used schematic that has walls lengths and end points indicated.
Regarding claim 45
While the co-pending claims 1 and 8 do not recite the following features, these would have been obvious when the co-pending claims 1 and 8 were taken in view of Zaki and Lee:
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.”
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