METHOD FOR DETERMINING A TOPOLOGY OF A DEFINED BOUNDED SURFACE FOR DEWATERING SAID SURFACE

§101 §103

DETAILED ACTION Claims 1, 3, 6-11, and 13-19 are presented for examination. This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on September 10, 2026. Rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter is maintained. Rejection of claims 3, 13, and 18-19 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas and Zipp is maintained. Rejection of claims 1, 6-9, 14, and 16 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas and Zipp is maintained. Rejection of claims 10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas, Zipp, and Wacenske is maintained. Rejection of claims 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas, Zipp, and Arau is maintained. 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 Regarding rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-11, and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101: Applicant first asserts that the claims involve a practical application. To support the assertion, Applicant cites to 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update, which recite that the claims must be evaluated “as a whole.” See, e.g., Response at pg. 9. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the guidance. Applicant asserts that “determining a topology of a surface that is a roof surface and defined bounded for dewatering the surface…” is directed to “a practical application related to dewatering a roof surface,” Response at pg. 9, emphasis added. While Examiner agrees that the limitation is “related” to dewatering a surface, it does not actually result in a dewatered surface (which may, depending on how it is claimed, direct the claim to patentable subject matter). Instead, the limitation requires only that the topology be determined regardless of the reasons why it is determined (in this case, the reason is “dewatering a surface”). Thus, the claim is not directed to the practical application of “dewatering a surface”). Applicant further contends that the claim “enables more efficient, simple, and less error-prone determining of a topology….” Response at pg. 10. However, regardless of whether the claimed invention performs these acts, the claim does not include features that necessary result in a more efficient process, a process that is simpler (e.g., requires less time, uses less computing power), or reduce any potential errors. Thus, not only is the claim not directed to a practical application, it does not recite a technological improvement. First, Step 2A of the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is divided into two separate evaluation steps: Prong 1 and Prong 2. While Applicant argues that, under Prong 2, the claims as a whole integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application, the MPEP recites that, at Step 2A, Prong 2, the inquiry is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” See, e.g., Figure at MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). “Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”); 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.”). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible.” MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2). Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), e.g. There are no other additional elements (i.e., non-judicial exception elements) in the claim and the judicial exceptions cannot furnish the inventive concept. In McRO, DDR, Basom, and the USPTO Examples, this is the same analysis. In those instances, the eligibility stems from additional elements and not the judicial exceptions present in the claims. Accordingly, the claim is not significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Applicant next asserts that the claims recite significantly more than the claims abstract idea. However, “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Because the only additional element is the recitation of generic computer components, which does not amount to significantly more, the claimed abstract ideas cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas that are claimed, even in combination. Accordingly, Examiner is not persuaded by the asserted arguments and therefore, the rejection is maintained. Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite additional elements that are not abstract ideas, thereby including limitations that may integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more that the recited judicial exceptions. Accordingly, rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-11, and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. Regarding rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103: Applicant first asserts that Bauder does not teach “dividing the surface into individual surface elements having equal square base area,” as recited in amended claim 1. However, the reference discloses: “each with a plurality of identical sloped panels made of an insulating material, wherein the sloped panels have flat, square base surfaces,” Bauder at [0001], and further “The valley leveling plate 20, which can also consist of an insulating material, has a flat base surface 22 and a flat cover surface 24 in the form of isosceles triangles, which essentially correspond to the diagonally halved base surface 12 of the slope plate 10.” Bauder at [0033]. The claim recites “dividing the surface into individual surface elements having equal square base area, each surface element having at least one plane.” Examiner contends that this is precisely what is performed in Bauder’s process. First, the roof is divided into squares, as in FIG. 5. And then, in the design process, the upper surface of one or more squares is divided with each portion angled differently. Although the final product may not have a square base, the process of dividing up the roof is disclosed as dividing into “sloping plates that have a square base.” Portions cited by Applicant are not related to generating the shape of the plates (the same process that is recited in the present claim 1) but in constructing the surface once the shapes of the tiles have been determined. Applicant next asserts that “Bauder fails to show a drainage point in the first place.” Examiner disputes two aspects of this argument. First, as is illustrated in FIG. 6, the slopes of the plates are between one or more higher points and a low point, which Examiner analogies to a dewatering point. Examiner contends that a point where water drains (i.e., a location where water from dewatered surfaces collects) can be considered a dewatering point. Applicant’s disclosure does not give a definition of a “dewatering point” that is any different than what Examiner has asserted. Further, FIG. 6 of Bauser bears a striking resemblance to FIG. 8-10 of the present Specification. However, just as in Bauder, Applicant’s figures do not point out what is considered the “drainage point,” but it is obvious from the description and figures that the “dewatering point” is some point that is the intended destination for runoff to accumulate and drain1. Thus, in the case of both the present invention and Bauder, the intention is to construct a roof surface that prevents pooling of water on the surface. In both instances, the destination of the water is a “dewatering point.” If the assertion of the Applicant is that Bauder does not disclose a mechanism for removing the water from the dewatering point, Examiner further disagrees. First, it does not appear from Applicant’s disclosure that an actual drain is located at the dewatering point. Conversely, Bauder does disclose such a feature: “In addition to thermal insulation of the building, such sloped insulation also serves the purpose of ensuring effective drainage of the flat roof by allowing rainwater to flow along the slope towards a gutter or drain opening.” Bauder at [0003]. With regards to the combination of Bauder and Douglas, Examiner disagrees that the two references are not analogous art. First, Douglas is not asserted as teaching “wherein a magnitude and/or direction of the throat slope of the at least one surface element is determined as a function of slopes of surface elements adjacent in a diagonal direction, the first direction, and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction,” as alleged by Applicant. In fact, the reference explicitly indicates the opposite. See Office Action at pg. 20. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find ample motivation to combine the references. As indicated in the Office Action, the two references have overlapping disclosures, see Office Action at pg. 19. Further, Douglas is primarily asserted with regards to claim 1 as teaching “A computer implemented method,” which it does in relation to creating a topology for a roof. Further, the classifications of the references and/or present application have no bearing on an interpretation of the actual disclosure. The classification of the present application is not finalized and can change before issuance. Further, the classification is not representative of the entirety of the application and/or patent and is primarily related to what is claimed, not necessarily disclosed. Thus, matching classifications would indicate similarity on contents of two applications/patents, but non-matching classifications do not indicate complete dissimilarity. Regardless, the present invention and the reference are both related to sloping roofs that aid in drainage. One discloses peaks and the other discloses valleys (i.e., throats) but both generally design sloping topologies to reduce water pooling in at least a portion of a roof. In regard to Zipp, Examiner acknowledges that the reference does not explicitly teach an invention that utilizes a “throat slope.” However, the reference is not used to teach that part of the claim. Further, the Examiner disagrees and points Applicant to MPEP 2123. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. (MPEP 2123) While stating that Zipp’s invention does not use throat slope, in no way does the disclosure criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Accordingly, rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-11, and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained for at least the same reasons as previously asserted and with the same prior art. Examiner further acknowledges the incorrect citation to Arau.2 The current Action properly indicates that the reference is German App. No. 102010023259. 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, 3, 5-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are more than a judicial exception. Claim 1 Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification): Claim 1 Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1 Computer-implemented method for determining a topology of a surface that is a roof surface and defined bounded for dewatering the surface using at least one specified dewatering point, wherein the topology is determined by dividing the surface into individual surface elements having equal square base area, each surface element having at least one plane; starting from the at least one specified dewatering point, successively determining in each of the at least one plane for each surface element a slope in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction in order to form the surface with the monotonically increasing slope starting from the at least one dewatering point to a collision point; wherein a throat slope is determined for at least one surface element, among the surface elements, directly adjacent to the at least one specified dewatering point, each of the at least one surface element comprises at least two planes, wherein surface normals of the at least two planes intersect; and wherein a magnitude and/or direction of the throat slope of the at least one surface element is determined as a function of slopes of surface elements adjacent in a diagonal direction, the first direction, and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. Abstract Idea: Mental Process Determining a topology is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind with pencil and paper and/or with the aid of a generic computer (e.g., using a CAD program to construct the topology). See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. Abstract Idea: Mental Process Dividing a surface into separate elements is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind with pencil and paper and/or with the aid of a generic computer. For example, a human can review an image of a surface and select one or more sections of the surface as elements of the surface. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concepts Determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concept Determining a throat slope is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. Additionally, selecting which surface element to perform the calculations on is a mental step that can be performed by a human. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification): Claim 1 Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2 Computer-implemented method for determining a topology of a surface that is a roof surface and defined bounded for dewatering the surface using at least one specified dewatering point, wherein the topology is determined by dividing the surface into individual surface elements each having equal square base area, each surface element having at least one plane; starting from the at least one specified dewatering point, successively determining in each of the at least one plane for each surface element a slope in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction in order to form the surface with the monotonically increasing slope starting from the at least one dewatering point to a collision point; wherein a throat slope is determined for at least one surface element, among the surface elements, directly adjacent to the at least one specified dewatering point, each of the at least one surface element comprises at least two planes, wherein surface normals of the at least two planes intersect; and wherein a magnitude and/or direction of the throat slope of the at least one surface element is determined as a function of slopes of surface elements adjacent in a diagonal direction, the first direction, and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), e.g.. Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The only additional element that is not an abstract idea is recitation of a generic computer, which courts have found to be insignificantly more that the recited judicial exception. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 3 Claim 3 recites wherein the at least two planes of the at least one surface element having the throat slope implement a recess in a diagonal direction along each of the at least one surface element. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. The claim does not include any additional elements and therefore does not add significantly more to the claimed abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 6 Claim 6 recites wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having the throat slope, in that the slope of a plane of the surface element is determined as monotonically increasing or decreasing in the first direction and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. The claim merely specifies which surface element is utilized to perform the determining step of claim 1. Determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 7 Claim 7 recites wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having a determined slope. The claim merely specifies which surface element is utilized to perform the determining step of claim 1. Determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 8 Claim 8 recites wherein a slope for a surface element, adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having a determined slope, is determined as the throat slope, wherein the surface element having the slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction perpendicular to the first direction comprises at least one collision point. The claim categorizes the slope as a particular type of slope, which is a mental process that can be performed by human and requires observation and evaluation to determine if a slope conforms to the requirements of a throat slope. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 9 Claim 9 recites wherein the slope of a plane of a surface element having a slope in the direction of at least one collision point is determined as a slope offset from the collision point by 900. Determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 10 Claim 10 recites wherein for a plane of a surface element adjacent to another surface element having a determined slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the slopes are each aligned toward each other, a flat slope is determined, wherein the slope of the plane is zero, wherein the magnitude of the slope is equal to the magnitude. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. The claim does not include any additional elements and therefore does not add significantly more to the claimed abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 11 Claim 11 recites wherein a ridge slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having a throat slope, and adjacent in the diagonal direction to another surface element having a determined slope, wherein the at least two planes of the surface element intersect and/or are inclined in the opposite direction of the slope of the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. The claim does not include any additional elements and therefore does not add significantly more to the claimed abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 11 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 13 Claim 13 recites wherein for a surface element in which two slopes are perpendicular to each other in different directions, a ridge slope is determined. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 14 Claim 14 recites wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction and/or in a diagonal direction to at least two surface elements having the throat slope directly adjacent to each other in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of a point in each case, a slope is determined, wherein the surface normal of the surface element is parallel to the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 15 Claim 15 recites wherein for a surface element present between two surface elements each having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of a point in each case, a flat slope is determined, wherein the magnitude of the slope is determined to be the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 16 Claim 16 recites wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the diagonal direction to another surface element having a determined throat slope and/or adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having a determined flat slope, wherein the surface element has a surface normal inclined in the same direction as a surface normal of the another surface element having the determined throat slope. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 17 Claim 17 recites wherein for a surface element adjacent to one surface element having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, one ridge slope is determined, wherein the one surface element has at least two planes that intersect. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 18 Claim 18 recites wherein for a surface element directly adjacent to at least three surface elements having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, a ridge slope is determined; wherein surface normals of the at least three surface elements intersect with the throat slope; wherein a surface normal of the surface element having the ridge slope does not intersect the surface normals of the at least three surface elements having the throat slope. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 19 Claim 19 recites wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in a diagonal direction to a surface element having the throat slope, a slope is determined; wherein the surface element having the throat slope comprises at least one collision point in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction; wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of the collision point and the slope is monotonically increasing or decreasing along the collision point. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder, et al., (European Patent No. 3339530, hereinafter “Bauder”) in view Douglas (U.S. Patent No. 5,663,882) and Zipp, et al., (German Patent No. DE4124109A1). Claim 1 Bauder discloses: determining a topology of a surface that is a roof surface and defined bounded for dewatering the surface using at least one specified dewatering point,3 It has long been known to form thermal insulation layers on flat roofs of buildings with a slope. In addition to thermal insulation of the building, such sloped insulation also serves the purpose of ensuring effective drainage of the flat roof by allowing rainwater to flow along the slope towards a gutter or drain opening. Bauder at [0003]. The “drain hole” is analogous to a “dewatering point.” See also FIG. 6, labeled below. dividing the surface into individual surface elements See FIG. 6, below, illustrating nine “individual surface elements.” [surface elements] having equal square base area, each surface element having at least one plane; each with a plurality of identical sloped panels made of an insulating material, wherein the sloped panels have flat, square base surfaces. Bauder at [0001]. The valley leveling plate 20, which can also consist of an insulating material, has a flat base surface 22 and a flat cover surface 24 in the form of isosceles triangles, which essentially correspond to the diagonally halved base surface 12 of the slope plate 10. Bauder at [0003]. Along the hypotenuse, the second ridge compensation plate 40 has a height of ΔH and at the intersection point of the legs (or opposite the hypotenuse) a height of theoretically zero (as shown in the figure), in practice e.g. of up to 1.5 cm (at ΔH = 3 cm). As illustrated in FIG. 1, the sloping plate 10. has a square base 12. PNG media_image1.png 398 574 media_image1.png Greyscale In FIG. 2, the triangular plate has a slope and two of the triangular plates, when abutted at the lower sides, forms a square (See FIG. 1, above). Further, although the triangle in FIG. 2 is not shown as having a base 12, the disclosure indicates that a base (which would be a square when the two triangles are abutted) may be present. starting from the at least one specified dewatering point, successively determining in each of the at least one plane for each surface element a slope in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction in order to form the surface with the monotonically increasing slope starting from the at least one dewatering point to a collision point; See FIG. 6, labeled below, wherein slopes are increasing (monotonically) from the dewatering point to the collision point. wherein a throat slope is determined for at least one surface element, among the surface elements, directly adjacent to the at least one specified dewatering point, each of the at least one surface element comprises at least two planes, wherein surface normals of the at least two planes intersect; See FIG. 6, labeled below, with the “planes” of the surface element nearest the dewatering point having slopes with intersecting normals. Figures 5 and 6 schematically show the production of a thermal insulation layer on a flat roof, wherein two areas of the thermal insulation layer adjoin each other along a valley, using a system according to the invention. This system comprises several series, each with a plurality of identical gradient panels made of an insulating material, corresponding to the gradient panel 10 shown in Figure 1. The figures show three consecutive series, the gradient plates of which are labelled 1, 2 and 3 in ascending order of height. The system further comprises a plurality of identical throat compensating plates, designated K, which correspond to the throat compensating plate 20 shown in Figure 2. Bauder at [0037]. PNG media_image2.png 413 436 media_image2.png Greyscale Bauder does not appear to disclose: Computer-implemented method wherein a magnitude and/or direction of the throat slope of the at least one surface element is determined as a function of slopes of surface elements adjacent in a diagonal direction, the first direction, and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. Douglas, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses: Computer-implemented method In satisfaction of the foregoing objects and advantages, the present invention discloses a method of making a roofing cricket comprising the steps of first generating a plurality of cricket component shapes, each cricket component shape specifying the dimensions thereof and corresponding to a respective cricket component. The plurality of cricket component shapes, when assembled, form the roofing cricket. Once the desired cricket component shapes are generated, preferably via computer aided drafting, a material is selected along with a cutting machine. Douglas at col. 2, lines 13-20. for determining a topology of a defined bounded surface for dewatering said surface using at least one specified dewatering point , so that the surface has a monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to a collision point4, It is well known in the art to use structures or "crickets" on flat roofing surfaces to divert or direct water in a particular direction or to a particular location or area, e.g., a drain. The cricket shape depends on the particular flat roof configuration it is being installed on and whether there are any other upstanding structures of the like on the roof which must interface with the cricket. Douglas at col. 1, lines 11-17. See also FIG. 2, labeled below. “Drain” is analogous to a “dewatering point.” PNG media_image3.png 233 254 media_image3.png Greyscale Douglas is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to determining slopes of a surface from a high point to a drain. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the computer implementation of Douglas with the slope determination techniques of Bauder to result in a computer-implemented method for determining slopes of a surface from a high point to a drainage point. Motivation to combine includes automating at least a portion of the process of determining slopes, thereby reducing human error that could be introduced into the design if a computing device were not used to determine the slopes. Douglas does not explicitly disclose: wherein a magnitude and/or direction of the throat slope of the at least one surface element is determined as a function of slopes of surface elements adjacent in a diagonal direction, the first direction, and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. Zipp, which is analogous art, discloses: wherein a magnitude and/or direction of the throat slope of the at least one surface element is determined as a function of slopes of surface elements adjacent in a diagonal direction, the first direction, and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. For gradient elements with a rectangular base plan, a square base plate with a flat surface is provided in the area of the inlet, around which the rectangular gradient elements are arranged in a bond so that four gradients are created, each directed perpendicular to the base plate. It is unavoidable that in the valley areas (running diagonally to the base plate) individual gradient elements with their bevelled side surfaces rest against the rectangular end faces of adjacent elements, resulting in steps in the gradient. In order to avoid having to rework such steps, the gradient is limited to a maximum of 2% for the usual dimensions of these elements of 1000× 500 mm. Zipp at [0005]. See also FIG. 4, wherein elements A are adjacent to elements B, with the slope of B contingent on the slope of A. See also element C, which is diagonal to element A, with a slope contingent on element A: PNG media_image4.png 474 734 media_image4.png Greyscale Zipp is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to constructing a sloping roof from separate elements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the blocks disclosed in Zipp to construct the roofing assembly disclosed in Bauder. Motivation to combine includes improved construction sturdiness by utilizing the standardized blocks of Zipp as opposed to performing the board cutting procedures disclosed in Douglas. Claim 3 Bauder and Douglas do not explicitly disclose: wherein the at least two planes of the at least one surface element having the throat slope implement a recess in a diagonal direction along each of the at least one surface element. Zipp discloses: wherein the at least two planes of the at least one surface element having the throat slope implement a recess in a diagonal direction along each of the at least one surface element. FIG. 7 illustrates a “throat slope” that extends along a diagonal of the “surface element.” PNG media_image5.png 266 305 media_image5.png Greyscale Claim 6 Bauder discloses: wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having the throat slope, in that the slope of a plane of the surface element is determined as monotonically increasing or decreasing in the first direction and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. See, e.g., FIG. 6, wherein the “adjacent surface element” has a slope in the same direction as the “surface element,” which is analogous to “monotonically increasing and/or decreasing.” PNG media_image6.png 385 434 media_image6.png Greyscale Claim 7 Bauder discloses: wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having a determined slope. See FIG. 6, wherein the “adjacent surface element” that is adjacent to the “surface element” has a corresponding slope: PNG media_image7.png 385 503 media_image7.png Greyscale Claim 8 Bauder discloses: wherein a slope for a surface element, adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having a determined slope, is determined as the throat slope, wherein the surface element having the slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction perpendicular to the first direction comprises at least one collision point. See FIG. 6, wherein the “adjacent surface element” has a throat and has a “collision point”: PNG media_image8.png 446 484 media_image8.png Greyscale Claim 9 Bauder discloses: wherein the slope of a plane of a surface element having a slope in the direction of at least one collision point is determined as a slope offset from the collision point by 90⁰. See FIG. 6, wherein the labeled “plane” has a slope offset from the “collision point” by 90 degrees. PNG media_image9.png 413 436 media_image9.png Greyscale Claim 13 Bauder and Douglas do not appear to disclose: wherein for a surface element in which two slopes are perpendicular to each other in different directions, a ridge slope is determined. Zipp discloses: wherein for a surface element in which two slopes are perpendicular to each other in different directions, a ridge slope is determined. See FIG. 6, wherein a “ridge surface element” is illustrated and includes two perpendicular planes: PNG media_image10.png 347 315 media_image10.png Greyscale Claim 14 Bauder discloses: wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction and/or in a diagonal direction to at least two surface elements having the throat slope directly adjacent to each other in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of a point in each case, a slope is determined, wherein the surface normal of the surface element is parallel to the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope. See FIG. 6, wherein the “surface element” has a slope that is parallel to the slopes of one of the surfaces of the “throat surface elements,” which are both adjacent to the “surface element.” PNG media_image11.png 446 464 media_image11.png Greyscale Claim 16 Bauder discloses: wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the diagonal direction to another surface element having a determined throat slope and/or adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having a determined flat slope, wherein the surface element has a surface normal inclined in the same direction as a surface normal of the another surface element having the determined throat slope. See FIG. 6, wherein the surface element has a determined slope in the same direction as the throat surface elements: PNG media_image12.png 446 464 media_image12.png Greyscale Claim 18 Bauder and Douglas do not appear to disclose: wherein for a surface element directly adjacent to at least three surface elements having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, a ridge slope is determined; wherein surface normals of the at least three surface elements intersect with the throat slope; wherein a surface normal of the surface element having the ridge slope does not intersect the surface normals of the at least three surface elements having the throat slope. Zipp discloses: wherein for a surface element directly adjacent to at least three surface elements having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, a ridge slope is determined; wherein surface normals of the at least three surface elements intersect with the throat slope; wherein a surface normal of the surface element having the ridge slope does not intersect the surface normals of the at least three surface elements having the throat slope. See FIG. 8, which illustrates a ridge surface element (labeled) that is adjacent to four throat surface elements (above, below, and to the right and left). PNG media_image13.png 311 451 media_image13.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the roofing configuration of Bauder with the roofing configuration of Zipp to result in a configuration that includes internal corners as illustrated in FIG. 8. Motivation to combine includes allowing for additional types of roof shapes, thereby improving the usability of the resulting system. Claim 19 Bauder and Douglas do not appear to disclose: wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in a diagonal direction to a surface element having the throat slope, a slope is determined; wherein the surface element having the throat slope comprises at least one collision point in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction; wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of the collision point and the slope is monotonically increasing or decreasing along the collision point. Zipp discloses: wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in a diagonal direction to a surface element having the throat slope, a slope is determined; wherein the surface element having the throat slope comprises at least one collision point in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction; wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of the collision point and the slope is monotonically increasing or decreasing along the collision point. See FIG. 8 (with labels added). Surface Element 1 has a throat slope and is adjacent to the collision point. The throat slope is monotonically increasing from the dewatering point to the collision point. A side that includes the collision point is monotonically decreasing. Surface Element 2 is diagonally adjacent to Surface Element 1 and has a determined slope. PNG media_image14.png 376 538 media_image14.png Greyscale Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas, Zipp, and further in view of Wacenske (U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0024376). Claim 10 Bauder, Douglas, and Zipp do not appear to disclose: wherein for a plane of a surface element adjacent to another surface element having a determined slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the slopes are each aligned toward each other, a flat slope is determined, wherein the slope of the plane is zero, wherein the magnitude of the slope is equal to the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude. Wacenske, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses: wherein for a plane of a surface element adjacent to another surface element having a determined slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the slopes are each aligned toward each other, a flat slope is determined, wherein the slope of the plane is zero, wherein the magnitude of the slope is equal to the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude. See FIG. 2, wherein the “plane” is adjacent and aligned to a “surface element having a slope.” The “plane” is flat (i.e., a slope of zero) and the height of the “plane” is the same as the height of the higher side of the “adjacent element” (i.e., “the slope is equal to the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude”). PNG media_image15.png 360 484 media_image15.png Greyscale Wacenske is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to drainage solutions for roofs with a drainage (“dewatering”) point. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the flat roofing areas of Wacenske with the sloped roofing areas of Bauder and Douglas to result in a system that includes flat roofing elements in addition to sloped roofing elements. Motivation to combine includes reducing construction resources by not requiring each rooking element to be constructed with a slope and including at least some flat elements, which are less complex to construct. Claim 15 Bauder discloses: wherein for a surface element present between two surface elements each having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of a point in each case, See FIG. 6, illustrating a surface element between two adjacent surface elements with throat slopes monotonically increasing to a point: PNG media_image12.png 446 464 media_image12.png Greyscale Bauder, Douglas, and Zipp do not appear to disclose: a flat slope is determined, wherein the magnitude of the slope is determined to be the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude. Wacenske discloses: a flat slope is determined, wherein the magnitude of the slope is determined to be the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude. See FIG. 2, wherein the surface element is flat and has a height (analogous to “slope”) that is the same as the higher end of the sloped Element. PNG media_image16.png 360 484 media_image16.png Greyscale Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas, Zipp, and further in view of Arau (DE 102010023259). Claim 11 Bauder, Douglas, and Zipp do not appear to disclose: wherein a ridge slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having a throat slope, and adjacent in the diagonal direction to another surface element having a determined slope, wherein the at least two planes of the surface element intersect and/or are inclined in the opposite direction of the slope of the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. Arau discloses: wherein a ridge slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the first direction and/or the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to another surface element having a throat slope, and adjacent in the diagonal direction to another surface element having a determined slope, wherein the at least two planes of the surface element intersect and/or are inclined in the opposite direction of the slope of the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. See FIG. 26, illustrating a “ridge surface element” adjacent to a “throat surface element” and diagonal to a “slope surface element.” At least one of the planes of the ridge surface elements is inclined an opposite direction from the throat surface element. PNG media_image17.png 396 625 media_image17.png Greyscale Arau is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to drainage solutions for roofs using sloping elements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a slope configuration as disclosed in Arau as one or more surface elements of the roof configuration disclosed in Bauder. Motivation to combine includes producing a roof that both improves drainage as well as includes photovoltaic elements, thereby increasing the versatility of the resulting roof elements. Claim 17 Bauder, Douglas, and Zipp do not appear to disclose: wherein for a surface element adjacent to one surface element having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, one ridge slope is determined, wherein the one surface element has at least two planes that intersect. Arau discloses: wherein for a surface element adjacent to one surface element having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, one ridge slope is determined, wherein the one surface element has at least two planes that intersect. See FIG. 26, wherein adjacent surface elements are a ridge slope surface element and a throat slope surface element. PNG media_image18.png 396 625 media_image18.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Pat. No. 4,014,145 U.S. Pat. No. 6,415,570 U.S. Pat. No. 5,222,337 Communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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. JOSEPH MORRIS Examiner Art Unit 2188 /JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188 /RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188 1 Also explicitly taught in Douglas. 2 Applicant appears to be mistaken regarding the Applicant and Inventor of this reference. “Anmelder” translates to “Applicant” and “gleich Anmelder,” the entry for Inventor, translates to “Same as Applicant.” Accordingly, the reference is correctly attributed to Arau. 3 Also taught by Douglas (see citation and analysis, below) 4 Also disclosed by Bauder, see above.