DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Claim 20 has been amended in response to the previously set forth objection and submits the rejection is now moot.
The amendment is satisfactory to overcome the objection and is accordingly withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant has amended the independent claims in response to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and submits that the claims, as amended, require a multi-step validation workflow that is not taught or suggested by the art, wherein the independent claims recite multiple newly-added limitations. The applicant submits specifically that the cited prior art does not disclose “storing connection types in a library with attached ranges of applicability defining permissible geometric characteristics and member end forces “ and “sequentially validating connection types from that library against filtered connection nodes” or “conditionally generating a connection only upon satisfaction of both geometric and force constraints defined by those ranges”.
The arguments made by the applicant recite language that is not reflective of that explicitly given within the claims. The claims do not require the storage of connection types in a library with attached ranges of applicability defining permissible geometric characteristics and member end forces, as argued by the applicant. The claim, rather, explicitly requires “for each filtered connection node, sequentially validate[s] connection types in a selected library of connections against ranges of applicability attached to the connection types, the ranges of applicability defining permissible geometric characteristics and member end forces”. These limitations are disclosed by Lederman, wherein a library of available connections types is given (¶72) and an iterative process is performed to compare the appropriateness of connection types according to spatial and loading constraints (¶57). Furthermore, contrary to applicant arguments, Lederman discloses the generation of connections subsequent to the engineering process, whereby the engineering process iteratively modifies the connection details until satisfaction of the given constraints (¶63-67) which sufficiently covers the limitation of “generates and places a connection at a filtered connection node only when the ranges of applicability of a validated connection type match both geometric characteristics of the filtered connection node and member end forces associated with the steel elements at the filtered connection node;”.
The applicant further argues that the cited combination would require substantial redesign to introduce a stored library of connection types with attached ranges of applicability, iterative validation of connection types for each filtered connection node, and conditional generation only upon satisfaction of geometric and force constraints. The applicant further submits that the rejection appears to rely on hindsight reconstruction using the applicant’s disclosure as a blueprint.
Examiner submits that no substantial redesign would be necessary to meet such features because the primary reference discloses those features, as given above. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The cited prior art further provides a sufficient motivation to modify the references in such a way to arrive at the claimed invention, regardless of the differing problems solved by each of the disclosures, as given in the rejection of this action. Peticila teaches the utilization of Dynamo scripting to enable automated workflows for steel connections in design by leveraging modular scripts which can be stored, edited, and re-used. Lederman also describes the disclosed methodology can be implemented as an add-in utility for any steel structural modeling program. Peticila discloses a scripting utility within a package that can be utilized in conjunction with BIM modeling software. Therefore, both the method described by Lederman and the package disclosed by Peticila are both intended for utilization within a modeling software environment. By applying the claimed program functionality of automated engineering and detailing of joints in a steel structure as disclosed by Lederman into a re-usable and modular script in Dynamo as disclosed by Peticila, one would arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified the prior art references in this way because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art references would have led one having skill in the art to make the modification in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Peticila demonstrates that the utilization of scripts further enhance automation for structural engineers by enabling automated workflows and further touts the benefits of such workflows for ensuring consistency between designer parties and for being able to reduce the time required for creating more detailed models. In order to further enhance automated capabilities of Lederman, it would have accordingly been obvious to modify Lederman with the features of Peticila.
For the reason stated in this response, in conjunction with the updated rejection of this office action, the claims remain rejected over the prior art.
Statutory Subject Matter Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The claims have been further amended to incorporate features which the applicant claims encompass a computer implemented workflow for operating on structured digital objects which are allegedly not reflective of analyzing or judging such as in a mental process. Particularly, the applicant argues that a human may conceptually analyze a structure but cannot practically perform iterative validation across a library of connection types, retrieval of associated ranges of applicability, comparison against structured geometric and force data for each node in a 3D model, and autonomously updating a parametric BIM environment are not mental processes.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the described features upon which applicant relies, as given above, are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations within the claims recite language that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do cover tasks which can be practically performed in the human mind or using assistive aids. For example, grouping structural elements into potential connection nodes based on intersection and relative position can be performed in the human mind because a person can reasonably evaluate intersection and relative positioning data so as to make a judgement as to how to categorize, or as claimed- ‘group structural elements’ together. There are no restrictions in the claim limitation that limit the grouping of elements into their potential nodes such that the limitation cannot be performed practically in the human mind or using assistive aids. Likewise, a human being can mentally evaluate geometric criteria so as to create a filtered subset of connection nodes- such as by making a judgement on which connection nodes satisfy the criteria. Furthermore, a human being can perform a validation of connection types in a given library by making evaluations and judgements of the connection types compared to the ranges of applicability in a sequential order. There are no limitations which prohibit a human being from performing such a step. Finally, a human being can generate and place a connection at a filtered location based on the evaluation of the ranges of applicability given per the claim using a pen and paper as assistive physical aids. That is- a human being can make a judgement per the evaluation criteria and write down a point at which elements should be connected according to the criteria on a piece of paper. The mechanisms by which generation and placement of the connection, nor the description of what a connection node entails are not distinguished in the claims such that the claimed limitations could not be performed practically in the human mind.
The applicant further argues that any recited exceptions are integrated into a practical application because the claims operate within a BIM modeling environment, generate and place connection objects within a digital 3D model, modify the BIM data structure, and enable storage and reuse of scripts and connection libraries across different BIM models. Applicant states that the claims do not merely use a computer to perform a mental process faster but rather that the claims provide a specific implementation that improves automated connection generation within BIM systems by introducing a structured, repeatable, library-based validation architecture. Applicant submits that the improvement provided by the claim is to the functioning of the BIM-based modeling process itself which would not be achievable through manual drafting alone.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the BIM-based modeling process is not claimed in any inventive capacity. Rather, the modeling mechanisms appear to be functioning in any expected and normal capacity. What the applicant appears to be arguing as the inventive concept is rooted in an allegedly unique generation/objection creation of a connection node. However, the mechanisms by which a connection node is generated or placed is not claimed in a particular way that is beyond human capacity. The claim uses generically-recited computer functions of scripting and storage computer functions to automate such a task in the given BIM environment.
Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “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.” . As such, automating what could be a manual process in a computing environment with a BIM as the technological environment by which the exception is applied does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The specification clearly states that the design of modeling of steel connections is traditionally done by human beings, and particular emphasis is drawn to the fact that calculations necessary for steel connection placement and the steel connection placement itself is performed by a human being. ((Specification, ¶4-5) " Unfortunately, design and modeling of steel connections can be time consuming for structural engineers, steel detailers, or anyone else involved in the design/construction process. More specifically, specific steel connections need to be placed in specific positions based on complex calculations and team member preferences. In the prior art, a structural engineer performs the calculations and the modeling is either done by the same structural engineer or a person that relies on instructions coming from the structural engineer. In this regard, each steel connection is manually placed into a BIM model while taking into consideration the calculations, preferences, etc. The creation and placement of such steel connections and transitioning from LOD 300 to LOD 400 can take ten times (I Ox) the amount of time than performing the modeling work to build LOD 200 steel models (i.e., simply modeling the columns and beams). In view of the above, it is desirable to automate the placement of steel connections that takes into consideration both the structural engineering specifications and information/preferences from other project team members (e.g., fabricators or other team members that have preferences that need to be considered during the BIM automation process)."). Such statements made by the applicant are admissions that the claimed invention is the mere automation of an existing process. MPEP 2106.05(f)((2) plainly states that the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity being used to perform an existing process does not provide a practical application for the recited judicial exceptions.
Applicant argues that the ordered combination of grouping, filtering, sequential validation, and conditional autonomous object generation has not been shown by to be well-understood, routine, or conventional by any cited evidence.
As stated previously, and within the updated rejection of this action, these limitations of the claims are that which can be construed as a mental process. The inventive concept cannot be provided by the judicial exception. Only additional elements, either alone or in combination with the judicial exception can provide the inventive concept. Even if the particular ordering of the steps construed as mental process was relevant in considering the inventive concept of the claim, the inventive concept would then still only be provided by the judicial exception. This would not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. As discussed in this rejection, the additional elements, both alone and within the ordered combination, of the claim do not provide any sort of inventive concepts because the claim appears to be using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task which can be performed in the human mind.
For the reasons given in this response, in conjunction with the updated rejection of this action, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to include additional features.
The specification has been evaluated for adequate support for the newly-added limitations. Sufficient support for the claimed matter has been found in at least ¶81 of the present specification. Examiner submits that no new matter has been introduced by way of amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 27-28, “a selected library of connections” is recited. In line 37, “a library of connections” is recited as being stored. It is unclear if these elements are meant to be distinct from one another or are referring to the same entity. Additional ambiguity as to which element is being referred to by “the library” are introduced in line 2 of claim 4, lines 1-2 of claim 5, and lines 3 and 5 of claim 7. It is unclear whether “the library” in the dependent claims refers to the selected library as given in lines 27-28 of claim 1 or refers to the stored library as given by line 37 of claim 1- or alternatively if this interpretation would be invalid because the intent is that the elements refer to the same entity. Examiner recommends revising to distinguish the introductions of a library in claim 1 such that it is apparent what is being referred to by the corresponding claims. Although claims 2, 8, 9, and 10 do not introduce additional indefiniteness regarding this claim element, they are rejected for their incorporation of ambiguity from claim 1.
Claim 11 and its mirrored dependent claims containing limitations such as those given in claims 4, 5, and 7 (which would be claim 11’s dependents 14, 15, and 17) are rejected for the same rationale as given above for the same ambiguity and indefiniteness issues cited. Although claims 12, 18, 19, and 20 do not introduce additional indefiniteness, they are rejected for their incorporation of ambiguity from claim 11.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10 are directed to a computer-implemented method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
performing a structural analysis of a structure of the design intent model, wherein: The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the design intent model to derive conclusions. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. When read in light of the specification, ¶29, 94, the structural analysis is performed by structural analysis software. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
the structural analysis generates structural analysis output; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail drawing conclusions based on the evaluation of the structural analysis. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
defining, via a user interface, one or more rules that associate a potential connection with a structural steel profile, wherein the rules together with a script dictate where one or more connections should be placed; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail determining and describing limitations to be imposed between a potential connection and a structural steel profile so as to enable determination of connection placement. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim limitation recites the usage of a user interface and scripts to enable the mental process, wherein a user interface and script are understood to be generic computing components. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
defining, via the user interface, the script that identifies where the one or more connections should be placed, and wherein the script The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail determining and describing the steps to be taken in the form of a script so as to enable determination of connection placement. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim limitation recites the usage of a user interface and script to enable the mental process, wherein a user interface and script are understood to be generic computing components. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifies, in the structural steel profile, one or more second geometric characteristics of the potential connection The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the structural steel profile to form a judgment on one or more geometric characteristics for a potential connection. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifies, in the structural steel profile, one or more forces for one or more of the steel elements to be connected via the potential connection; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the structural steel profile to form a judgment on one or more forces for one or more of the steel elements to be connected via the potential connection. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
groups structural elements of the design intent model into potential connection nodes based on element intersection and relative position; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing an evaluation of the element intersection and relative positioning so as to make a judgement as to how to categories the elements of the design intent model into potential connection nodes. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
filters the potential connection nodes based on geometric criteria to produce filtered connection nodes; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating geometric criteria so as to make a judgement as to the potential connection nodes by which to further evaluate. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
for each filtered connection node, sequentially validates connection types in a selected library of connections against ranges of applicability attached to the connection types, the ranges of applicability defining permissible geometric characteristics and member end forces; and – This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing a sequential validation or evaluation of connection types against ranges of applicability, wherein the ranges define permissible geometric characteristics and member end forces. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
generates and places a connection at a filtered connection node only when the ranges of applicability of a validated connection type match both geometric characteristics of the filtered connection node and member end forces associated with the steel elements at the filtered connection node; This limitation can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the ranges of applicability for a validated connection type with regard to geometric characteristics and member end forces, and making a judgement as to the representative node and its corresponding placement. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by evaluating mentally the ranges of applicability and making a decision by where such a representative entity of the connection should be placed. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
selecting the stored script; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment and choice of the stored script. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
selecting the stored library; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment and choice of the stored library. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
acquiring a design intent model, wherein: - This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering.
the design intent model comprises a building information model (BIM) of a skeleton of a building; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
the design intent model is without connections between steel elements; and- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it specifies additional information about the design intent model so as to link the judicial exception to a particular field of use of steel structure connections.
the design intent model comprises the steel elements having first geometric characteristics; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it specifies additional information about the design intent model so as to link the judicial exception to a particular field of use to include the use of steel elements.
the structural analysis output comprises forces at one or more intersections of the steel elements; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it specifies additional information about the structural analysis so as to link the judicial exception to a particular field of use of steel structure connections.
running the script, wherein the script autonomously updates the BIM model with the one or more connections generated and placed. - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because utilization of a script to perform the update of the model is merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process
storing the script and a library of connections; - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
running the script on a different BIM model, wherein the script autonomously updates the different BIM model based on the selected stored script and selected stored library of connections.- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the use of a script to perform the update of the model based on stored information is merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process
The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims appear to be using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to execute a series of mental processes related to the particular field of use of steel structural connection optimization.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
acquiring a design intent model, wherein – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, acquiring a design intent model encompasses receiving data over a network or retrieving information in memory. Both of these computer functions have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely a generic manner, which is the case for this limitation.
storing the script and a library of connections; - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation encompasses storing information in memory. The courts have recognized this computer functionality as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner, such as in this instance.
The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry and specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception; adding mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception itself.
Therefore, with the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11:
Step 1: Claim 11 and its dependent claims12-20 are directed to a computer-implemented system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
performing a structural analysis of a structure of the design intent model, wherein: The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the design intent model to derive conclusions. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. When read in light of the specification, ¶29, 94, the structural analysis is performed by structural analysis software. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
the structural analysis generates structural analysis output; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail drawing conclusions based on the evaluation of the structural analysis. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
defining, via a user interface, one or more rules that associate a potential connection with a structural steel profile, wherein the rules together with a script dictate where one or more connections should be placed; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail determining and describing limitations to be imposed between a potential connection and a structural steel profile so as to enable determination of connection placement. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim limitation recites the usage of a user interface and scripts to enable the mental process, wherein a user interface and script are understood to be generic computing components. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
defining, via the user interface, the script that identifies where the one or more connections should be placed and wherein the script: The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail determining and describing the steps to be taken in the form of a script so as to enable determination of connection placement. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim limitation recites the usage of a user interface and script to enable the mental process, wherein a user interface and script are understood to be generic computing components. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifies, in the structural steel profile, one or more second geometric characteristics of the potential connection; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the structural steel profile to form a judgment on one or more geometric characteristics for a potential connection. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifies, in the structural steel profile, one or more forces for one or more of the steel elements to be connected via the potential connection; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the structural steel profile to form a judgment on one or more forces for one or more of the steel elements to be connected via the potential connection. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
groups structural elements of the design intent model into potential connection nodes based on element intersection and relative position; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing an evaluation of the element intersection and relative positioning so as to make a judgement as to how to categories the elements of the design intent model into potential connection nodes. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
filters the potential connection nodes based on geometric criteria to produce filtered connection nodes; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating geometric criteria so as to make a judgement as to the potential connection nodes by which to further evaluate. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
for each filtered connection node, sequentially validates connection types in a selected library of connections against ranges of applicability attached to the connection types, the ranges of applicability defining permissible geometric characteristics and member end forces; and – This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing a sequential validation or evaluation of connection types against ranges of applicability, wherein the ranges define permissible geometric characteristics and member end forces. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
generates and places a connection at a filtered connection node only when the ranges of applicability of a validated connection type match both geometric characteristics of the filtered connection node and member end forces associated with the steel elements at the filtered connection node; This limitation can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the ranges of applicability for a validated connection type with regard to geometric characteristics and member end forces, and making a judgement as to the representative node and its corresponding placement. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by evaluating mentally the ranges of applicability and making a decision by where such a representative entity of the connection should be placed. The limitation is recited as being performed by a script, which is recognized as a generic computing component. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
selecting the stored script; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment and choice of the stored script. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
selecting the stored library; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment and choice of the stored library. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a computer having a memory; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because utilization of a computer with memory is merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.
a processor executing on the computer; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because utilization of a processor executing on the computer is merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.
the memory storing a set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising: - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because utilization of instructions stored on memory executed by the processor, wherein the instructions contain the judicial exception is merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.
acquiring a design intent model, wherein: This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering.
the design intent model comprises a building information model (BIM) of a skeleton of a building; -This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it specifies additional information about the design intent model so as to link the judicial exception to a particular field of use of BIM modeling
the design intent model is without connections between steel elements; and- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it specifies additional information about the design intent model so as to link the judicial exception to a particular field of use of steel structure connections.
the design intent model comprises the steel elements having first geometric characteristics; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it specifies additional information about the design intent model so as to link the judicial exception to a particular field of use to include the use of steel elements.
the structural analysis output comprises forces at one or more intersections of the steel elements; - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because it specifies additional information about the structural analysis so as to link the judicial exception to a particular field of use of steel structure connections.
running the script, wherein the script autonomously updates the BIM model with the one or more connections generated and placed. - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because utilization of a script to perform the update of the model is merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process
storing the script and a library of connections; -This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
running the script on a different BIM model, wherein the script autonomously updates the different BIM model based on the selected stored script and selected stored library of connections. -This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the use of a script to perform the update of the model based on stored information is merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process
The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims appear to be using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to execute a series of mental processes related to the particular field of use of steel structural connection optimization.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
acquiring a design intent model, wherein – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, acquiring a design intent model encompasses receiving data over a network or retrieving information in memory. Both of these computer functions have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely a generic manner, which is the case for this limitation.
storing the script and a library of connections; - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation encompasses storing information in memory. The courts have recognized this computer functionality as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner, such as in this instance.
The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry and specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception; adding mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception itself.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 2 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 2 additionally recites the limitations the structural analysis is performed by structural analysis software; and. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, the claim recites the additional element results of the structural analysis are imported from the structural analysis software which has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
Under Step 2B, limitations identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) are further evaluated. The limitation results of the structural analysis are imported from the structural analysis software encompasses, under broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses transmitting and receiving data over a network or storing and retrieving information in memory. The courts have recognized this computer functionality as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry and specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception; and adding mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception itself. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 4 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein the connections in the library are based on one or more standards. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1, and dependent claim 4 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 5 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the library comprises an expanded library created by expanding a predefined library that is based on the standards. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 7
Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 7 additionally recites the limitations selecting the library, which can reasonably be read to entail choosing a library based on a judgment as to what is appropriate for the application. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim also recites autonomously comparing all of the potential connections in the library to the design intent model and structural analysis output; and which can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the potential connections in the library to the design intent model and structural analysis output. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim further recites the limitation autonomously generating and placing, based on the comparing, the multiple different types of potential connections on the BIM model at the applicable intersections., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the multiple different types of potential connections on the BIM model and applicable intersections to derive a conclusion as to the placement of the optimal connection. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. This claim recites the term ‘autonomously’ which is understood as leveraging a computer to perform the recited mental process. As such, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind using generic computing components as a tool to perform the concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation wherein the library comprises multiple different types of potential connections. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation defining section shape parameters for the second geometric characteristics, wherein the parameters comprise: which can reasonably be read to entail determining and describing section shape parameters for geometric characteristics. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 8 additionally recites the limitations a width minimum value and a width maximum value; a height minimum value and a height maximum value; and a nominal weight minimum value and a nominal weight maximum. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional elements viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation defining a material for the potential connection, which can reasonably be read to entail determining and describing a material to be used in the potential connection. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 9 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. (Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 10does not recite any additional judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong 1).
Claim 10 additionally recites the limitations an Fx minimum value and an Fx maximum value; an Fy minimum value and an Fy maximum value; an Fz minimum value and an Fz maximum value; an Mx minimum value and an Mx maximum value; an My minimum value and an My maximum value; and an Mz minimum value and an Mz maximum value. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional elements viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 2 and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14
Regarding dependent claim 14, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 4 and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15
Regarding dependent claim 15, the judicial exception of independent claim 11, and dependent claim 14 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 5 and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17
Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 7 and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Regarding dependent claim 18, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 8 and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19
Regarding dependent claim 19, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 9 and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20
Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 11 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously (Step 1).
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 10 and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lederman et al. (US Patent No US 10,282,491, B2), hereinafter referred to as Lederman in view of Peticila (Peticila, D., “New Dynamo Features to Automate Connections Modeling with Design Input and Predefined Libraries”, Published online November 18, 2019, Autodesk.com), hereinafter referred to as Peticila.
Regarding claim 1, Lederman teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]])) A computer-implemented method for connecting steel elements, comprising: A methodology is disclosed for automated connecting of various joints in a steel structure, wherein the methodology is performed within a computer-based environment ((Lederman, Abstract) "A system for engineering and detailing joints in a steel structure includes a compute device that is electronically linked with a web-enabled server. In use, the system engages in an automated process of connecting the various joints in the steel structure by first collecting basic connection preferences via the compute device."); ((Lederman, Col 4, Lines 38-50) "Accordingly, as one feature of the present invention, there is provided a system for engineering and detailing a plurality of joints in a steel structure, the system comprising (a) a first compute device provided with a computer model of the steel structure, the first compute device being adapted to define a set of connection preferences and the load-bearing requirements for each of the plurality of joints, and (b) a server in electrical communication with the compute device, ( c) wherein the server is adapted to receive raw data from the computer model of the steel structure, the set connection preferences, and the load-bearing requirements and automatically engineer a means of connection for each of the plurality of joints in compliance therewith.")
(a) acquiring a design intent model, wherein: A model is provided to a computer device of a streel structure ((Lederman, Col 4, lines 38-50) "Accordingly, as one feature of the present invention, there is provided a system for engineering and detailing a plurality of joints in a steel structure, the system comprising (a) a first compute device provided with a computer model of the steel structure, the first compute device being adapted to define a set of connection preferences and the load-bearing requirements for each of the plurality of joints, and (b) a server in electrical communication with the compute device, ( c) wherein the server is adapted to receive raw data from the computer model of the steel structure, the set connection preferences, and the load-bearing requirements and automatically engineer a means of connection for each of the plurality of joints in compliance therewith"). The computer model comprises a framing level such that the design intent of the structure is ascertainable ((Lederman, Col 8, Lines 22-24) "To execute scan and extraction step 215, the user (e.g. detailer 123) opens up a framing level in the computer model.")
(i) the design intent model comprises a building information model (BIM) of a skeleton of a building; The computer model is of a framing level of steel structure, indicating that the model accounts for building information and characterizes the skeletal structure of a steel building ((Lederman, Col 8, Lines 24-25) "A sample screen display of a computer model of a framing level for a steel structure is depicted in FIG. 5,"); ((Lederman, Col 8, Lines 13-19) "Referring back to FIG. 3, upon completion of job data information entering step 213, the user initiates the extraction of raw structural data from the steel framing computer model (i.e. data relating to the specific size, shape, orientation and interrelationship of structural members), the extraction step being identified generally by reference numeral 215.")
(ii) the design intent model is without connections between steel elements; and The computer model is iteratively analyzed for determining connections between elements and the analysis includes functionality to recognize when the analysis has not yet been performed in order to place connections, thereby indicating that the computer model initiates without defined connections ((Lederman, Col 9, lines 58-67 and Col 10, lines 1-5) "Additionally, engineering step 221 checks for existing engineered details created prior to extraction step 215. In other words, method 211 can be repeated multiple times, for any number of framing areas of the model. If prior details/ engineering exists, method 211 compares, or matches, the previously engineered connection details (reported on job standards) for each Joint Coordinate Grouping condition determined in step 219 and, in turn, loads the engineered connection details for each of the Joint Coordinate Groupings that matched. By contrast, if step 221 determines that prior details/engineering does not exist, then determined grouping for each joint not connected/engineered in the support structure is automatically integrated into a corresponding job standard form and a new detail/engineering is generated for that Joint Coordinate Grouping.")
(iii) the design intent model comprises the steel elements having first geometric characteristics Raw structural data can be extracted from the steel framing computer model which includes size, shape, and orientation characteristics of the structural members ((Lederman, Col 8, Lines 13-21) "Referring back to FIG. 3, upon completion of job data information entering step 213, the user initiates the extraction of raw structural data from the steel framing computer model (i.e. data relating to the specific size, shape, orientation and interrelationship of structural members), the extraction step being identified generally by reference numeral 215. As will be explained further below, the raw data collected from the model is later utilized as part of an in-depth framing analysis.")
(b) performing a structural analysis of a structure of the design intent model, wherein: A framing analysis is performed based on raw structural data obtained from the steel framing computer model ((Lederman, Col 8, Lines 13-21) "Referring back to FIG. 3, upon completion of job data information entering step 213, the user initiates the extraction of raw structural data from the steel framing computer model (i.e. data relating to the specific size, shape, orientation and interrelationship of structural members), the extraction step being identified generally by reference numeral 215. As will be explained further below, the raw data collected from the model is later utilized as part of an in-depth framing analysis.")
(i) the structural analysis generates structural analysis output; and The framing analysis leverages raw structural data to analyze interrelationships between various structural members and output is generated accordingly ((Lederman, Col 9, Lines 26-30 ¶) "As will be explained further in detail below, engineering step 221 cross-references the output from the framing interrelationships determined in analyzing step 219 with the job data information collected in step 213 to engineer each interjoint in an optimized fashion.")
(ii) the structural analysis output comprises forces at one or more intersections of the steel elements; Structural information is extracted (step 213) and includes loading constraints which are understood to be force limitations imposed on the structural elements. The structural analysis (step 219) is performed using this data. The output of step 219 is used for an engineering step (221), wherein the engineering step accounts for the load responsibility of each structure member. Because the structural load information propagates between steps 213 to 219 to 221, it is understood that the structural analysis step’s (219) output contains load/force information such that step 221 has a basis for the conclusions drawn therein ((Col 9, Lines 51-54) "In addition, engineering step 221 accounts for all the possible limitations set forth through in job data collection step 213 ( e.g. spatial/loading constraints)."); ((Lederman, Col 10, Lines 6-10) "As referenced above, method 211 automatically engineers, or designs, the connection details for each joint in the support structure. This automated engineering process accounts for the load-responsibility of each member as well as its spatial relationship within the steel structure.")
( c) defining, via a user interface, one or more rules that associate a potential connection with a structural steel profile, wherein the rules together with a script dictate where one or more connections should be placed; Connection parameters are understood as a hierarchical list of rules for interconnecting various steel members of a steel structure ((Lederman, Col 2, Lines 30-35) "In view thereof, connection engineer establishes a sizable number of connection parameters, often organized as a hierarchal list of rules or preferences, as well as a range of acceptable load requirements for each joint that are, in turn, passed to steel detailer 23, as represented by arrow 33.") Job data, which is understood to include the connection parameters/rules, is entered by the user into a web page ((Lederman, Col 6, Lines 59-62 ¶) "To commence method 11 , the user (e.g. detailer 123) first enters the required job data information for the steel structure via the internet 125 to a web page generated from server 127."). Connection preferences are established and associated with the steel members of the steel structure in order to determine how to interconnect the elements ((Lederman, Col 5, Lines 63-67) "The majority of the rather extensive job data information relates to the particular connection preferences and load range parameters established by connection engineer 121 for each joint in the steel structure. In other words, the settings selected on job data forms assign a set of instructions or parameters for interconnecting various members of the steel structure. For example, connection information entered in step 213 may include, among other things, minimum job requirements ( e.g. the minimum load bearing requirement of each connection point), certain component preferences for steel fabricator 219 ( e.g. if fabricator 219 can obtain certain components at a reduced cost, occupational safety and health administration (OSHA) requirements, and/or other design criteria for each type of connection. As can be appreciated, hundreds of connection parameters and preferences are commonly considered when engineering the interconnection of members in a steel structure.”). A multitude of preferences are established, including a set for each joint category, wherein a category is understood to correspond to a profile of a structural steel element ((Lederman, Col 7 Lines 31-63 ) "As can be seen, screen display 311 includes [[…]], a fabricator's connection preferences tab 313-3 that establishes the connection preference order for each joint category as defined by fabricator 119 [[…]]"). The joint categories describe how various steel elements interface with other steel elements and defines a unique descriptive profile per the configuration ((Lederman, Col 2, Lines 38-39) "The joint category relates to the way that steel members are to be interconnected"). An engineering program utilizes the rule information to optimize the placement of connections ((Lederman, Col 9, Lines 26-30) "As will be explained further in detail below, engineering step 221 cross-references the output from the framing interrelationships determined in analyzing step 219 with the job data information collected in step 213 to engineer each interjoint in an optimized fashion.”); ((Lederman, Col 8, Lines48-53) "As will be explained further below, server 127 then utilizes the job data information compiled in step 213 as well as the raw structural data extracted from the computer modeled support structure in step 215 to commence engineering and detailing of the various joints in the designated framing area of the structure."); ((Lederman, Col 10, Lines 18-25) "The engineering program performs the engineering of each joint by taking into account force loading conditions ( e.g. slope, skew, elevation differences, reaction requirements, axial force information and moment connections) as well as job data information entered in step 213 (e.g. any minimum requirements, fabricator's preferences and specific details that structural engineer 115 required)."). The program which performs these tasks is not described in particular detail and, as such, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a scripting language could be used as the basis for the program.
(d) defining, via the user interface, the script that identifies where the one or more connections should be placed, and wherein the script: Input parameters are input into a web page for job requirements, wherein the job requirements define how a program optimizes connections((Lederman, Col 6, Lines 59-62 ¶) "To commence method 11 , the user (e.g. detailer 123) first enters the required job data information for the steel structure via the internet 125 to a web page generated from server 127."); ((Lederman, Col 9, Lines 26-30) "As will be explained further in detail below, engineering step 221 cross-references the output from the framing interrelationships determined in analyzing step 219 with the job data information collected in step 213 to engineer each interjoint in an optimized fashion."). The engineering step accounts for spatial constraints, thereby indicating consideration for location of joint placement ((Lederman Col 9, Lines 51-54) "In addition, engineering step 221 accounts for all the possible limitations set forth through in job data collection step 213 ( e.g. spatial/loading constraints)."). The program which performs these tasks is not described in particular detail and, as such, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a scripting language could be used as the basis for the program.
(i) identifies, in the structural steel profile, one or more second geometric characteristics of the potential connection; As stated previously, a joint category describes how various steel elements interface with other steel elements to define a unique descriptive profile per the configuration ((Lederman, Col 10, Lines 14-18) "The engineering process is primarily broken down into categories between structural members (i.e. beam to beam, beam to column flange, beam to column web, beam to embed plate) and characteristics of framing conditions (e.g. shear plate, double angle, single angle)."); The joint category is also referred to as a connection type throughout the disclosure. A list of interjoint materials is identified for each connection type ((Lederman, Col 9, Lines 37-39) "The list of interjoint materials is identified in each of the available connection types."). The structural materials can be characterized by their shape/ geometry, such that geometric characteristics can be identified corresponding to the material ((Col 1, lines 36-46) "The most common cross-sectional shape of a steel member is an I-shape. The opposing, parallel, horizontal elements of an I-shaped member are commonly referred to in the industry as "flanges." The single vertical element that extends between and perpendicular to the pair of flanges is commonly referred to as the "web." Accordingly, it is understood that a member with an I-shape cross-section, commonly referred to in the art simply as an I-beam (wide flange), typically transmits shear forces through its web and bending forces through its flanges. Other common shapes are "L", "C", rectangular or circular shapes.").
(ii) identifies, in the structural steel profile, one or more forces for one or more of the steel elements to be connected via the potential connection; The categories between structural members, or connection types, are characterized as a profile for the particular type. The engineering process for determining the appropriate connection type accounts for force loading conditions imposed on the particular connection type being evaluated ((Lederman, Col 10, Lines 14-25) "The engineering process is primarily broken down into categories between structural members (i.e. beam to beam, beam to column flange, beam to column web, beam to embed plate) and characteristics of framing conditions (e.g. shear plate, double angle, single angle). The engineering program performs the engineering of each joint by taking into account force loading conditions ( e.g. slope, skew, elevation differences, reaction requirements, axial force information and moment connections) as well as job data information entered in step 213 (e.g. any minimum requirements, fabricator's preferences and specific details that structural engineer 115 required).")
(iii) groups structural elements of the design intent model into potential connection nodes based on element intersection and relative position; Coordinate relationships between steel elements to be connected are analyzed according to the intersection and support placement between members and then the members are grouped. ((Lederman, ¶54-55) "More specifically, the Determine Connections method begins by sorting the raw structure data into a list of all the members to be connected. Using information about each member from the list of members to be connected, a function referenced herein as "Determine Intersections" creates a list of all the Joint Coordinates of intersecting members. A single Joint Coordinate (JC) consists of one main and one secondary member. The main member is the supporting member, the secondary member is the member to be supported by the main member. In addition to the information about the members, a single Joint Coordinate contains all of the other ( computed) parameters/information required for subsequent engineering of interjoint material connection. The list of all the Joint Coordinates is then analyzed and its members are grouped, as part of step 219. Joint Coordinate Groups contain information between each of the individual joint coordinates to define a common joint coordinate. A single Joint Coordinate Group (JCG) consists of one Main Joint Coordinate and one or more Secondary Joint Coordinate(s). In addition to Determine Connections, other methods such as Determine OSHA and Determine HVAC Penetrations are used in framing analysis step 219. All of the aforementioned methods are strictly to analyze the coordinate relationship between steel members, not to engage in the design of any substantive engineering connections.")
(iv) filters the potential connection nodes based on geometric criteria to produce filtered connection nodes; The engineering process breaks down geometric-based categories between structural members (as a geometric criteria) for evaluation and details for a group of joints within a joint coordinate group (as filtered connection nodes) are afterwards evaluated ((Lederman, ¶60-61) "The engineering process is primarily broken down into categories between structural members (i.e. beam to beam, beam to column flange, beam to column web, beam to embed plate) and characteristics of framing conditions ( e.g. shear plate, double angle, single angle). The engineering program performs the engineering of each joint by taking into account force loading conditions ( e.g. slope, skew, elevation differences, reaction requirements, axial force information and moment connections) as well as job data information entered in step 213 (e.g. any minimum requirements, fabricator's preferences and specific details that structural engineer 115 required). As one principal feature of the present invention, engineering step 221 takes into the details of neighboring connections when engineering a particular joint. Often, many connection members are framing in the same general location. Accordingly, a key capability of this invention is that the engineering process produces connection details for a group of joints within a Joint Coordinate Group. This allows for coordination of load transfer between joints and impact of one joint on another in the group as a whole. ")
(v) for each filtered connection node, sequentially validates connection types in a selected library of connections against ranges of applicability attached to the connection types, the ranges of applicability defining permissible geometric characteristics and member end forces; and The joints in the joint coordinate group (as the filtered connection node as given previously) is evaluated for the appropriate corresponding connection type (as a validated connection type) from within in the available connection types (selected library of connections), wherein the evaluation entails accounting for all the job data, to include spatial and loading constraints (as ranges of applicability defining geometric characteristics and member end forces) and wherein the connection type may be modified according to results (as a sequential process) ((Lederman, ¶57) "In particular, the job data information collected in step 213 is assigned to individual Joint Coordinate Groups. This assignment allows for engineering the interjoint material required to establish permanent connectivity between parts in each of the Joint Coordinate Groups. Each Joint Coordinate is provided with a list of materials for the engineered interjoint as well as a connection type. The list of interjoint materials is identified in each of the available connection types. The engineering of interjoint material takes into account information from individual Joint Coordinates in Joint Coordinate Groupings. This capability to compare and reference another Joint Coordinate and its respective interjoint material in relation to the overall Joint Coordinate Grouping renders the engineering- connecting process thorough and complete. The unique lists of various Joint Connecting Groups created from the Determine Connections function allows for comparing/checking each and every connection detail at each Joint Connection against connection details of other Joint Connections in the Joint Connection Group, thus allowing to re-use details from previously detailed Joint Connecting Groups. In addition, engineering step 221 accounts for all the possible limitations set forth through in job data collection step 213 (e.g. spatial/loading constraints). It can be appreciated that, when any of the constraints are violated, engineering step 221 allows for a contingency plan, allowing for automatic reassignment of the Joint Coordinate to a more appropriate connection type.").
(vi) generates and places a connection at a filtered connection node only when the ranges of applicability of a validated connection type match both geometric characteristics of the filtered connection node and member end forces associated with the steel elements at the filtered connection node; An iterative engineering process is carried out until a particular joint design falls into a defined range (as only when the ranges of applicability match the constraints), whereby the thickness (as a geometric characteristic) and the load bearing capacity (as the member end forces) dictate the conclusion of the design optimization. ((Lederman, ¶64) "As an example of the iterative engineering process, the thickness of a shear plate to be used in a particular joint is typically defined by connection engineer 221 to fall within a defined range. As part of the iterative engineering process, the minimum thickness of the shear plate that can be utilized is incorporated into the steel structure and evaluated by server 125 in view of, inter alia, certain job data information relating to the shear plate that was input by the user in step 213 ( e.g. the particular material to be used for the shear plate). Consequently, if the minimum thickness of the shear plate can support the requisite loads, that minimum thickness value is utilized in the connection engineering plans. However, if the shear plate cannot support the requisite loads, the thickness of the shear plate is increased in defined increments until it can support the requisite loads. As a result, the iterative engineering process eliminates any overdesigning of the joint resulting from using a shear plate that is excessively thick and, as a consequence, unnecessarily expensive."). See also ¶65-66 for examples of evaluating different ranged criteria for the joint design. Once the design is optimized per the constraints, engineered connection details are updated for the points which were able to connect (as the generation and placement of a connection) ((Lederman, ¶67) "Upon completion of engineering step 221, a library of Job Standards, representative of the extracted framing with the engineered connection details, is updated and stored in database 127. Additionally, a list of special Joint Connection Groups is generated that shows any connections that server 125 was unable to connect. "). See also detailing being described as the generation and placement of connection in the model, wherein the automated aspect of this disclosure as given in the engineering step (221) of the automated system duplicates such process ((Lederman, ¶13) "Steel detailer 23, who has a very distinct skill set in relation to connection engineer 21, uses the connection parameters and acceptable load ranges for each joint established by connection engineer 21, generates a three-dimensional model of the steel structure, and uses the job standards developed by connection engineer 21 to connect each joint in the model, commonly referred to in the art as detailing to further define the exact manner in which the individual steel members are to be permanently joined to form the steel structure ( e.g. using six bolts of a particular size and grade). That is, the specific connection details for each joint are manually input by detailer 23 into the computer-aided modeling system on a joint-by-joint basis."); ((Lederman, ¶36) "As will be explained further in detail below, the engineering parameters established by connection engineer 121 are entered into a novel computer-aided modeling system which, in turn, automatically details each joint in the steel structure and incorporates the results of the detailing process directly into the computer model."); ((Lederman, ¶37) "System 111 differs primarily from prior art system 11 in that system 111 includes a connection processing subsystem, or connection subsystem, 125 that is responsible for receiving connection engineering data relating to a particular section of a steel structure, determining the connection details for each joint in the section based on the previously established engineering parameters set forth, and exporting the determined connection details to detailer 123 for automated incorporation back into the steel structure modeling system.").
(e) running the script, wherein the script autonomously updates the BIM model with the one or more connections generated and placed. A program for optimizing interjoint connections is executed ((Lederman, Col 6, Lines 49-53) "Preferably, user implementation of method 211 is accomplished through execution of a computer-aided, structural steel framing information processing system that is programmed in accordance with the parameters set forth in detail below."). The engineering step generates output describing optimized placement of joints and the computer model of the steel structure is updated with the information generated by the engineering step ((Lederman, Col 11, Lines 65-67 and Col 12, Lines 1-7) "As seen in FIG. 3, the output of engineering step 221 (i.e. 65 the connection means for each joint in the steel structure) can be imported by the user through activation of a control provided in the user-interface of the add-in software. As part of step 223, activation of the control causes the engineered data to be downloaded from database 127 and uploaded back into user compute device 131. In turn, the imported data relating to the interjoint material connection details is integrated back into the structural steel framing software model in step 225."). The download and upload of the data is described as being performed as the result of the activation of a user control ((Lederman, Col 11, Lines 65-67 and Col 12, Lines 1-10) "As seen in FIG. 3, the output of engineering step 221 (i.e. the connection means for each joint in the steel structure) can be imported by the user through activation of a control provided in the user-interface of the add-in software. As part of step 223, activation of the control causes the engineered data to be downloaded from database 127 and uploaded back into user compute device 131. In turn, the imported data relating to the interjoint material connection details is integrated back into the structural steel framing software model in step 225. As a result, the structural steel framing software model would detail the engineered means of connection between interconnected structural members."). Examiner interprets the activation of the user control as part of the script definition/ program configuration received via the user interface prior to execution, wherein the activation of the control enables autonomous updating of the BIM model without the need for additional user intervention because the program is repeatedly described as a highly automated computer program ((Lederman, Col 12, Lines 53-58) "As a first advantage, the automated structural detailing method of the present invention allows for the integration of the two distinct and separate steps in the structural detailing process (namely, the structural connection detail engineering process and modeling process) into a single, all-in-one, highly automated computer program.").
(f) storing the script and a library of connections; A library of connections (in conjunction with extracted framing) is stored in a database as represented by a library of job standards ((Lederman, Col 8, Lines 52-55) "Upon completion of engineering step 221, a library of Job Standards, representative of the extracted framing with the engineered connection details, is updated and stored in database 12"). The instructions that enable the execution of the methodology are described as a program (script) on one or more servers wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a programmed server is a server wherein instructions of the program are stored in memory ((Lederman, Col 6, Lines 16-23) "Connection processing subsystem 125 includes a server 127 designed to perform the primary tasks of connection subsystem 125 and a database 129 designed to store data and reports relating to the various connection jobs undertaken by server 127. As can be seen, server 127 is preferably a cloud-based server and is thereby accessible via internet 129 or other similar communication network, such as a local area network.")
[[(g) selecting the stored script;]]
[[(h) selecting the stored library; and]]
[[(i) running the script on a different BIM model, wherein the script autonomously updates the different BIM model based on the selected stored script and selected stored library of connections.]]
Lederman alone does not disclose; however Lederman in view of Peticila disclose (g) selecting the stored script; Scripts and Dynamo nodes are part of a software package (wherein a package is understood to be a bundle of files and programs necessary for a software to run which would be installed on a computer, thereby indicating that the scripts are stored), wherein a Dynamo node is understood to be a subcomponent of the script ((Peticila, ¶1-2) "With the Revit 2020.2 point release, new Dynamo nodes and sample scripts bridge the gap between structural analysis and modelling phases, enabling standardization and faster iteration in the analysis and placement of steel connections. The first enhancement of the dedicated Autodesk Steel Connections 2020 Dynamo package consists in a set of new nodes that read structural analysis results either from the native Revit analytical model or the data stored in the Results Manager, which can be imported from other applications like Robot Structural Analysis Professional"). A script is depicted as being selected for modification/review in Figure 2 in the Dynamo Player window.
(h) selecting the stored library; and A Revit library is described as a file where multiple pre-configured connection types are stored ((Peticila, ¶4) " Remember, a Revit library for steel connections is simply a Revit file, where multiple pre-configured connection types are stored."). The library file path can be selected through the browse button, depicted in Figure 2 in the Dynamo Player window.
(i) running the script on a different BIM model, wherein the script autonomously updates the different BIM model based on the selected stored script and selected stored library of connections. The Dynamo player is equipped with functionality to enable the running of the selected script, as indicated by the play button/ triangle, depicted in Figure 2. The functionality of automatically extracting and placing parameters characterizing multiple pre-configured connection types is described as being characterized by dedicated nodes (wherein dedicated is understood to have a singular function to characterize the script) and further described as being used for new projects, thereby indicating that such a dedicated script can be applied to other BIM models (wherein a new project is understood to characterize different models) ((Peticila, ¶4) "Remember, a Revit library for steel connections is simply a Revit file, where multiple pre-configured connection types are stored. Several existing Revit files can be used to feed the parameters for a new project and only the ones required will be automatically extracted and placed. This new functionality is provided through dedicated nodes that use as input the paths of Revit files.")
Lederman and Peticila are analogous arts to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of engineering design utility improvements for steel structure connections. Lederman teaches the utilization of a methodology for optimizing structural joint placement in a singularly-contained system. Peticila teaches the utilization of Dynamo scripting to enable automated workflows for steel connections in design by leveraging modular scripts which can be stored, edited, and re-used. Lederman also describes the disclosed methodology can be implemented as an add-in utility for any steel structural modeling program ((Lederman, Col 6, Lines 53-68) "For instance, it is envisioned that user implementation of method 211 could be achieved through an add-in to any steel structure modeling program, the add-in being delivered to compute device 131 of the user from server 127 via internet 129 upon verification of authorization."). Peticila discloses a scripting utility within a package that can be utilized in conjunction with BIM modeling software ((Peticila, ¶2) "The first enhancement of the dedicated Autodesk Steel Connections 2020 Dynamo package consists in a set of new nodes that read structural analysis results either from the native Revit analytical model or the data stored in the Results Manager, which can be imported from other applications like Robot Structural Analysis Professional."). Therefore, both the method described by Lederman and the package disclosed by Peticila are both intended for utilization within a modeling software environment. By applying the claimed program functionality of automated engineering and detailing of joints in a steel structure as disclosed by Lederman into a re-usable and modular script in Dynamo as disclosed by Peticila, one would arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified the prior art references in this way because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art references would have led one having skill in the art to make the modification in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Peticila demonstrates that the utilization of scripts further enhance automation for structural engineers by enabling automated workflows ((Peticila, ¶1) "With Autodesk University 2019 unfolding this week, it’s a perfect time to introduce new functionalities in Dynamo that will empower structural engineers to bring automation into their steel connection workflows.") and further touts the benefits of such workflows for ensuring consistency between designer parties ((Peticila, ¶5) "The workflows enabled by this feature are multiple, but just to name the most impactful ones: imagine sharing the same library with all of your peers inside the same engineering office. Or imagine using a library as a common database between engineers and fabricators, always ensuring the right types are used.") and for being able to reduce the time required for creating more detailed models ((Peticila, ¶7) "The bottom line: with these new automation capabilities for steel connections, we enable structural analysis to be better integrated in the process of placing steel connections, while reusing engineering knowledge to transition a steel building model to a more detailed state in less time."). Accordingly, the combination would have been obvious so as to realize such benefits.
Regarding claim 2, the proposed combination of Lederman in view of Peticila teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Peticila teaches the structural analysis is performed by structural analysis software; and Robot Structural Analysis, which is a BIM structural analysis software package, is utilized to perform structural analyses on models, ((Peticila, ¶2) "The first enhancement of the dedicated Autodesk Steel Connections 2020 Dynamo package consists in a set of new nodes that read structural analysis results either from the native Revit analytical model or the data stored in the Results Manager, which can be imported from other applications like Robot Structural Analysis Professional.")
results of the structural analysis are imported from the structural analysis software. The Robot Structural Analysis results can be imported ((Peticila, ¶2) "The first enhancement of the dedicated Autodesk Steel Connections 2020 Dynamo package consists in a set of new nodes that read structural analysis results either from the native Revit analytical model or the data stored in the Results Manager, which can be imported from other applications like Robot Structural Analysis Professional.")
Regarding claim 4, the proposed combination teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Lederman teaches wherein the connections in the library are based on one or more standards. A library of connections exists that are based on exact engineering requirements ((Lederman, Col 12, Lines 19-28) "It should be noted that many products used for structural steel framing allow the user to use a connection type from a library of available connection types that are sometimes called macros. In addition, many products allow the user or 3rd party companies to create custom items that contain two or more objects that make up a collection of interjoint material. Importing step 225 uses a technique that generates collections of interjoint material as needed based on exact engineering requirements using a single custom object that is redefined for each joint.")
Regarding claim 5, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 4, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Lederman teaches wherein the library comprises an expanded library created by expanding a predefined library that is based on the standards. A library of job standards that incorporates the engineered connection details is updated ((Lederman, Col 11, Lines 52-55) "Upon completion of engineering step 221, a library of Job Standards, representative of the extracted framing with the engineered connection details, is updated and stored in database 12"). A predefined library is provided standard with many products for structural steel framing, wherein the library of connections are based on exact engineering requirements. The updated information can be added to this predefined library as an expansion ((Lederman, Col 12, Lines 19-28) "It should be noted that many products used for structural steel framing allow the user to use a connection type from a library of available connection types that are sometimes called macros. In addition, many products allow the user or 3rd party companies to create custom items that contain two or more objects that make up a collection of interjoint material. Importing step 225 uses a technique that generates collections of interjoint material as needed based on exact engineering requirements using a single custom object that is redefined for each joint.")
Regarding claim 7, the proposed combination teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the method further comprising: as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Lederman teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]])) [[selecting the library,]] wherein the library comprises multiple different types of potential connections; ((Lederman, Col 12, Lines 19-28) "It should be noted that many products used for structural steel framing allow the user to use a connection type from a library of available connection types that are sometimes called macros.”)
autonomously comparing all of the potential connections in the library to the design intent model and structural analysis output; and ((Lederman, Col 8, Lines 18-25) "The engineering program performs the engineering of each joint by taking into account force loading conditions ( e.g. slope, skew elevation differences, reaction requirements, axial force information and moment connections) as well as job data information entered in step 213 (e.g. any minimum requirements, fabricator's preferences and specific details that structural engineer 115 required).")
autonomously generating and placing, based on the comparing, the multiple different types of potential connections on the BIM model at the applicable intersections. The output of the engineering step (that compares the model with the structural analysis with the rules) is generated and subsequently integrated back into the model such that the engineered connections are placed ((Lederman, Col 11, Lines 65-67 and Col 12, lines 1-10) "As seen in FIG. 3, the output of engineering step 221 (i.e. 65 the connection means for each joint in the steel structure) can be imported by the user through activation of a control provided in the user-interface of the add-in software. As part of step 223, activation of the control causes the engineered data to be downloaded from database 127 and uploaded back into user compute device 131. In turn, the imported data relating to the interjoint material connection details is integrated back into the structural steel framing software model in step 225. As a result, the structural steel framing software model would detail the engineered means of connection between interconnected structural members.")
Lederman does not teach; however Peticila teaches as stated previously in the rejection of Claim 1 selecting the library, A Revit library is described as a file where multiple pre-configured connection types are stored ((Peticila, ¶4) " Remember, a Revit library for steel connections is simply a Revit file, where multiple pre-configured connection types are stored."). The library file path can be selected through the browse button, depicted in Figure 2 in the Dynamo Player window.
The combination of references follows that rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly one having skill in the art would be compelled to modify the prior art references in order to include the functionality of selecting a library so as to enable the reuse amongst designing parties, as noted previously ((Peticila, ¶5) "The workflows enabled by this feature are multiple, but just to name the most impactful ones: imagine sharing the same library with all of your peers inside the same engineering office. Or imagine using a library as a common database between engineers and fabricators, always ensuring the right types are used.")
Regarding claim 9, the proposed combination discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the defining the script comprises: as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Lederman teaches defining a material for the potential connection. ((Lederman, Col. 9, lines 37-39) "The list of interjoint materials is identified in each of the available connection types.")
Regarding claim 10, the proposed combination teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in view of Lederman further teaches wherein the defining the script further comprises defining one or more forces comprising member end forces comprising: Force loading conditions and moment connections are accounted for in the engineering program in addition to specific details provided by the structural engineer ((Lederman, Col 10, Lines 18-25) "The engineering program performs the engineering of each joint by taking into account force loading conditions ( e.g. slope, skew, elevation differences, reaction requirements, axial force information and moment connections) as well as job data information entered in step 213 (e.g. any minimum requirements, fabricator's preferences and specific details that structural engineer 115 required)."). Input data includes minimum load bearing requirements for each connection point ((Lederman, Col 7, Lines 2-9) "For example, connection information entered in step 213 may include, among other things, minimum job requirements ( e.g. the minimum load bearing requirement of each connection point), certain component preferences for steel fabricator 219 ( e.g. if fabricator 219 can obtain certain components at a reduced cost), occupational safety and health administration (OSHA) requirements, and/or other design criteria for each type of connection").
an Fx minimum value and an Fx maximum value;
an Fy minimum value and an Fy maximum value;
an Fz minimum value and an Fz maximum value;
an Mx minimum value and an Mx maximum value;
an My minimum value and an My maximum value; and
an Mz minimum value and an Mz maximum value. As stated previously, the force loading conditions and moment connections are accounted for in the engineering program, thereby indicating that Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, and Mz were defined as part of the load bearing requirements.
Regarding claim 11, Lederman teaches A computer-implemented system for connecting steel elements, comprising: A system for connecting steel elements is depicted using computers to execute the implementation, as shown in Lederman, Figure 2.
(a) a computer having a memory; Utilization of a database is disclosed as a memory source ((Lederman, Col. 6, Lines 16-20) "Connection processing subsystem 125 includes a server 127 designed to perform the primary tasks of connection subsystem 125 and a database 129 designed to store data and reports relating to the various connection jobs undertaken by server 127.").
(b) a processor executing on the computer; The system includes a connection processing subsystem, thereby indicating a processor is utilized for execution of the processing (Lederman, Col. 6, Lines 16-20) "Connection processing subsystem 125 includes a server 127 designed to perform the primary tasks of connection subsystem 125 and a database 129 designed to store data and reports relating to the various connection jobs undertaken by server 127.").
(c) the memory storing a set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising: A server is designed to execute the primary tasks of the subsystem (Lederman, Col. 6, Lines 16-20) "Connection processing subsystem 125 includes a server 127 designed to perform the primary tasks of connection subsystem 125 and a database 129 designed to store data and reports relating to the various connection jobs undertaken by server 127.").
The remaining limitations (i) acquiring a design intent model, wherein:
(1) the design intent model comprises a building information model (BIM) of a skeleton of a building;
(2) the design intent model is without connections between steel elements; and
(3) the design intent model comprises the steel elements having first geometric characteristics;
(ii) performing a structural analysis of a structure of the design intent model, wherein:
(1) the structural analysis generates structural analysis output; and
(2) the structural analysis output comprises forces at one or more intersections of the steel elements;
(iii) defining, via a user interface, one or more rules that associate a potential connection with a structural steel profile, wherein the rules together with a script dictate where one or more connections should be placed;
(iv) defining, via the user interface, the script that identifies where the one or more connections should be placed and wherein the script:
(1) identifies, in the structural steel profile, one or more second geometric characteristics of the potential connection;
(2) identifies, in the structural steel profile, one or more forces for one or more of the steel elements to be connected via the potential connection;
(3) groups structural elements of the design intent model into potential connection nodes based on element intersection and relative position;
( 4) filters the potential connection nodes based on geometric criteria to produce filtered connection nodes;
(5) for each filtered connection node, sequentially validates connection types in a selected library of connections against ranges of applicability attached to the connection types, the ranges of applicability defining permissible geometric characteristics and member end forces; and
(6) generates and places a connection at a filtered connection node only when the ranges of applicability of a validated connection type match both geometric characteristics of the filtered connection node and member end forces associated with the steel elements at the filtered connection node;
(v) running the script, wherein the script autonomously updates the BIM model with the one or more connections generated and placed;
(vi) storing the script and a library of connections;
(vii) selecting the stored script;
(viii) selecting the stored library; and
(ix) running the script on a different BIM model, wherein the script autonomously updates the different BIM model based on the selected stored script and selected stored library of connections. are substantially similar to those recited for claim 1 and are thus rejected following the same rationale of Lederman in view of Peticila.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations The computer-implemented system of claim 11, wherein:
the structural analysis is performed by structural analysis software; and
results of the structural analysis are imported from the structural analysis software are substantially similar as that recited for claim 2 and thus the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations The computer-implemented system of claim 11, wherein the connections in the library are based on standards are substantially similar as that recited for claim 4 and thus the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations The computer-implemented system of claim 14, wherein the library comprises an expanded library created by expanding a predefined library that is based on the standards are substantially similar as that recited for claim 5 and thus the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations The computer-implemented system of claim 11, the operations further comprising:
selecting the library, wherein the library comprises multiple different types of potential connections;
autonomously comparing all of the potential connections in the library to the design intent model and structural analysis output; and
autonomously generating and placing, based on the comparing, the multiple different types of potential connections on the BIM model at the applicable intersections are substantially similar as that recited for claim 7 and thus the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations The computer-implemented system of claim 11, wherein the defining a script operation comprises:
defining a material for the potential connection are substantially similar as that recited for claim 9 and thus the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations The computer-implemented system of claim 11, wherein the defining the script operation comprises defining one or more forces comprising member end forces comprising:
an Fx minimum value and an Fx maximum value;
an Fy minimum value and an Fy maximum value;
an Fz minimum value and an Fz maximum value;
an Mx minimum value and an Mx maximum value;
an My minimum value and an My maximum value; and
an Mz minimum value and an Mz maximum value are substantially similar as that recited for claim 10 and thus the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lederman in view of Peticila as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of The Engineering Toolbox (The Engineering Toolbox, “W-Beams – American Wide Flange Beams”, Jan 2022, https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/american-wide-flange-steel-beams-d_1319.html), hereinafter referred to as The Engineering Toolbox.
Regarding claim 8, Lederman in view of Peticila teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the defining the script comprises: as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Lederman teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) defining section shape parameters for the second geometric characteristics, wherein the parameters comprise: Job requirements are input by the structural engineer to ensure compliance with the original steel structure design ((Col 8, Lines 5-12) "It should also be noted that it is envisioned that certain categories of information that relate to the structural preferences of a particular entity could be implemented directly by that entity to ensure compliance. For instance, it is envisioned that the minimum job requirements could be input by structural engineer 115 to ensure that the final connection details are rendered in compliance with the original steel structure design."). The design is understood to include geometric shape characteristics for each of the elements used in the design, including material grade and minimum/maximum material thickness ((Lederman, Col 7, Lines 30-38) "As referenced above, a series of tabs 313 is provided to enter various categories of job data information. As can be seen, screen display 311 includes general information tab 313-1, a minimum job requirements tab 313-2 that establishes the minimum job requirements defined by structural engineer 115 (e.g. seismic provisions, whether to consider axial load requirements in beam to beam connections, material grade requirements, minimum/maximum material thickness, etc.), …")
[[a width minimum value and a width maximum value;
a height minimum value and a height maximum value; and
a nominal weight minimum value and a nominal weight maximum value.]]
Lederman does not teach; however The Engineering Toolbox teaches a width minimum value and a width maximum value; a height minimum value and a height maximum value; and a nominal weight minimum value and a nominal weight maximum value. Nominal width (w), depth (h), and weight values are provided in a table for various geometries of wide flange beams. ((The Engineering Toolbox) "Properties in imperial units of American Wide Flange Beams according ASTM A6 are indicated below.")
Lederman explicitly teaches the structural engineer inputting job requirements that include design parameters including material grade and minimum/maximum material thickness but does not disclose utilizing constraints for width, height, or weight. However, The Engineering Toolbox discloses such parameters for an exemplary structural steel element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have included other shape parameters, such as those noted by The Engineering Toolbox, into the input design constraints taught by Lederman because such values are standard for the materials of interest and would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art as such. The exemplary list provided by Lederman for as to what the structural engineer may deem relevant does not exclude such parameters from consideration ((Lederman, Col 7, Lines 30-38) "As referenced above, a series of tabs 313 is provided to enter various categories of job data information. As can be seen, screen display 311 includes general information tab 313-1, a minimum job requirements tab 313-2 that establishes the minimum job requirements defined by structural engineer 115 (e.g. seismic provisions, whether to consider axial load requirements in beam to beam connections, material grade requirements, minimum/maximum material thickness, etc.), …"); ((Lederman, Col. 3, Lines 20-32) "As can be appreciated, structural steel connection design requires taking into account a myriad of factors including, but not limited to, (i) the ability to effectively transfer load stresses between members, (ii) the amount of material used to form a suitable connection (e.g. the cost component associated therewith), (iii) the ability to form a joint in the field (i.e. the expected difficulty associated in connecting a joint in a particular manner), (iv) general project requirements imposed by structural engineer 15 and/or steel fabricator (e.g. to meet certain specifications and/or minimize material costs), and (v) the coordinate relationship between structural members ( e.g. potential structural obstacles within the connection region).")
Regarding claim 18, the limitations The computer-implemented system of claim 11, wherein the defining a script operation further comprises:
defining section shape parameters for the second geometric characteristics, wherein the parameters comprise:
a width minimum value and a width maximum value;
a height minimum value and a height maximum value; and
a nominal weight minimum value and a nominal weight maximum value are substantially similar as that recited for claim 8 and thus the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights