DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 9th, 2026 has been entered.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on July 9th, 2026. A summary of this action:
Claims 11 and 15 have been presented for examination.
Claim 11 is objected to because of informalities
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 11 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
Claims are not rejected under § 102/103 in view of the § 112(a) rejection below and MPEP § 2143.03(II): “When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter).”, in particular the closest prior art of record is the previously cited combination of prior art taken in view of the following cited references, but this does not fairly teach the presently ordered particular combination of features
See either Trzeciak, Maciej, and André Borrmann. "Towards registration of construction drawings to building information models using knowledge-based extended geometric hashing." Proc. of 26th International Workshop on Intelligent Computing in Engineering. 2019. Abstract, then see § 2.2 followed by § 2.3 OR previously cited Salvador Martinez, Sébastien Gérard, Jordi Cabot. Robust Hashing for Models. the 21th ACM/IEEE Internationa Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Oct 2018, Copenhagen, France. Abstract and see fig. 1 and § 2.1, also see § 4.2 including definition 2
S4 would have been obvious in view of Shafiq, § 4., as taken in further view of either Trzeciak, Maciej, and André Borrmann. "Towards registration of construction drawings to building information models using knowledge-based extended geometric hashing." Proc. of 26th International Workshop on Intelligent Computing in Engineering. 2019. § 3.1 including figures 7-8 OR newly cited Kannala et al., US 2014/0129912, abstract, cf. 15, and see ¶¶ 80-81
Wu, Jin, and Jiansong Zhang. "Automated BIM object classification to support BIM interoperability." Construction Research Congress 2018. 2018. Abstract, then see section “Proposed method” on pages 4-5
Ma, Homan, et al. "Testing semantic interoperability." Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering. 2006. Cf. 1 and accompanying description, then see step 3 starting on page 1221, including its last step of “Determining if completely identical”
This action is non-final
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment.
Remarks allege several features that are not expressly in the claims, e.g. “operates exclusively on IFC-format BIM data structures”, which the Examiner respectfully disagrees with for it is improper to read into a claim limitations which have no express basis in the claims itself.
Furthermore, remarks are directed to the newly amended subject matter, so see below how that is rejected.
Furthermore, remarks allege several particular alleged improvements as bare assertations of improvements, however they do not point to where in the specification itself sufficient details are to support these allegations (nor does the specification provide such support, e.g. lightweight feature mapping is not mentioned, nor is “referenceability”, nor are “GUID[s]” described), as MPEP § 2106.05(a) states: “That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” as well as: “Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”– and the Examiner further notes that the improvement cannot be solely in the abstract idea, for “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea")” (MPEP § 2106.04(I)). Also, Examiner notes MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2): “See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").”).
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Withdrawn in view of amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites, in part: “a computer display module” - while in view of fig. 6A-6B, the Examiner interprets this as merely a generic computer display, the Examiner notes that “module” is a nonce term that may invoke § 112(f), and while the Examiner finds that outputting to a computer display has sufficient structure recited in the claim itself, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to delete the nonce term “module” to ensure express clarity in the claim.
Claim 11: by filtering out incidental ID changes of objects that do not cause substantive design changes of the construction project - See page 13, including: “In fact, for each of the models Mx_All-DA(M) (deleting some objects and recreating the same objects) and Mx_A-ML(M) (swapping the positions of two equal objects, such as columns or beams), which only have meaningless changes, a correct change identification outcome should be no change at all in the model, which is exactly the change identification outcome of each of the other three algorithms (Fig. 6(b )).” See page 3: “This is because the existing step of comparison is to compare all attributes of the element one by one, but some attributes of the element, similar to the IDs, are also meaningless to the designers (such as element owner history, creation time, etc.), so these meaningless attributes should be ignored in the step of comparison.” See page 9: “Model level: after the check for the changes at object level and at type level is completed, further check should be performed in the perspective of model level to see if the changes are meaningless. For example, in the case that the positions of two identical columns are swapped with each other, it is considered as a change of meaningless from the perspective of the model as a whole, and thus should not be identified. Similarly, it is meaningless to delete an object but newly add the same one.”
At issue is that this claim limitation does expressly reflect what is disclosed, due to the use of new terminology, whereas the specification provides more concise and clear terminology. Examiner suggests amending this (but for the act of filtering, see § 112(a) below on this act) to more expressly reflect the specification, i.e. the specification conveys that it is identifying ID changes of objects wherein no other attributes of the objects were changed (note that the columns are “identical” but just swapped in position with each other, similarly disclosure describes deleting an object but then adding in the “same” object, i.e. all attributes but for the ID are identical) as not being a design change. To further clarify, page 1, last paragraph: “For example, a design change, such as swapping positions of two columns having the same attributes or deleting a beam then recreating the same one, alters no structure of the building at all, and thus should not be considered as a design change.”
Examiner suggests amending the claim to more expressly reflect what is disclosed to ensure the claims clearly expressly reflect the disclosure
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
Claim 11 recites:
A computer-implemented method for automatically identifying design changes in a building information model (BIM) regarding a construction project, based on IFC format BIM file data structure and without relying on globally unique identifier (GUID) of BIM objects, comprising steps of:
The negative limitation in the preamble is not sufficiently described. See page 1: “At present, many methods for design change identification are based on object identifier (ID) matching, and execute identification by comparing all attributes of every instance in a BIM model.”
Then, see page 3, last paragraph: “S4, determining whether an ID of the object in the step S 1 matches an ID of any object in the new file or the old file, if so, the object is the one that has been modified, if not, the object is the one that has been…”
The specification does not sufficiently describe this particular claim limitation because it does not sufficiently describe that:
1) that the ID disclosed is globally unique as presently claimed, and
2) that the present method as a whole (note it is the preamble, i.e. it’s a negative limitation on the entire scope of the claim) is “without relying” on the ID (contrast with S4 on page 3 cited above)
See MPEP 2163(II)(A): "For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" and, thus, "[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.""
Also, see MPEP 2163(I) for Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 11 recites:
S1.1, taking out the first object from the old file or the new file in accordance with IFC object classification and association rules – page 14 discloses: “At the same time, it should be noted that the invention is applicable to a variety of BIM formats and software tools (such as AutodeskRevit, IFC), and is compatible with different object information encoding methods.” – and see pages 7-8
At issue is that there is not sufficient description of “IFC object classification” in combination as recited in the present claims, nor does it clearly link this element to step S1.1 as claimed.
Furthermore, the specification is silent as to any “association rules” - remarks, July 2026, submit that “Association rules are explicitly disclosed on page 8 of the Specification, with regard to relationships between objects and connection relationships” – but the specification does not describe these relationships as “association rules” as claimed, nor do they clearly link them to step S1.1 as claimed.
See page 7, second to last paragraph and page 10, last two paragraphs to clarify on S1.1 for the taking out, and that the specification makes no mention of this being “in accordance with IFC object classification and association rules” as presently claimed.
Claim 11 recites: applying a lightweight feature mapping algorithm, computing a code for each of the first, second, and third categories, according to the first category, the second category and the third category of data changes of the first object; and
There is no description of a lightweight feature mapping algorithm – remarks, July 2026, at 10-11, allege this is “an appropriate characterization of the operations embodied in the recited steps”, e.g. “The lightweight (efficient, low-computation) nature of the recited method is explicitly disclosed throughout the Specification, including at least pages 2, 13, and 14, which emphasizes reduced computation, faster processing, and avoidance of reading all attributes.” – however, the specification does not sufficiently describe a “lightweight feature mapping algorithm”, but rather for this computing a code step in particular that this is an encoding step, e.g. see 10, such as into a “hash code”, e.g. “A good encoding method generally makes the possibility of encoding conflict very low.” – i.e. it conveys it is an “encoding method”.
Claim 11, step S1.4: applying a feature fusion algorithm, integrating all codes for the first, second and third categories into an object code selected from one of a hash code, an object signature or an object fingerprint, comprising checking for change at a model level by filtering out incidental ID changes of objects that do not cause substantive design changes of the construction project;
Remarks, July 2026, submit that “Applicant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and appreciate that the recited operation involves combining the separately computed codes for the three categories (attribute data, shape data, relationship data) into a single unified object code (hash code, object signature, or object fingerprint), is encompassed by the plain meaning of the term "feature fusion."”
The specification is devoid of any recitation of a feature fusion algorithm, let alone the act of applying one for the integrating of the codes as presently claimed. Similarly, see above citations discussing this being an “encoding method” – S1.4 is merely integrating/combining multiple codes, e.g. hash codes, from an encoding method in a single code – i.e. another “encoding method” as expressly described in the specification as cited above, also see page 6 ¶ 1.
Claim 11 recites:
S3, by the computer processor, determining whether the first object matches one or more of the second objects in the new file or the old file, if so, the first object is a modified object based on three-dimensional shape and spatial topological relationship data of the objects, - this is not sufficiently described. See page 10: “S3, it is determined whether the object can match an object in the new or old file, if so, the object is a Modify object, if not, the object is a Delete or New object; and”- this does not sufficiently describe that the matching is “based on three-dimensional shape and spatial topological relationship data of the objects,” as presently claimed.
Claim 11:
and the outcome of change identification has referenceability at the BIM model level.
This is not described. See fig. 6a-6b, which merely show that the change identification is output/displayed, but it does not sufficiently support this particular limitation.
As a point of clarity, step S4: “by a computer display module coupled to the computer processor, outputting an outcome of change identification mapped to the three-dimensional BIM model and returning to the step S 1 until the change identification has been applied on the all objects in the old file or the new file and feeding the outcome to a user” is interpreted that this is the displaying step (i.e. the one conveyed as being in written possession by fig. 6A-6B and accompanying description).
Should further clarification be required, see the final rejection, Mar. 2025, at pages 10-12, discussing the prior remarks for what is meant/intended for the term “referenceability”, specifically that the remarks attempted to add this term by remarks alone into the specification despite the specification as filed never having used this term, i.e. it is not supported, as best shown by the prior remarks adding this term into the paragraph discussing “Model level” checking for changes on page 9 of the instant specification, despite this paragraph being silent as to “referenceability” in the as filed specification.
Claim 11: and S1.4, applying a feature fusion algorithm, integrating all codes for the first, second and third categories into an object code selected from one of a hash code, an object signature or an object fingerprint, comprising checking for change at a model level by filtering out incidental ID changes of objects that do not cause substantive design changes of the construction project;
At issue is that this particular combination of features is not sufficiently described, i.e. that the act of “integrating…” (page 11, ¶¶ 1-3) includes the checking for change at the model level with an act of filtering out (page 13, second to last paragraph; page 4: “S6, upon completion of checking for the changes at object level and at type level, checking whether the changes are meaningless in the perspective of model level;”; page 9: “Model level: after the check for the changes at object level and at type level is completed, further check should be performed in the perspective of model level to see if the changes are meaningless. For example, in the case that the positions of two identical columns are swapped with each other, it is considered as a change of meaningless from the perspective of the model as a whole, and thus should not be identified...”; act of filtering solely described on p. 10: “In a design change identification process, the time cost is proportional to an amount of data to be read, and if it is possible to compute one piece of code for each object, then the code can be used to filter those unequal objects in the step of comparison.”)
The specification does not sufficiently describe this particular combination of features, including its particular act of filtering.
Claim 15: the step S2 comprises a step of three-dimensional feature-based proofreading to avoid an encoding conflict, wherein in the step S2, by the computer processor, when it is determined the code of said first object is equal to code of one or more second objects in the new file or the old file, determining whether said first object is completely identical with an object among those second objects having equal code with said first object, by comparing three-dimensional shape, geometric coordinate and spatial topological relationship data of the objects
The specification does not sufficiently describe that this is a three-dimensional feature-based proofreading, nor does it sufficiently support this particular act of comparing as claimed with the particularly recited for what is to be compared. See page 5, and page 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 and 15 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. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV): “A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005));”
Claim 11 recites the phrase “lightweight feature mapping algorithm”, wherein the term “lightweight” is a subjective term that renders the claim indefinite because there is no standard provided in the instant disclosure (page 3 ¶ 2, page 10) for POSITA to ascertain the scope of the present claims without relying on their own unrestrained, subjective opinion when practicing the invention.
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 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
The abstract idea recited in these claims, described at a high level of abstraction, is nothing more than the abstract idea of comparing information items to see whether or not the information has changed between new sets of information and old sets of information, but for the mere instructions to do this on a computer and generally linking to the field of use of “BIM” by its recitation in the preamble (see MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017)…Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents…”). See below for additional details on this rejection.
Similar such claims have previously been found to be an abstract idea without significantly more and without an integration to a practical application. See the July 2024 Fed. Register Notice for its discussion of “Claims to “the use of an algorithm-generated content-based identifier to perform the claimed data-management functions,” which include limitations to “controlling access to data items,” “retrieving and delivering copies of data items,” and “marking copies of data items for deletion,” where the claims cover “a medley of mental processes that, taken together, amount only to a multistep mental process,” such that the steps can be practically performed in the human mind, PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1316-18 (Fed. Cir. 2021).”
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the specification conveys this is directed to, in parts, an “encoding-based method” (page 6 ¶ 1). See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2): “RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract");”
To clarify on the July 2024 Fed register notice citation to PersonalWeb, and as the Examiner notes that the instant disclosure, page 10, description of S1: “all objects in both the old and new files are encoded, wherein code resulted
may be hash code, object signature, object fingerprint, etc., and then an object is taken out of the old or new file… Code being identical but resulted from different raw data is called encoding conflict (such as hash collision)…” and see fig. 69b) for the drop-down, including the “Comparison-first (HashCode)” and “Comparison-first (Quick HashCode)”, see the opinion of PersonalWeb: “…The district court, on the other hand, concluded that the patents are directed to a three-step process: "(1) using a content-based identifier generated from a 'hash or message digest function,' (2) comparing that content-based identifier against something else, [that is,] another content-based identifier or a request for data; and (3) providing access to, denying access to, or deleting data." PersonalWeb, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20015 , [2020 BL 41760], 2020 WL 520618 , at *10. We adopt the district court's view, which closely tracks the claim language. PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2021)… First is the use of a content-based identifier. We said that was abstract in Erie… We similarly described content-based identifiers as abstract in Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905 , 910-11 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (abstract idea of using a "unique identifier . . . to communicate information about the mail object, i.e., the sender, recipient, and contents of the mail object"), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 , 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( abstract idea of "receiving e-mail (and other data file) [**6] [***6] identifiers, characterizing e-mail based on the identifiers, and communicating the characterization"). The claims' use of content-based identifiers, therefore, is abstract. Generating such identifiers via a known algorithm is no less abstract. "[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 , 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting cases)). For [*1317] instance, the identifiers claimed in Symantec were created "using a mathematical algorithm." 838 F.3d at 1313 . And in RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., we explained that "[a] process that started with data, added an algorithm, and ended with a new form of data was directed to an abstract idea." 855 F.3d 1322 , 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017). That, too, holds true here. Second is the step of comparing the content-based identifier against other values. That is also abstract… Third is the data-management function, which varies across the three patents. Each such function is abstract…”
Step 1
Claim 11 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The mental process recited in claim 11 is:
S1, by a computer processor, encoding all objects in an old file and a new file to obtain individual codes of the all objects, comprising:
- a mental process. The encoding of information, i.e. taking a piece of information, e.g. text, and encoding it to another form is a mental process that was performed well before the advent of a computer, such as in the American Revolution or in the 1800’s for encoding into Morse code for the use of the telegraph, and the taking is mere mental data collecting, e.g. observing a folder with a series of papers in it (example of a file with objects), and mentally judging to take out one of those papers (e.g. by physically removing it from the folder).
To clarify, this limitation does not recite any particularity in how this step is performed, nor require the use of a computer (as discussed above). Rather, it is directed at the mental process itself, i.e. the abstract idea of mentally encoding objects in files, e.g. by converting the text of papers in files to Morse code for the use of the telegraph for transmission (wherein the telegraph existed long before computers, see MPEP § 2106.04(b) for “O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1853)”). Nor does this limitation even recite what information is in the files, or what the objects are, i.e. this readily encompasses paper files (e.g. in file folders, or binders, or other collections of documents), wherein each paper in the file is an object, and the encoding is performed on each paper.
Other types of encoding may also be readily performed mentally, e.g. the use simpler cryptographic cyphers that have existed long before the invention of the computer, e.g. the cyphers used in the American Revolution.
The Examiner further notes that neither the claims nor the instant disclosure (page 10) discuss any particular technological method, e.g. a conventional algorithm, to even perform this step, even if such use was recited, as per PersonalWeb as was discussed above: “…The claims' use of content-based identifiers, therefore, is abstract. Generating such identifiers via a known algorithm is no less abstract.”
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the use of the encoded information by these present claims is for nothing more than checking whether or not information was changed between two versions of files – as such, the encoding may also be a simple encoding system, e.g. the use of the Dewey Decimal System by a librarian, and assigning different codes to a new revision of a book, determined by a simple mental observation, e.g. 101.101, and to an older version of a book, e.g. 101.100.
In the context of structure design, the Examiner notes that the present claims still reflect what is a mental process, e.g. an architect, civil engineer, or structural engineer, mentally observing a series of drawings/blueprints for a building, wherein each drawing is from a different period in time (e.g. drawings of the US White House or Congress, which have both received multiple renovations and changes), mentally judging each time there are design changes in the drawings (e.g. addition of a room, changing locations of walls, etc.), mentally judging that each time there is a design change to encode the drawing with a version number, e.g. Rev. A, Rev. B, etc., and thus allowing the person to later come back to the same drawings and quickly judge if the drawing is the same as an older drawing, or different (e.g. suppose there are 4 drawings of the same floorplan of the White House from different architects in the 1700’s to early 1800’s, and each one was encoded mentally with “Rev. A.”, and then there is a drawing with a new floorplan, e.g. one from after the War of 1812, which was then mentally encoded with “Rev. B.” because there were design changes from the older drawings) – wherein such codes may readily be assigned at a more granular level to various portions of the drawing, e.g. writing down revision numbers for each room in the drawing, or each element in each room. In such a mental process, a computer may readily be used as a tool to automate the mental process.
… S1.3, applying a lightweight feature mapping algorithm, computing a code for each of the first, second, and third categories, according to the first category, the second category and the third category of data changes of the first object; and S1.4, applying a feature fusion algorithm, integrating all codes for the first, second and third categories into an object code selected from one of a hash code, an object signature or an object fingerprint, comprising checking for change at a model level by filtering out incidental ID changes of objects that do not cause substantive design changes of the construction project;– a mental process, akin to the ones discussed above. E.g. the person removes a paper from a folder of papers (a file), observes information on the paper so as to perform the extracting, mentally judging/evaluating to compute a piece of code for each category, and then mentally tabulating the results, or using pen and paper to do so (e.g. write down a table, wherein each row contains the category observed and the mental code representing the category, e.g. in the Dewey Decimal System, the code 101 is for the category Theory of philosophy. The integrating may readily be performed mentally, e.g. by appending the various codes onto each other using pen and paper, or any other means of integrating/combining the codes into one code. Similar for the checking for a change at a model level, e.g. compare the integrated/combined code with a prior code, such as in a mental evaluation/judgement, and if the code is the same then no change, else there is a change. E.g. comparing two random MD5 hashes of: 7c6a180b36896a0a8c02787eeafb0e4c and 7c6a180b36896a0a8c02787eeafb0e4c – to observe no change; or 7c6a180b36896a0a8c02787eeafb0e4c and 7c6a180b36896z0a8c02787eeafb0e4c – and mentally observing the change of “z”.
The act of filtering is considered as a mental judgement/evaluation, in addition this act is also considered as certain methods of organizing human activity in view of MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C): “Other examples of managing personal behavior recited in a claim include: i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis)”.
S2, by the computer processor, determining whether the object code of the first object is equal to code of one or more second objects in the new file or the old file, if so, then the first object is not changed, if not, proceeding to a next step;
; - a mental observation/evaluation/judgement, e.g. a person mentally observing codes, such as those from the encoding discussed above (although the claim does not even require the use of the results of the encoding step), and comparing them to mentally judge/evaluate if the code was changed, e.g. does 101.101 = 101.100?
S3, by the computer processor, determining whether the first object matches one or more of the second objects in the new file or the old file, if so, the first object is a modified object based on three-dimensional shape and spatial topological relationship data of the objects, if not, the first object is a deleted or newly added object;
-- a continuation of the mental process discussed above, wherein this is a mental judgement/evaluation based on a mental observation akin to the ones discussed above.
To clarify, a person, e.g. an architect, is readily able to mentally observe blueprints or other such drawings of a building design, and mentally observe changes in such drawings between different versions of the drawings, e.g. observing that a column in the drawing was deleted, newly added, or modified (e.g. made bigger/smaller, moved relative to other elements in the drawing).
wherein, the old file and the new file are building information model files, and the first object and the second objects each represent physical objects applied in the construction project related to the new file and the old file, - further limiting the mental process (e.g. to construction documents such as blueprints) but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer and/or generally linking to a particular technological environment (“BIM”), akin to being in the “context of XML” (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”.
As such, the claims recite a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Preamble of claim 11 and the recitations such of the display module and the processor are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”
The acts of “applying…” algorithms are considered as part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer, akin to the recitations of “using the trained ANN” in example 47.
The recitation of “BIM” is considered as merely instructions to do it on a computer with commonplace software (instant disclosure; page 1, ¶¶ 1-2, e.g. “Autodesk Revit” on page 12 and page 14), and similar such recitations, e.g. “IFC format BIM file data structure”, akin to MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).”
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
In the preamble, the recitation of “in a BIM [“Building Information Model” which is “widely used” as per page 1 of the instant disclosure]”, as well as the later recitation of specifying “are building information model files” and other recitations such as “IFC format BIM file data structure” – this is akin to “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017)…merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML document” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h): “Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags)”.
The recitation in the preamble, should this be given patentable weight and not read purely as an intended use, of “without relying on globally unique identifier (GUID) of
BIM objects” is considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given its lack of restriction on how this is to be done but rather expressly purely a desired result as a negative limitation.
Steps S1.1-S1.2 are considered insignificant extra-solution activities of mere data gathering.
Step S4 is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting/displaying.
The recitation of “and the outcome of change identification has referenceability at the BIM model level” is considered as part of the mere data outputting, as it is further limiting the outputting an outcome limitation.
Should the act of computing a code not be considered abstract, the Examiner notes that these would be mere data gathering of the codes for use in the later recited mental process of comparing codes (e.g. a person is readily able to mentally compare two simple hash values, or much simpler codes as discussed above) as well as part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer, wherein this is merely using generic functions, as part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer, for creating a “code” (as recited in the claims)/”content-identifier” (see PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC as discussed above, include seeing: “So, "[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?" Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78 . As to the subject-matter question, not much. The district court had it right: there is "nothing 'inventive' about any claim details, individually or in combination, that are not themselves abstract ideas." PersonalWeb, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20015 , [2020 BL 41760], 2020 WL 520618 , at *13. The district court was also right that "[u]sing a generic hash function, a server system, or a computer does not render these claims non-abstract." Id. "[O]ur precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea." Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 , 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015);…” – to clarify, see page 10 of the instant disclosure: “S1, all objects in both the old and new files are encoded, wherein code resulted may be hash code, object signature, object fingerprint, etc., and then an object is taken out of the old or new file;”
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
Preamble of claim 11 and the recitations such of the display module and the processor are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”
The acts of “applying…” algorithms are considered as part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer, akin to the recitations of “using the trained ANN” in example 47.
The recitation of “BIM” is considered as merely instructions to do it on a computer with commonplace software (instant disclosure; page 1, ¶¶ 1-2, e.g. “Autodesk Revit” on page 12 and page 14), and similar such recitations, e.g. “IFC format BIM file data structure”, akin to MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).”
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
In the preamble, the recitation of “in a BIM [“Building Information Model” which is “widely used” as per page 1 of the instant disclosure]”, as well as the later recitation of specifying “are building information model files” and other recitations such as “IFC format BIM file data structure” – this is akin to “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017)…merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML document” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h): “Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags)”.
The recitation in the preamble, should this be given patentable weight and not read purely as an intended use, of “without relying on globally unique identifier (GUID) of
BIM objects” is considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given its lack of restriction on how this is to be done but rather expressly purely a desired result as a negative limitation.
Steps S1.1-S1.2 are considered insignificant extra-solution activities of mere data gathering.
Step S4 is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting/displaying.
The recitation of “and the outcome of change identification has referenceability at the BIM model level” is considered as part of the mere data outputting, as it is further limiting the outputting an outcome limitation.
Should the act of computing a code not be considered abstract, the Examiner notes that these would be mere data gathering of the codes for use in the later recited mental process of comparing codes (e.g. a person is readily able to mentally compare two simple hash values, or much simpler codes as discussed above) as well as part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer, wherein this is merely using generic functions, as part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer, for creating a “code” (as recited in the claims)/”content-identifier” (see PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC as discussed above, include seeing: “So, "[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?" Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78 . As to the subject-matter question, not much. The district court had it right: there is "nothing 'inventive' about any claim details, individually or in combination, that are not themselves abstract ideas." PersonalWeb, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20015 , [2020 BL 41760], 2020 WL 520618 , at *13. The district court was also right that "[u]sing a generic hash function, a server system, or a computer does not render these claims non-abstract." Id. "[O]ur precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea." Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 , 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015);…” – to clarify, see page 10 of the instant disclosure: “S1, all objects in both the old and new files are encoded, wherein code resulted may be hash code, object signature, object fingerprint, etc., and then an object is taken out of the old or new file;”
The insignificant extra solution activities of mere data gathering and data displaying are considered WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as well as example 46 claim 1 for its displaying limitation.
In addition, hashing in the field of endeavor is also WURC, see:
Lee, Suk-Hwan, and Ki-Ryong Kwon. "Robust 3D mesh model hashing based on feature object." Digital Signal Processing 22.5 (2012): 744-759. Abstract: “3D model hashing can be very useful for the authentication, indexing, copy detection, and watermarking of 3D content, in a manner similar to image hashing…” and § 1 ¶¶ 1-2, also see § 2 including the subsections
Martínez, Salvador, Sébastien Gérard, and Jordi Cabot. "Robust hashing for models." Proceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. 2018.Abstract, § 1 including ¶¶ 1-3 incl. : “Indeed, robust hashing algorithms have been proved useful as a key building block for providing intellectual property protection, authenticity assessment and fast comparison and retrieval solutions in different application domains such as digital images [14], 3D models [20] or text documents [34].” – and § 2.1 for more details.
Yu et al., US 2017/0213395, ¶ 47: “Therefore, when authoring tool 101 has made a change in a 3D graphic object, it can be notified to identify the change. Alternatively, according to one of the embodiments of the present invention, hash codes are calculated for 3D graphic objects. When the hash code of a 3D graphic object changes, it implies that there is a change in the 3D graphic object. Therefore, content processor 102 can identify the change. There are many techniques to calculate a hash code, including using cyclic redundancy check (CRC) and Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA). The hash code is calculated based on the serialized data of the 3D graphic object or the file of the 3D graphic object.”
Oraskari, Jyrki, and Seppo Törmä. "RDF-based signature algorithms for computing differences of IFC models." Automation in Construction 57 (2015): 213-221. Abstract: “The capability to accurately detect changes between successive versions of the IFC representation of a BIM model would enable the development of generic change management functionalities for construction projects.” And § 1 ¶¶ 1-4, then § 3 ¶ 5, then § 4 ¶¶ 1-2
Shafiq, M., and S. Lockley. "Signature-based matching of IFC models." 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC). 2018. § 4 ¶¶ 1-3.
Shi, Xin, et al. "IFCdiff: A content-based automatic comparison approach for IFC files." Automation in Construction 86 (2018): 53-68. Abstract, § 1, then see steps 3-4 on page 57.
Trzeciak, Maciej, and André Borrmann. "Towards registration of construction drawings to building information models using knowledge-based extended geometric hashing." Proc. of 26th International Workshop on Intelligent Computing in Engineering. 2019. Abstract, § 1, then § 2.3 including ¶ 3
As such, the claims are directed towards a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 15 is adding additional steps to the mental process of a mental judgement of observing two or more codes, e.g. simple hashes on paper, and observing/judging if they are equal, wherein such a mental observation/judgement may readily be carried out for a plurality of objects, e.g. by using tabular representations with pen and paper. The comparing step is a mental judgement of comparing shapes of objects, as well as where they are (e.g. such as in a drawing) as where they are as compared to other objects (e.g. observing where one column is relative to another in a drawing).
As such, the claims are directed towards a mental process without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights