DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 12/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1 and 11. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-24 are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.4 P.1] “the generation of ABVSOs as in the present invention cannot be performed in the human mind [ ] Given the complexity of calculating ABVSOs as in the present invention, they are not mental processes and therefore the claims are not directed to abstract ideas”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per Applicant’s disclosure, the calculation of ABVSOs can reasonably be performed by a person with/without the aid of pen/paper. Applicant discloses “ABVSO generator 186 preferably generates each ABVSO by linearly connecting boundaries of the two as-built surfaces, so as to define and enclose a volumetric geometrical unit, the volume of which may be calculated by an ABVSO geometric property calculator 188 [ ] It is understood that ABVSO Geometrical Property Calculator 188 is not limited to calculating the volume of the ABVSO, but may also calculate other geometrical properties of the ABVSO, including, for example, surface area, surface length, slope, and any other relevant properties” Spec. [Pg.14 Ln.15-23]. Linearly connecting boundaries and calculating surface areas, length, slope, etc. are fully within the realm of mental processes as defined in MPEP 2106.04(a). The MPEP states that a claim can be found to recite a mental process even if the claimed steps are lengthy or complex. The eligibility analysis under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l and MPEP § 2106 focuses on whether the claim, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea, such as a mental process or mathematical concept, and, if so, whether it integrates that idea into a practical application. The complexity of a mathematical concept or the difficulty of a mental step does not, by itself, render the claim patent-eligible. Courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the mind and those requiring the assistance of a physical aid, such as a pen and paper. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to make the claim patent-eligible if the implementation is merely routine and conventional. Therefore, the mere fact that a claim requires numerous or difficult calculations does not overcome the initial determination that it is directed to a mental process or mathematical concept. The determination must be based on whether the claimed limitations are integrated into a practical application, not on their complexity. The claim must amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. As shown in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 detailed analysis below, independent claims 1 and 11 do not integrate into a practical application since the identified additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply and Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg.4-7, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-21, and 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment is made in view of Lorenzo US Patent No. 10467758 B1.
As shown in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section below, Golparvar-Fard in view of Lorenzo disclose Claim 1 and 11 amended limitations of “each based on a pair of said surface mappings comprising a first as-built surface generated from images taken at an initial point in time and representing a first, lower surface of the ABVSO and a second as-built surface generated from images taken at a later point in time and representing a second, upper surface of the ABVSO, each said ABVSO being generated by linearly connecting boundaries of said two as- built surfaces, so as to define and enclose a volumetric geometrical unit”. Therefore, 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golparvar-Fard et al. US Pub. No. 20130155058 A1, in view of Lorenzo US Patent No. 10467758 B1.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments [Pg.7-8] with respect to claim(s) 2, 6, 12, 16, 22, 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, claims 2, 12, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golparvar-Fard in view of Lorenzo and claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golparvar-Fard in view of Lorenzo in view of Brown.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 and 21-22 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 11-20 and 23-24 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (claim 1):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
;
defining a plurality of design volume-surface-objects (DVSOs), each
corresponding to a material layer of said infrastructure project; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, a person can reasonably define, with or without the aid of pen and paper, a plurality of DVSOs corresponding to a material layer of an infrastructure project.)
ascertaining at least a volume of each of said DVSOs; (As drafted and under
its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), since a person can reasonably ascertain (i.e. evaluate, judge), with or without the aid of pen and paper, a volume for each DVSO.)
repeatedly imaging said infrastructure project over time during
construction thereof to produce multiple images acquired at a plurality of different times; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably visit an infrastructure project (i.e. job/construction site) and mentally, or with the aid of pen/paper, take note of the project over time.)
automatically generating a point cloud representing said infrastructure project at each of said plurality of different times, based on said images, said point cloud including multiple points each having known Cartesian coordinates; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably draw, at different times, a 3D representation (i.e. point cloud representation) of an infrastructure project and assign Cartesian coordinates to said drawings.)
automatically generating a surface mapping representing said infrastructure project at each of said plurality of different times, based on said point clouds; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate previously established/drawn 3D representations (i.e. point clouds) of an infrastructure project and then draw a surface mapping based on said 3D representations.)
automatically generating a plurality of as-built volume-surface-objects (ABVSOs), each based on a pair of said surface mappings comprising a first as-built surface generated from images taken at an initial point in time and representing a first, lower surface of the ABVSO and
a second as-built surface generated from images taken at a later point in time and representing a second, upper surface of the ABVSO,
each said ABVSO being generated by linearly connecting boundaries of said two as- built surfaces, so as to define and enclose a volumetric geometrical unit, each of said ABVSOs corresponding to one of said plurality of DVSOs; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate previously established surface mappings generated from different images (i.e. first/second as-built) at different times, and based thereof, draw/generate a plurality of ABVSOs that correspond to a plurality of DVSOs by linearly connecting boundaries of said surfaces. As an example, a person can evaluate a first and second as-built surface (e.g. a first step and a second step of a staircase). And from the two surfaces, draw / generate an ABVSO by linearly connecting the edges (i.e. boundaries) of the two steps, defining and enclosing a volumetric geometrical unit.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (claim 1):
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra Solution Activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
receiving an infrastructure project design comprising: at least one of a
three-dimensional view of an infrastructure project to be built and a set of two-dimensional views of said infrastructure project; and material layer defining information relating to said infrastructure project; (The additional elements amount to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
and employing said ABVSOs and said DVSOs for constructing and managing said infrastructure project. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). As written, this limitation does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) and does not meaningfully limit the claim. This limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: 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); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).”
Step 2B (claim 1):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply and Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g).
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (claim 11):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes performed on a computer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent claim 11, the claim recites the limitations of:
a project design generator operative to generate an infrastructure project design comprising: at least one of a three-dimensional view of an infrastructure project to be built and a set of two-dimensional views of said infrastructure project; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions) or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably design and draw 3D and 2D views of an infrastructure project.)
and material layer defining information relating to said infrastructure
project; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a computer, since a person can reasonably define information relating to an infrastructure project.)
a design volume-surface-objects (DVSOs) generator operative to define a plurality of DVSOs, each corresponding to a material layer of said infrastructure project; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably define, with or without the aid of pen and paper, a plurality of DVSOs corresponding to a material layer of an infrastructure project.)
a DVSO geometrical property calculator operative to ascertain at least one
geometrical property of each of said DVSOs; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a computer, since a person can reasonably ascertain (i.e. evaluate, judge), with or without the aid of pen and paper, a volume for each DVSO.)
an image generator operative to repeatedly image said infrastructure project over time during construction thereof to produce multiple images acquired at a plurality of different times; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably visit an infrastructure project (i.e. job/construction site) and mentally, or with the aid of pen/paper, take note of the project over time.)
a point cloud generator operative to automatically generate a point cloud representing said infrastructure project at each of said plurality of different times, based on said images, said point cloud including multiple points each having known Cartesian coordinates; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably draw, at different times, a 3D representation (i.e. point cloud representation) of an infrastructure project and assign Cartesian coordinates to said drawings.)
a surface mapping generator operative to automatically generate a surface mapping representing said infrastructure project at each of said plurality of different times, based on said point clouds; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate previously established/drawn 3D representations (i.e. point clouds) of an infrastructure project and then draw a surface mapping based on said 3D representations.)
an As-Built Volume-Surface Object generator operative to automatically generate a plurality of as-built volume-surface-objects (ABVSOs), each based on a pair of said surface mappings by utilizing a first as-build surface generated from images taken at an initial point in time and representing a first, lower surface of the ABVSO and a second as-built surface generated from images taken at a later point in time and representing a second, upper surface of the ABVSO, said As-Built Volume-Surface Object generator being operative to generate each said ABVSO by linearly connecting boundaries of said two as-built surfaces, so as to define and enclose a volumetric geometrical unit, each of said ABVSOs corresponding to one of said plurality of DVSOs; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate previously established surface mappings generated from different images (i.e. first/second as-built) at different times, and based thereof, draw/generate a plurality of ABVSOs that correspond to a plurality of DVSOs by linearly connecting boundaries of said surfaces. As an example, a person can evaluate a first and second as-built surface (e.g. a first step and a second step of a staircase). And from the two surfaces, draw / generate an ABVSO by linearly connecting the edges (i.e. boundaries) of the two steps, defining and enclosing a volumetric geometrical unit.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (claim 11):
As per independent claim 11, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
and project construction and management functionality operative to employ said ABVSOs and said DVSOs for constructing and managing said infrastructure project. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception on a computer per MPEP 2106.05(f). As written, this limitation does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) and does not meaningfully limit the claim. This limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: 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); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).”
Step 2B (claim 11):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception on a computer per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 further recites, wherein said set of two-dimensional views comprises: at least one horizontal alignment view of said infrastructure project; at least one vertical alignment view of said infrastructure project; and a multiplicity of sectional views taken perpendicular to said at least one horizontal view. The additional limitations elaborate on the 2D views previously determined, within parent claim, to be directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim further amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites, wherein said employing said ABVSOs and said
DVSOs for constructing and managing said infrastructure project comprises at least one of: providing control instructions to construction machinery used in constructing said infrastructure project; (The additional elements amount to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre/post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process and an example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole)
accounting and paying for at least one of excavating and moving earth for constructing said infrastructure project; accounting and paying for materials used in said infrastructure project; (The additional limitations further amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). As written, this limitation does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) and does not meaningfully limit the claim. This limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
monitoring progress of said infrastructure project vis-a-vis a
predetermined schedule; and monitoring progress of said infrastructure project vis-a-vis a pre-defined design. (The additional limitations amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably monitor (i.e. evaluate) infrastructure project progress per predetermined schedule and pre-defined design, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites, and also comprising graphically representing said infrastructure project at each of said plurality of different times. The additional limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably draw an infrastructure project at different times. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites, wherein said imaging comprises at least one of photographing by a camera and laser scanning. The additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “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.” Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 further recites, and also comprising employing RTK GPS positioning techniques to enhance a precision of said multiple points comprising said point cloud. The additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). As written, this limitation does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) and does not meaningfully limit the claim. This limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 further recites, wherein said defining a plurality of DVSOs comprising automatically defining at least one DVSO and automatically defining within said a least one DVSO sub-DVSOs included in said at least one DVSO. The additional limitation further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably define, with or without the aid of pen and paper, a plurality of DVSOs to include sub-DVSOs. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8, the method according to claim 7, further recites, and also comprising assigning at least one parameter to said at least one DVSO, said sub-DVSOs included in said at least one DVSO automatically inheriting said at least one parameter from said at least one DVSO. The additional limitation further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably assign, with or without the aid of pen and paper, parameters to a plurality of DVSOs to include corresponding sub-DVSOs. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9, the method according to claim 8, further recites, wherein said assigning at least one parameter comprises at least one of assignation of a sub-contractor contracted to construct said at least one DVSO, assignation of scheduled start date for construction of said at least one DVSO, assignation of a scheduled completion date for construction of said at least one DVSO, and assignation of an identification number of said at least one DVSO. The additional limitations elaborate on the parameters previously determined, within parent claim, to be directed towards mental processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is further directed towards Mental Processes and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 further recites, and also comprising importing at least one modeled finite element to be located at a location within said infrastructure project, from an external Building Information Modelling (BIM) platform having modeled said finite element to said plurality of DVSOs, and incorporating said at least one finite element within ones of said plurality of DVSOs corresponding to said location. The additional limitations amount to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12, the system according to claim 11, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13, the system according to claim 11, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14, the system according to claim 11, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15, the system according to claim 11, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16, the system according to claim 11, recites wherein said image generator comprises RTK GPS positioning equipment. The additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the limitation is directed towards invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states, “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.” Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17, the system according to claim 11, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18, the system according to claim 17, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19, the system according to claim 18, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20, the system according to claim 11, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 21, the method according to claim 1, further recites, and also comprising associating at least one parameter with at least one of said DVSOs, said at least one parameter comprising at least one of a task, time schedule, and other information relating to construction of said at least one DVSO. The additional limitations elaborate on the parameters previously determined, within parent claim, to be directed towards mental processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is further directed towards Mental Processes and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 22, the method according to claim 21, further recites, measuring at least one geometrical property of at least one of said ABVSOs at at least a first time and a second time of said plurality of different times; (The additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). As written, this limitation does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) and does not meaningfully limit the claim. This limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
comparing said at least one geometrical property of said at least one of said ABVSOs as measured at said at least first and second times; and automatically monitoring progress of said at least one of said ABVSOs based on said comparing and with respect to said at least one parameter associated with at least one DVSO corresponding to said at least one of said ABVSOs. (The additional limitations amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably compare (i.e. observe, evaluate, judge), with or without the aid of pen and paper, properties of a plurality of ABVSOs as well as monitor (i.e. observe, evaluate) said ABVSOs based on the recited criteria.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 23, the system according to claim 11, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 21 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 24, the system according to claim 23, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 22 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-5, 7-15 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golparvar-Fard et al. US Pub. No. 20130155058 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “GF”) in view of Lorenzo US Patent No. 10467758 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lorenzo”).
Regarding claim 1, GF discloses, A method for dynamic modeling of infrastructure projects over time (GF [P.0003]), the method comprising: receiving an infrastructure project design (“The detection of progress deviations may be based on a priori information such as available in a 4D Building Information Model (BIM)” GF [P.0049]) comprising: at least one of a three-dimensional view of an infrastructure project to be built and (“generating as-built three-dimensional (3D) and four-dimensional (4D) (3D+time) point cloud models using low resolution images” GF [P.0040]) a set of two-dimensional views of said infrastructure project; (“start with a good initial image pair” GF [P.0182])
and material layer defining information relating to said infrastructure project; (“to represent the entirety of planned construction and query quantities and shared properties of materials, Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) are used” GF [P.0195])
defining a plurality of design volume-surface-objects (DVSOs) (“each voxel (i.e. DVSO) may be assigned (i.e. defining) two sets of labels (as-built and as-planned) as well as a color” GF [P.0074]. Voxel is interpreted to mean design volume-surface-objects (DVSOs) because “In order to detect progress, the integrated as-built and as-planned scene (Ω) may be discretized into a finite set of opaque voxels (volume element in space) along the dominant Euclidean axes.” GF [P.0072]),
each corresponding to a material layer of said infrastructure project; (“all voxels (i.e. DVSOs) that are in the next layer immediately adjacent to the first layer may be visited” GF [P.0075])
ascertaining at least a volume of each of said DVSOs (“wherein each voxel (ν) occupies a finite homogenous volume” GF [P.0072]);
repeatedly imaging said infrastructure project over time during construction thereof to produce multiple images acquired at a plurality of different times; (“the construction management team collects an average of 250 photos per day. Such a large and diverse set of imagery ... enable the as-built scene to be fully observed from almost every conceivable viewing position and angle during (i.e. plurality of different times) construction of the project.” GF [P.0043])
automatically generating a point cloud representing said infrastructure project at each of said plurality of different times, based on said images, (“Generating point cloud models from photos captured in one day and superimposing reconstructed point cloud models at different days to generate a 4D, as-built geometry + imagery model.” GF [P.0163]) said point cloud including multiple points each having known Cartesian coordinates; (“to align the as-built point cloud model with the as-planned model, transformation between these two Cartesian coordinate systems may be found” GF [P.0066])
automatically generating a surface mapping representing said infrastructure project at each of said plurality of different times, based on said point clouds; (“an SfM technique may be used to reconstruct an as-built point cloud model from a set of daily images.” GF [P.0172])
automatically generating a plurality of as-built volume-surface-objects (ABVSOs) (“each voxel (i.e. ABVSO) may be assigned two sets of labels (as-built and as-planned) as well as a color. Within this step, the expected and actual progress of each voxel is sensed (i.e. automatically generated)... the proposed approach finds the voxels that are occupied by as-built and as-planned components and are visible from the set of cameras (i.e., observable progress).” GF [P.0074]),
each of said ABVSOs corresponding to one of said plurality of DVSOs; (“as-built and as-planned spaces may be fed into a Bayesian model and used to assess progress” GF [P.0061])
and employing said ABVSOs and said DVSOs for constructing and managing said infrastructure project. (“The as-built and as-planned voxel coloring and labeling algorithm demonstrates high accuracy in labeling of a construction scene for occupancy and visibility. The SVM kernel machine shows promising results in detecting progress. Overall, the presented results mark the approach presented herein to be the first of its kind to fully take advantage of already-available daily site photographs and IFC-based 4D BIMs for automated progress tracking and analysis” GF [P.0128])
GF fails to specifically disclose each based on a pair of said surface mappings comprising a first as-built surface generated from images taken at an initial point in time and representing a first, lower surface of the ABVSO and a second as-built surface generated from images taken at a later point in time and representing a second, upper surface of the ABVSO, each said ABVSO being generated by linearly connecting boundaries of said two as- built surfaces, so as to define and enclose a volumetric geometrical unit.
However, Lorenzo discloses each based on a pair of said surface mappings (“wherein converting each of the one or more pairs of parallel lines into intersection coordinates with 2D drawing elements comprising: mapping line segments in the 2D drawing that corresponds to elements of the building” Lorenzo [Col.21 Ln.25-29]) comprising a first as-built surface generated from images taken at an initial point in time and representing a first, lower surface of the ABVSO and a second as-built surface generated from images taken at a later point in time and representing a second, upper surface of the ABVSO, (“wherein calculating construction progress from the intersection coordinates comprising one of: calculating a linear distance between intersection coordinates, wherein the linear distance comprises a distance along building elements (i.e. lower / upper surfaces) between a pair of intersection coordinates; or calculating a number or portion of a specified element (i.e. ABVSO) between the intersection coordinates (i.e. surface boundaries); and consulting one or more different images (i.e. first / second as-built surface images taken at initial / later points in time) and recalculating construction progress for the one or more different images” Lorenzo [Col.21 Ln.35-45]. The construction progress is interpreted to include lower / upper surfaces because “construction progress may also be determined relative to pitch 332 (i.e. up-down)” Lorenzo [Col.9 Ln.24]) each said ABVSO being generated by linearly connecting boundaries of said two as- built surfaces, (“At block 1148, a distance between each pair of related coordinates being tracked is calculated, using the 2D floor plan [ ] Given the coordinate system established in this example (between 0.0 and 1,1), the distance in the coordinate system (0.07) may readily be converted into an equivalent linear distance measurement based in inches, feet, meters, etc.” Lorenzo [Col.17 Ln.34-49], “At block 1152, a total distance of construction work completed is updated with the calculated distance [ ] This maintains a running total of work performed to date” Lorenzo [Col.17 Ln.58-63]) so as to define and enclose a volumetric geometrical unit (“At block 1164, finally the progress has been determined for the current interval or measurement event, and the progress (updated total distance or % of total distance) is compared to a construction schedule. Alternatively, quantities of units of one or more construction elements may be determined (e.g. linear feet of stud framing, square feet of drywall, cubic yards of concrete (e.g. volumetric geometrical unit), etc.).” Lorenzo [Col.18 Ln.52-58])
GF and Lorenzo are analogous art as they both address construction progress monitoring using image data. GF claims a system, method, and storage medium for reconstructing dense 3D/4D as-built point cloud models from unordered images, overlaying them with 3D/4D as-planned BIM models, tracking progress, and providing visual and probabilistic analysis of deviations. And Lorenzo claims a method, device, and storage medium for tracking construction progress using images with metadata, parallel lines, and intersection coordinates mapped onto 2D drawings (floor/elevation plans). Progress is calculated from these intersections and compared to schedules. Additionally, GF is applied to sites with BIM models and 3D/4D visualization needs, enabling dense point cloud reconstruction, schedule integration, augmented reality, and advanced deviation analysis, and Lorenzo is applied to construction progress tracking using 2D plans, image metadata, and geometric mapping, suitable for sites where 2D drawings are primary and image-based progress measurement is needed. The combination of GF and Lorenzo is made obvious when 2D drawings are primary and image-based progress measurement is needed along with a modern, BIM-enabled project requiring spatial and temporal comparisons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of GF to include monitoring lower / upper construction surfaces in order to effectively capture construction progress of elements which require progress tracking from the bottom-up, such as concrete laying, stairwell construction, building construction, etc..
Regarding claim 2, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method of claim 1, GF fails to specifically disclose wherein said set of two-dimensional views comprises: at least one horizontal alignment view of said infrastructure project; at least one vertical alignment view of said infrastructure project; and a multiplicity of sectional views taken perpendicular to said at least one horizontal view.
However, Lorenzo discloses, wherein said set of two-dimensional views comprises: at least one horizontal alignment view of said infrastructure project; at least one vertical alignment view of said infrastructure project; (“Referring now to FIG. 6C (see below), a photo or frame 630 illustrating segmented areas in accordance with embodiments of the present invention is shown [ ] Each of the framed sections 638A, 638B are shown with a horizontal arrowed line (yaw) and a vertical arrowed line (pitch). Lorenzo [Col.11 Ln.64])
and a multiplicity of sectional views taken perpendicular to said at least one horizontal view. (“Referring now to FIG. 13C... Because the view is perpendicular to the ground (i.e. horizontal view) rather than parallel to the ground, it is mapped to an X-Z, Y-Z, or Y=bX+t (b=slope, t=Y intercept), basically any plane that is perpendicular to ground.” Lorenzo [Col.19 Ln.52-55])
PNG
media_image1.png
565
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of GF to include alignment and perpendicular sectional views, as discloses by Lorenzo, in order to “establish construction progress for a current sampling interval” Lorenzo [Col.2 Ln.53].
Regarding claim 3, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method of claim 1, GF further discloses, and wherein said employing said ABVSOs and said DVSOs for constructing and managing said infrastructure project comprises at least one of: providing control instructions to construction machinery used in constructing said infrastructure project; accounting and paying for at least one of excavating and moving earth for constructing said infrastructure project; accounting and paying for materials used in said infrastructure project; monitoring progress of said infrastructure project vis-a-vis a predetermined schedule; (“The 4D as-built point cloud models registered with the 4D as-planned models also enable the expected and the actual project schedules to be compared.” GF [P.0069])
and monitoring progress of said infrastructure project vis-a-vis a pre-defined design. (“This module consists of the following non-exhaustive steps: (1) generating an all-inclusive, as-planned model based on architectural and structural drawings at the pre-construction stage; (2) linking the schedule to the as-planned model; and (3) updating the model based on schedule revisions, approved RFIs, RPFs and change orders to continuously revise the as-planned model based on scheduled changes.” GF [P.0195])
Regarding claim 4, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method of claim 1, GF further discloses, and also comprising graphically representing said infrastructure project at each of said plurality of different times. (“Generating point cloud models from photos captured in one day and superimposing reconstructed point cloud models at different days (i.e. different times) to generate a 4D, as-built geometry + imagery model. This step will automatically register all images with the 4D BIM, allowing as-planned and as-built images to be analyzed both in space and time.” GF [P.0163])
Regarding claim 5, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method of claim 1, GF further discloses wherein said imaging comprises at least one of photographing by a camera and laser scanning. (“FIG. 3 is a series of images... five camera frustra representing location/orientation of a superintendent when site photographs were taken” GF [P.0010], “comparing laser scanning point cloud models with CAD models” GF [P.0161])
Regarding claim 7, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method of claim 1, GF further discloses, wherein said defining a plurality of DVSOs comprising automatically defining at least one DVSO and automatically defining within said a least one DVSO sub-DVSOs included in said at least one DVSO. (“The as-planned, labeled voxels (i.e. DVSOs) may be categorized (i.e. automatically defined) as occupied (O) and visible (V)” GF [P.0082]. The categorized as-planned voxels are interpreted to mean sub-DVSO. i.e. The Occupied/Visible voxel is sub to the as-planned voxel.)
Regarding claim 8, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method of claim 7, GF further discloses, and also comprising assigning at least one parameter to said at least one DVSO, said sub-DVSOs included in said at least one DVSO automatically inheriting said at least one parameter from said at least one DVSO. (“The as-planned model (i.e. includes as-planned voxels (i.e. DVSO))... if a voxel has at least one of its corners inside an IFC element, that voxel may be labeled as Occupied [Op]” GF [P.0083]. As-planned is interpreted to be the assigned parameter automatically inherited from the DVSO. i.e. “Occupied” is the sub-DVSO and “as-planned” is the inherited parameter, as can be seen in the voxel label “Op”.)
Regarding claim 9, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method of claim 8, GF further discloses, wherein said assigning at least one parameter comprises at least one of assignation of a sub-contractor contracted to construct said at least one DVSO, assignation of scheduled start date for construction of said at least one DVSO, assignation of a scheduled completion date for construction of said at least one DVSO, and assignation of an identification number of said at least one DVSO. (“The system 200 may include a digital image database 204, a building information model (BIM) database 208 and a construction schedule database 212... Data from the BIM model database 208 and the construction schedule database 212 may be provided to a 3D and schedule integrator 230... may schedule different phases of a construction project over time (i.e. scheduled start and/or completion dates) with respect to different milestones to be completed within three dimensions of a construction site, and thus generate a 4D as-planned model of the site.” GF [P.055]. The 4D As-Planned Model parameters (i.e. scheduled start/completion dates, etc.) are interpreted to be assigned to at least one DVSO (i.e. as-planned voxel) per Fig.2, seen below.)
PNG
media_image2.png
467
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method of claim 1, GF further discloses, and also comprising importing at least one modeled finite element to be located at a location within said infrastructure project, from an external Building Information Modelling (BIM) platform having modeled said finite element to said plurality of DVSOs, and incorporating said at least one finite element within ones of said plurality of DVSOs corresponding to said location. (“rectifying and transforming the 3D as-built model to a site coordinate (i.e. location within infrastructure project) system existing within a 3D as-planned building information model ("as-planned model") (i.e. plurality of DVSOs); and overlaying (i.e. incorporating) the 3D as-built model with the 3D as-planned model for joint visualization thereof to display progress towards completion of a structure shown in the 3D as-planned model.” GF [Abstract])
Claim 11, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method of claim 1, GF further discloses, and also comprising associating at least one parameter with at least one of said DVSOs, said at least one parameter comprising at least one of a task, time schedule, and other information relating to construction of said at least one DVSO. (“The system 200 may include a digital image database 204, a building information model (BIM) database 208 and a construction schedule database 212... Data from the BIM model database 208 and the construction schedule database 212 may be provided to a 3D and schedule integrator 230... may schedule different phases of a construction project over time (i.e. time schedule) with respect to different milestones to be completed within three dimensions of a construction site, and thus generate a 4D as-planned model of the site.” GF [P.055]. The 4D As-Planned Model parameters (i.e. scheduled start/completion dates, etc.) are interpreted to be assigned to at least one DVSO (i.e. as-planned voxel) per Fig.2, seen below.)
PNG
media_image2.png
467
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method according to claim 21, GF further discloses, measuring at least one geometrical property of at least one of said ABVSOs (“FIG. 31 are two images that: (a) illustrate how trench depth (i.e. ABVSO geometrical property) can be measured” GF [P.0038]. Trench depth is interpreted as a geometrical property per Applicant’s Spec. [Pg.14 Ln.22] disclosure “geometrical properties of the ABVSO, including, for example, surface area, surface length, slope, and any other relevant properties.”)
comparing said at least one geometrical property of said at least one of said ABVSOs as measured at said at least first and second times; (“automatically recognize progress deviations by comparing measurements of progress” GF [P.0047])
and automatically monitoring progress of said at least one of said ABVSOs based on said comparing and with respect to said at least one parameter associated with at least one DVSO corresponding to said at least one of said ABVSOs. (“a Bayesian probabilistic model may be introduced to automatically recognize progress deviations by comparing measurements of progress with dynamic thresholds learned through a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier. Not only does this model quantify progress automatically, but it also accounts for occlusions and recognizes if reconstructed building elements are missing because of occlusions or because of changes.” GF [P.0047])
GF fails to specifically disclose at at least a first time and a second time of said plurality of different times.
However, Lorenzo discloses, at at least a first time and a second time of said plurality of different times; (“FIG. 10, a flowchart illustrating a trigger process for progress measurement 1000... A measurement interval is generally, but not necessarily, a fixed time period—such as daily, biweekly, weekly, monthly, etc.” Lorenzo [Col.14 Ln.5-17])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified GF’s measurement of geometrical properties to include measurement time intervals, as taught by Lorenzo, in order for accurate “and efficient tracking of the as-built (or actual physical) status of structures being built” GF [P.0004].
Claim 23 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 21 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 24 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 22 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golparvar-Fard et al. US Pub. No. 20130155058 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “GF”), in view of Lorenzo US Patent No. 10467758 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lorenzo”), in view of Brown US Pub No. 20170122733 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Brown”).
Regarding claim 6, GF in view of Lorenzo disclose the method according to claim1, but fail to specifically disclose and also comprising employing RTK GPS positioning techniques to enhance a precision of said multiple points comprising said point cloud.
However, the analogous art of Brown discloses, and also comprising employing RTK GPS positioning techniques to enhance a precision of said multiple points comprising said point cloud. (“the receiver 230 may be a RTK, GNSS, GPS, or similar receiver using satellite global positioning data to determine the spatial coordinates of the housing 220 in space and, therefore, the 3D coordinates or spatial location of each of the cameras 222, 224 at the time of the capture of each image (e.g., data collection is time synchronized)... for use in generating a point cloud that can be used in 3D modeling and other analyses.” Brown [P.0036])
Brown is analogous art as it relates to utilizing image and position data used to create point cloud models. Brown discloses “The method may be part of bundle adjustment performed during the processing of image and position data collected from each camera of a survey instrument.” [Abstract]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
Applicant' s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of GF-Lorenzo to include employing RTK GPS techniques, as disclosed by Brown, in order to achieve “accurate measurement of points and objects in three dimensional (3D) space” Brown [P.0002].
Claim 16, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186