DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/22/2022. Claims 21-40 are pending in this application. Claims 21, 35, and 40 are independent claims. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 21, 23-25, 28-32, 34-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross “Why can't CAD be more like Lego? CKB, a program for building construction kits”. Claims 22, 33, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Mitchell et al (US PGPub 20160299997). Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of MacInnes et al. (US PGPub 2005008116 1 ). This action is made Non-Final . Claim Objections Claims 21, 35, and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “ instructions received from the user ”, which is improper as there has not been a previous recitation of a user . Suggested correction is for the limitation to read “ instructions received from a user ”, as this is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 32 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “the dimension”, which is improper as there has not been a previous recitation of a dimension of the object . Suggested correction is for the limitation to read “ a dimension”, as this is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below. Step 1: Claims 21-34 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes ; Claims 35-39 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 40 is directed to a computer program product and fall s within the statutory category of articles of manufacture . Therefore, claims 21- 39 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Step 2A Prong 1: The limitations of claims 21, 35, and 40 of “ selecting … a grid segment size of the grid lines based at least in part on one or both of default grid dimensions and regression rules, the selecting comprising: assigning the grid segment size based at least in part on the object type … ; determining, based on the one or more characteristics, whether the grid segment size should be modified; and modifying the grid segment size, using a logical regression, based on determining that the grid segment size should be modified ; placing … the object in a location in the grid based at least in part on instructions received from the user and on placement rules enforced by the grid; and displaying … the grid to the user ”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally select a grid segment size of grid lines based on default grid dimensions or regression rules , assign the grid segment size based on object type , and mentally determine whether a grid segment size should be modified based on object characteristics . A person with the use of pen and paper can further modify a grid segment size using logical regression based on the determining that the grid segment size should be modified. A person with the use can also place an object on a grid based on instructions and placement rules and display the grid. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the use of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Prong 1 step 2A. Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 21, 35, and 40 respectively recite additional elements of “ by a processor ”, “ A building design system comprising: one or more processors for executing computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations comprising ”, and “ A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform building design operations comprising: … by a processor ” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 21, 35, and 40 also recite additional elements such as “ obtaining … an object to be placed in a grid that represents at least a subset of a building, the object having an object type and one or more characteristics, and the grid comprising grid lines ” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC). Further, claims 21, 35, and 40 also recite additional elements such as “ wherein an object having an object type of infill is assigned a smaller grid segment size than an object having an object type of shell ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea under Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2. Step 2B: The claims 21, 35, and 40 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)( ll ) "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"). Therefore, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 21, 35, and 40 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Regarding claim 22 , it recite s additional element recitations of “ generating one or both of a building information model (BIM) and a building production model (BPM) based at least in part on contents of the grid ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 22 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claim 23, it recites additional element recitations of “ wherein the object type of the object is shell and the grid is a macro grid ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 23 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claim 24, it recites additional element recitations of “ wherein the object type of the object is infill and the grid is a micro grid ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 24 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claim 25, it recites additional element recitations of “ wh erein the location is between the grid lines, thereby providing a margin management adjustment ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 25 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claim 26, it recites additional element recitations of “ wherein the object is selected from a library of objects that conform to specified increments of length, width, and height ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 26 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claim 27, it recites additional element recitations of “ wherein … one or more templates are utilized to generate descriptions of the objects in a standard format different than the first and second format prior to adding the objects to the library ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 27 recite s additional element recitations of “ a description of the object is received in a first format, a description of another object is received in a second format different than the first format ” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim do es not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application the claim fail s Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it ha s not been integrated into a practical application. Further, regarding Step 2B the claim do es not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)( ll ) "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"). Thus, the claim also fail s Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 27 do es not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claim 28, it recites additional element recitations of “ wherein the obtaining, selecting, placing, and displaying are repeated for at least one other object ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 28 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claim 29 , it recites additional element recitations of “ wherein the placing is further based at least in part on a location of another object previously placed in the grid ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 29 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claim 30, it recites additional element recitations of “ wherein the placing causes one or both of a position or a dimension of another object previously placed in the grid to adjust accordingly ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 30 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claims 31 and 37 , they recite additional element recitations of “ wherein the placement rules vary based on one or both of the object type and the characteristics of the object ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 31 and 37 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 . Regarding claims 32 and 38, they recite additional element recitations of “ wherein the dimension of the object being placed in the grid is based on one or more of standard dimensions enforced by the grid, the object type, or the characteristics of the object ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 32 and 38 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claims 33 and 39, they recite additional element recitations of “ wherein the grid is three-dimensional ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 33 and 39 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claim 34, it recites additional element recitations of “ wherein the grid lines can be turned on or off during the displaying ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 34 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Regarding claim 36 , it recites additional element recitations of “ wherein when the object type of the object is shell the grid is a macro grid and when the object type of the object is infill the grid is a micro grid ” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 36 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Accordingly, claims 21-40 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 21, 23-25, 28-32, 34-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross “ Why can't CAD be more like Lego? C K B, a program for building construction kits ” (hereinafter “ Gross ”). Regarding claim 21, Gross anticipate s A building design method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, an object to be placed in a grid that represents at least a subset of a building, the object having an object type and one or more characteristics, and the grid comprising grid lines ( Page 290, Section 3.1 Components, Figure 5 shows the component maker view, where an object of an elbow is obtained and has a type of Pipe-System and characteristics for example of dimensions; (Pages 29 3- 294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view) Figure 10 further shows a layout of pipes, fittings, and fixtures with an elbow placed on a grid with grid lines ; (Page 286, Section 1 Introduction: Design as making and following rules) “ The key point about CKB is that it supports two levels of designing: (1) the design of technical systems and (2) the use of technical systems to design built configurations” and (Page 289, Section 3 – a program for building construction kits) “CKB is a program for making construction kits of components that know the ways they may be placed and assembled. CKB is a working prototype, implemented in Common Lisp for the Macintosh” , thus a building design method and is a program implemented on a computer having a processor ) ; selecting, by the processor, a grid segment size of the grid lines based at least in part on one or both of default grid dimensions and regression rules, the selecting comprising ( Pages 286-287, Section 1.1 Decisions about selection and position of components, “When the designer chooses to work with standard components, decisions about dimensions are largely folded into decisions about selection. That is, one can obtain copper pipe from suppliers of building materials only in certain manufactured diameters and in standard lengths. Wood is manufactured (in North America) on a nominal 2" module; and windows, doors, and other screening components are manufactured in sizes to work within a standard construction dimensioning scheme that locates studs and joists on 16” centers” and (Page 288, Section 2.1 Grid-relative rules) “Often a coordinated system of grids working together at different scales, or levels of hierarchy, are used. For example, … a 16-inch construction grid governs the positions of boards and panels that make up the technical system at the lowest level”, where (Pages 292 and 294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view) Figure 9 shows a 16” square grid (dark grid lines) in line with the standard dimension, thus the selection of the 16” square grid is interpreted as based at least in part on default grid dimensions ; (Page 289, Section 3 – a program for building construction kits) “CKB is a program for making construction kits of components that know the ways they may be placed and assembled. CKB is a working prototype, implemented in Common Lisp for the Macintosh”, thus is a program implemented on a computer having a processor ) : assigning the grid segment size based at least in part on the object type, wherein an object having an object type of infill is assigned a smaller grid segment size than an object having an object type of shell ( Page 288, Section 2.1 Grid-relative rules, “Often a coordinated system of grids working together at different scales, or levels of hierarchy, are used. For example, a 20-foot grid might be used to plan the layout of a multi-dwelling building, within which a 4-foot grid (as above) structures room sizes”, where the layout of a multi-dwelling building is interpreted as a shell and the structuring of room sizes is interpreted as an in fill ) ; determining, based on the one or more characteristics, whether the grid segment size should be modified ( Page 291, Section 3.3 Grid rules, Figure 7 shows that a grid catalog is selected specifying the type of grid based on the component, for example (Pages 292-294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view) Figure 9 shows a 16” square grid for components related to the stud wall system, while Figure 10 shows a tartan grid for the pipe system , which has different grid segment sizes than Figure 9, thus determining the grid segment size should be modified based on the one or more characteristics ) ; and modifying the grid segment size, using a logical regression, based on determining that the grid segment size should be modified ( As noted above (Pages 292-294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view) Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the grid segment size is modified between a stud wall system and a pipe system; (Page 288, Section 2.1 Grid-relative rules) Further, the grid size may also have different scales such as 20-foot, 4-foot, and 16-inch, thus including a logical regression based on the object ) ; placing, by the processor, the object in a location in the grid based at least in part on instructions received from the user and on placement rules enforced by the grid ( Page 294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view, “In Fig. 9 an end designer is working with the components of a stud wall system. When the stud wall system is selected, CKB displays the 16” square grid (dark grid lines) associated with that system, and the grid positioning rule that locates studs on 16 ” centers. After placing 2 X 6 ” studs and a 6 X 6 ” comer piece (which snap into place on the 1 6 ” grid), the designer then placed narrow windows between some of the studs, and plyboard to finish the outside of the walls where there were no windows. The windows' grid rule centers them along their length on the 16 ” grid lines, and centered in the bands between the 1 6 ” lines in the other direction” thus the object is placed in a location based on instructions from a user and placement rules of the grid ; (Page 289, Section 3 – a program for building construction kits) “CKB is a program for making construction kits of components that know the ways they may be placed and assembled. CKB is a working prototype, implemented in Common Lisp for the Macintosh” , thus is a program implemented on a computer having a processor ) ; and displaying, by the processor, the grid to the user ( Page 294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view, Figure 9 shows the end designer’s view of objects such as windows and studs on the grid ; (Page 289, Section 3 – a program for building construction kits) “CKB is a program for making construction kits of components that know the ways they may be placed and assembled. CKB is a working prototype, implemented in Common Lisp for the Macintosh” , thus is a program implemented on a computer having a processor ) . Regarding claim 23 , Gross anticipates the method as recited in claim 21 , wherein the object type of the object is shell and the grid is a macro grid ( Page 288, Section 2.1 Grid-relative rules, “Often a coordinated system of grids working together at different scales, or levels of hierarchy, are used. For example, a 20-foot grid might be used to plan the layout of a multi-dwelling building, within which a 4-foot grid (as above) structures room sizes”, where the layout of a multi-dwelling building is interpreted as a shell and a 20-foot grid is interpreted as a macro grid ). Regarding claim 24 , Gross anticipates the method as recited in claim 21 , wherein the object type of the object is infill and the grid is a micro grid ( Page 288, Section 2.1 Grid-relative rules, “Often a coordinated system of grids working together at different scales, or levels of hierarchy, are used. For example, a 20-foot grid might be used to plan the layout of a multi-dwelling building, within which a 4-foot grid (as above) structures room sizes”, where the structuring of room sizes is interpreted as an infill and a 4-foot grid is interpreted as a micro grid ). Regarding claim 25 , Gross anticipates the method as recited in claim 21 , wherein the location is between the grid lines, thereby providing a margin management adjustment ( Pages 293-294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view, Figure 10 shows objects relating to a layout of pipes, fittings, fixtures that includes objects placed between grid lines, thus providing margin management adjustment; See also (Page 288, Section 2.1 Grid-relative rules) Figure 2 shows lighting fixtures (open circles) centered in the grid lines ). Regarding claim 28 , Gross anticipates the method as recited in claim 21 , wherein the obtaining, selecting, placing, and displaying are repeated for at least one other object ( Page 290, Section 3.1 Components, “Fig. 5 shows CKB' s Component Maker window. The display pane shows the current component, and two scrollers at the right display the current technical system and the current component … The system designer can use a simple drawing editor to enter a shape for the component, or load a shape drawn in another program” and (Page 291 -292 , Section 3.3 Grid rules) “Fig. 7 shows CKB's Grid Rule Maker, where the system designer defines a grid-relative position rule and associates it with a component” , where a grid catalog is chosen for components; For example ( Pages 293-294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view ) “The scrollers at the left display catalogs of systems and components, assembly rules, grids, and grid position rules”, where Figure 9 shows an object of a Wallboard obtained in the component catalog is selected with 16-STUD-GRID grid rules that is placed in the grid and displayed as the end designer’s view , this is similarly done for the object of a TEE obtained in the component catalog as shown in Figure 10, thus the obtaining, selecting, placing, and displaying are repeated for at least one other object ). Regarding claim 29 , Gross anticipates the method as recited in claim 21 , wherein the placing is further based at least in part on a location of another object previously placed in the grid ( Page 294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view, “As the end designer drags each fitting, fixture, or pipe, it snaps into the nearest narrow band. Then if the new component is near to a component already in the design, then CKB tries to find an assembly rule to join them” ). Regarding claim 30 , Gross anticipates the method as recited in claim 21 , wherein the placing causes one or both of a position or a dimension of another object previously placed in the grid to adjust accordingly ( Page 294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view, “As the end designer drags each fitting, fixture, or pipe, it snaps into the nearest narrow band. Then if the new component is near to a component already in the design, then CKB tries to find an assembly rule to join them”, where (Page 297, Section 5 Related work) “in CKB once two components are joined their assembly condition is a constraint, maintained by the program until the end designer takes them apart”, such that the joining of a new component and a previously placed component is interpreted as adjusting a position of another object previously placed in the grid ). Regarding claim 31, Gross anticipates the method as recited in claim 21 , wherein the placement rules vary based on one or both of the object type and the characteristics of the object ( Pages 291-292, Section 3.3 Grid rules, “The 'and/or' button (bottom right of display pane) enables the system designer to specify how to combine the horizontal and vertical components of a rule. Fig. 7 shows an 'and' combination: wiring junction components must satisfy both horizontal and vertical position constraints. Or, for example, suppose the system designer specifies a grid rule using horizontal and vertical narrow bands. The 'and' combination would require components to be positioned only in the small squares where the bands cross, while the 'or' combination would allow components to be placed in either vertical or horizontal bands” ). Regarding claim 32 , Gross anticipates the method as recited in claim 21 , wherein the dimension of the object being placed in the grid is based on one or more of standard dimensions enforced by the grid, the object type ( Pages 286-287, Section 1.1 Decisions about selection and position of components, “When the designer chooses to work with standard components, decisions about dimensions are largely folded into decisions about selection. That is, one can obtain copper pipe from suppliers of building materials only in certain manufactured diameters and in standard lengths. Wood is manufactured (in North America) on a nominal 2" module; and windows, doors, and other screening components are manufactured in sizes to work within a standard construction dimensioning scheme that locates studs and joists on 16” centers” , (Pages 292 and 294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view) for example Figure 9 shows the stud dimensions of 2” X 6” and windows of 16” length ) , or the characteristics of the object . Regarding claim 34 , Gross anticipates the method as recited in claim 21 , wherein the grid lines can be turned on or off during the displaying ( Pages 292-294, Section 3.5 The end designer's view, “In Fig. 9 an end designer is working with the components of a stud wall system. When the stud wall system is selected, CKB displays the 16” square grid (dark grid lines) associated with that system”, while “ In Fig. 10 an end designer is assembling a layout of pipes, fittings, and fixtures. As with the previous example, when the designer selects the pipe system CKB displays the tartan piping grid ” thus as shown in Figures 9 and 10 grid lines can be turned on and off during displaying ) . Regarding claim 35, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 21. The additional limitations of claim 35, with respect to claim 35, is that the system has computer readable instructions . Gross a nticipates computer readable instructions ( Page 289, Section 3 – a program for building construction kits, “CKB is a program for making construction kits of components that know the ways they may be placed and assembled. CKB is a working prototype, implemented in Common Lisp for the Macintosh”, thus a program having computer readable instructions ). The remaining limitations of claim 35 are also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 21 . Regarding claim 36 , Gross anticipates the method as recited in claim 35 , wherein when the object type of the object is shell the grid is a macro grid and when the object type of the object is infill the grid is a micro grid ( Page 288, Section 2.1 Grid-relative rules, “Often a coordinated system of grids working together at different scales, or levels of hierarchy, are used. For example, a 20-foot grid might be used to plan the layout of a multi-dwelling building, within which a 4-foot grid (as above) structures room sizes”, where the layout of a multi-dwelling building is interpreted as a shell and a 20-foot grid is interpreted as a macro grid and where the structuring of room sizes is interpreted as an infill and a 4-foot grid is interpreted as a micro grid ) . Regarding claim 37 , it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 31 . Thus, claim 37 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 31 . Regarding claim 38 , it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 32 . Thus, claim 38 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 32 . Regarding claim 40 , it is the article claim, having similar limitations of claim 21 . The additional limitations of claim 40 , with respect to claim 21 , is that it is a c omputer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions ( Page 289, Section 3 – a program for building construction kits , “CKB is a program for making construction kits of components that know the ways they may be placed and assembled. CKB is a working prototype, implemented in Common Lisp for the Macintosh”, a program product with instructions implemented on a computer having a computer readable storage medium ) . The remaining limitations of claim 40 are also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 21 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 22, 33, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Mitchell et al (US PGPub 20160299997 ) (hereinafter “ Mitchell ”). Regarding claim 22, Gross teaches the method as recited in claim 21. Gross does not specifically teach, however Mitchell teaches generating one or both of a building information model (BIM) and a building production model (BPM) based at least in part on contents of the grid ( [0079] “A fourth novel aspect of the method is the use of a 2D discrete approximation of the geometry of Surfaces”, which [0081] includes a grid , and where [0089] the discretization approach produces an accurate EAM (energy analytical model) ; Further, [0010] the EAM is represented in BIM form and [0092] the EAM is integrated with the BIM model in REVIT, thus generating a BIM based on contents of a grid ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that a BIM is generated based on contents of the grid, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Mitchell, into that of Gross. Motivation to do so would have been to allow users to more easily update the building model (Mitchell, [0092]) . Regarding claim 33, Gross teaches the method as recited in claim 21. Gross does not specifically teach, however Mitchell teaches wherein the grid is three-dimensional ( [0072] -[ 0073] “A second novel aspect of the method is the use of discrete sets of points in 3D space, distributed over the boundary faces of a building element or Conceptual Mass, to provide a coarse but efficient representation of the building model for the purpose of analyzing the building's spatial structure. This approach has a few advantages versus using the building geometry directly: The building's spatial structure is determined using a 3D voxel grid, as outlined below”, [0078] where Figure 8 exemplary illustrates the 3D voxel grid ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that the grid is three-dimensional , as conceptually seen from the teaching of Mitchell, into that of Gross. Motivation to do so would have been to extend the CKB to model three-dimensional forms which is cited as a particularly valuable enhancement ( Gross, Page 299, Section 6.4.5. Three dimensional display ) . Regarding claim 39 , it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 33 . Thus, claim 39 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 33 . Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of MacInnes et al. (US PGPub 2005008116 1 ) (hereinafter “ MacInnes ”). Regarding claim 26, Gross teaches the method as recited in claim 21. Gross does not specifically teach, however MacInnes teaches wherein the object is selected from a library of objects that conform to specified increments of length, width, and height ( [0151] and Figure 8, Figure 8 shows a n object 33’ that is saved to the object library, where the properties of the object specify dimensions of 457.38 X 457.57 X 698.50 ; See also for example Figure 23 where a wall selected from the library has LxWxH dimensions of 13 X 0.3 X 10 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that the object is selected from a library of objects that conform to specified increments of length, width, and height , as conceptually seen from the teaching of MacInnes , into that of Gross . Motivation to do so would have been to extend the CKB to model three-dimensional forms which is cited as a particularly valuable enhancement (Gross, Page 299, Section 6.4.5. Three dimensional display) , which would further improve the user visualizing of the building designs ( MacInnes , [0036]) . Regarding claim 27, Gross teaches the method as recited in claim 26. Gross does not specifically teach, however MacInnes teaches wherein a description of the object is received in a first format, a description of another object is received in a second format different than the first format, and one or more templates are utilized to generate descriptions of the objects in a standard format different than the first and second format prior to adding the objects to the library ( [0073] “As discussed hereinabove, in particular embodiments, the objects may be stored in object libraries 19, 42 in the .sat file format having been converted thereto from . dxf , .dwg, Catia V4, Parasolid, Iges , or Step formats utilizing a suitable file converter” , [0074] where a template Design Object file format is further used to convert from the .sat format, t hus objects received in a first format, for example . dxf , and objects received in a second format , for example .dwg, use a template to generate the objects in a standard Design Object format, which are stored in the object libraries ). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that a description of an object is received in a first format, another object is received in a second format, and a template is utilized to generate a description of the objects in a standard format different than the first and second format prior to adding the objects to the library , as conceptually seen from the teaching of MacInnes , into that of Gross. Motivation to do so would have been to reduce file-size, thus lessening the burden on system resources during the design development ( MacInnes , [0074]) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Gross “ Grids in Design and CAD ” teaches a method of selecting grid segment size based on component and placing the building component in a grid. Zawidzki “ Architectural Functional Layout Optimization in a Coarse Grid ” teaches a method that includes modifying grid size based on the type of building. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREW JOHN SLESINGER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3302 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ryan Pitaro can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /A.J.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2188 /RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188