DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 06/28/2022.
Claims 1-20 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. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement was provided.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 10: instantiate a platform area calculation module configured to perform operations, an access structure selection module configured to perform operations, a footprint calculation module configured to perform operations, a specification output module configured to perform operations
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The described structure includes a non-transient storage device and computer processor [P.0013] which executes instructions per “the platform specification algorithm 700” [P.0059] outlined in Fig.7A and Fig.7B. The aforementioned modules are interpreted as computer executable instructions per algorithm 700.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “first determining”, “second determining”, “third determining”, and “fourth determining”. It is unclear if each “determining” limitation is to be performed in sequence (i.e. first determine adequate platform area, then determine adequate platform configuration, etc.), or if each “determining” limitation is simply being defined as “a first”, “a second”, “a third”, and “a fourth” determination limitation. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the latter.
Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the claims recite “fifth determining”. It is unclear if the limitations are meant to further limit the “third determining” (access structure size determination) limitation of claim 1, or are to be interpreted as a fifth step in the sequence of “determining” limitations (i.e. continuation of claim 1), or if the limitations are meant to be interpreted as being defined as “a fifth” determining limitation.
Note 1: If “fifth determining” is meant to further limit the “third determining” limitation of claim 1, then the determining of staircase/ladder size limitations of claims 3 and 4, respectively, are no longer further limiting since the access structure (i.e. staircase or ladder) size has already been determined in claim 1.
Note 2: If “fifth determining” is meant to be interpreted as a fifth step in the sequence of determining limitations, then claims 3 and 4 are rendered indefinite since the fourth determining limitation (total footprint area) is based on staircase/ladder size. In other words, step 5 cannot come before step 4.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “fifth determining” as defining “a fifth” determining limitation.
Clarification is required.
The dependent claims 2 and 5-9, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 1-20 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 1-9 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 10-18 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a machine.
Claims 19-20 are directed to a computer readable medium, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 1):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, 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:
A computer implemented method comprising:
first determining a minimum adequate elevated platform area based upon the equipment dimension data and the equipment clearance data (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, and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer since, the human mind can reasonably determine/calculate (i.e. evaluate, judge) a minimum adequate elevated platform area while taking equipment dimension and clearance data into consideration, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
second determining a given elevated platform configuration based upon the determined minimum adequate elevated platform area; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer. For instance, the human mind can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) a given elevated platform configuration while taking the previously determined minimum adequate elevated platform area into consideration, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
third determining, based upon the platform height value and the platform height information, an access structure size; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer. For instance, the human mind can reasonably determine/calculate (i.e. evaluate, judge) an access structure size while taking platform height value/information into consideration, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
fourth determining a total footprint area of the elevated structure based upon the selected elevated platform configuration and the selected access structure size; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer. For instance, the human mind can reasonably determine/calculate (i.e. evaluate, judge) a total footprint area of the elevated structure while taking elevated platform configuration and selected access structure size into consideration, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and generating elevated platform specifications that include the total footprint area. (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 “generate” (i.e. evaluate, judge) specifications, to include total footprint area, with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer.)
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 Insignificant Extra Solution Activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
receiving a platform height value for an elevated structure; retrieving platform height information from a platform dimension data structure;
retrieving elevated platform dimension options from the platform dimension data structure; retrieving equipment dimension data from a platform equipment data structure; retrieving equipment clearance data from the platform equipment data structure; (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.)
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.
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 per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
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 10):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, 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 10, the claim recites the limitations of:
iteratively determining a minimum adequate elevated platform area based on stored data including: equipment dimension data; equipment clearance data; and elevated platform dimension options; (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, and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula. For instance, a person can reasonably determine/calculate (i.e. evaluate, judge) the claim limitations with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer.)
determining an access structure size; and wherein the access structure size depends upon the platform height value; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) since a person can reasonably determine/calculate (i.e. evaluate, judge) the claim limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer.)
determining a total footprint area of the elevated structure; wherein the total footprint area depends upon the given elevated platform configuration and the access structure size; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) since a person can reasonably determine/calculate (i.e. evaluate, judge) the claim limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 10):
As per claim 10, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
A system comprising: a computing processor; a non-transient storage device configured with non-transient, computer executable instructions for directing the computing processor to determine optimal footprint dimensions for an elevated structure including: (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (e.g. mental process) on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate) optimal footprint dimensions, with/without the aid of pen and paper.)
receiving a platform height value; (The additional element amounts 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 storing the platform height value in a platform dimension data structure; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, 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.)
instantiate a platform area calculation module configured to perform operations including: (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (e.g. mental process) on a computer.)
wherein the stored data is stored in the platform dimension data structure; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, 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.)
and selecting a given elevated platform configuration based on the determined minimum adequate elevated platform area; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (e.g. mental process) on a computer.)
an access structure selection module configured to perform operations including: (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (e.g. mental process) on a computer.)
a footprint calculation module configured to perform operations including: (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (e.g. mental process) on a computer.)
and a specification output module configured to perform operations including: outputting elevated platform specifications. (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, 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.)
Step 2B (Claim 10):
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 An Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
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 10 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 19):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, 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 19, the claim recites the limitations of:
determining a minimum adequate elevated platform area based, at least in part, upon equipment dimension data and equipment clearance data stored in a platform equipment data structure and elevated platform dimension options stored in the platform dimension data structure; (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, and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula. For instance, a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) the claim limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer.)
determining and selecting an access structure size based, at least in part, upon the platform height value stored in the platform dimension data structure; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) since a person can reasonably determine/calculate (i.e. evaluate, judge) the claim limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer.)
determining a total footprint area of the elevated structure based, at least in part, upon the selected elevated platform configuration and the selected access structure size; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) since a person can reasonably determine/calculate (i.e. evaluate, judge) the claim limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer.)
.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 19):
As per claim 19, 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:
A tangible processor-readable storage media embedded with non-transient computer instructions for executing a process on a computing device to determine optimal footprint dimensions for an elevated structure, the process comprising: (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) optimal footprint dimensions, with/without the aid of pen and paper.)
receiving user input information within the computing device indicating a platform height value of the elevated structure; (The additional element amounts 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.)
storing the platform height information in a platform dimension data structure; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, 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.)
selecting a given elevated platform configuration based, at least in part, upon the determined minimum adequate elevated platform area; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer.)
and outputting elevated platform specifications to a user including the total footprint area. (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, 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.)
Step 2B (Claim 19):
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 An Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
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 19 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, receiving a maximum dimension limitation for the elevated structure; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
and wherein the second determining of the given elevated platform configuration is further based upon the maximum dimension limitation. (The additional element elaborates on the mental processes disclosed in claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites, receiving a selection of a staircase as an access structure option; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
fifth determining a staircase size based on the platform height value; (The additional element further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) the claim limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer.)
and wherein the fourth determining of the total footprint area is further based upon the staircase size. (The additional element elaborates on the mental processes disclosed in claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites, receiving a selection of a ladder as an access structure option; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
fifth determining a ladder size based on the platform height value; (The additional element further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) the claim limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer.)
and wherein the fourth determining of the total footprint area is further based upon the ladder size. (The additional element elaborates on the mental processes disclosed in claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites, receiving a selection of required platform equipment; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
and wherein the second determining of the given elevated platform configuration is further based upon the required platform equipment selection. (The additional element elaborates on the mental processes disclosed in claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 further recites, receiving a selection of an equipment option priority; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
and wherein the second determining of the given elevated platform configuration is further based upon the equipment option priority. (The additional element elaborates on the mental processes disclosed in claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 further recites, generating a bill of materials; wherein the bill of materials identifies one or more components for building the elevated structure per the elevated platform specifications. The additional element amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably generate (i.e. observe, evaluate, opinion) a bill of material with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 further recites, selecting a minimum standard platform configuration; wherein the minimum standard platform configuration includes an area greater than the minimum adequate elevated platform area; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
geometrically arranging, based upon the retrieved equipment dimension data and the retrieved equipment clearance data, required equipment within the minimum standard platform configuration; (The additional element amounts to performing Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) on a generic computer since a person can reasonably arrange equipment within a minimum standard platform configuration, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
determining whether the geometric arrangement of the required equipment fits within the minimum standard platform configuration; (The additional element amounts to performing Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) on a generic computer since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) whether or not the arrangement of equipment fits within a specified platform configuration.)
if the required equipment does not fit, iteratively geometrically rearranging the required equipment within the minimum standard platform configuration to determine whether any successive geometric rearrangement of the required equipment fits; (The additional element amounts to performing Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) on a generic computer since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) whether or not the arrangement of equipment fits within a specified platform configuration, and if it doesn’t, iteratively re-arrange the equipment, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and if the required equipment fits, selecting the minimum standard platform configuration as the given elevated platform configuration. (The additional element amounts to performing Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) on a generic computer since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) whether or not the arrangement of equipment fits within a specified platform configuration, and if it does, select the minimum standard platform configuration, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
Due to the foregoing reasons, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9, the method of claim 8, further recites, wherein if after iteratively geometrically rearranging the required equipment no geometric rearrangement of the required equipment fits the minimum standard platform configuration, the method further comprises: selecting a next largest standard platform configuration. The additional elements further amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform each limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer. The claim limitations also further amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes) or other exception on a computer.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11, the system of claim 10, further recites, receiving user input information indicating a maximum dimension limitation of the elevated structure; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
and storing the maximum dimension limitation in the platform dimension data structure; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) 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.)
and wherein the access structure selection module is further configured to perform operations including: selecting the given elevated platform configuration based on the maximum dimension limitation. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12, the system of claim 10, further recites, receiving user input information indicating a selection of a staircase as an access structure option; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the access structure selection module is further configured to perform operations including: determining a staircase size; wherein the staircase size depends upon the platform height value stored in the platform dimension data structure; and wherein the footprint calculation module is further configured to determine total footprint area based upon the staircase size. (The additional elements amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13, the system of claim 10, further recites, receiving a selection of a ladder as an access structure option; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the access structure selection module is further configured to perform operations including: determining a ladder size; wherein the ladder size depends upon the platform height value stored in the platform dimension data structure; and wherein the footprint calculation module is further configured to determine the total footprint area based upon the ladder size. (The additional elements amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14, the system of claim 10, further recites, receiving a selection of required platform equipment; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
and wherein the given elevated platform configuration is further selected based upon the required platform equipment selection. (The additional elements amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15, the system of claim 10, further recites, receiving a selection of an equipment option priority; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
and wherein the given elevated platform configuration is further selected based upon the equipment option priority. (The additional elements amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16, the system of claim 10, further recites, a bill of materials module executable by the processor and configured to perform operations including: generating a bill of materials; wherein the bill of materials lists components for building the elevated structure according to the elevated platform specifications; (The additional elements amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer.)
and outputting the bill of materials. (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17, the system of claim 10, further recites, select a minimum standard platform configuration with an area greater than the minimum adequate elevated platform area; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
geometrically arrange required equipment within the minimum standard platform configuration based on relevant equipment dimension data and relevant equipment clearance data for the required equipment; (The additional elements further amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform each limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer. The claim limitations also further amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes) or other exception on a computer.)
determine whether the geometric arrangement of the required equipment fits within the minimum standard platform configuration; if the required equipment does not fit, iteratively geometrically rearrange the required equipment within the minimum standard platform configuration to determine whether any successive geometric rearrangement of the required equipment fits; and if the required equipment fits, select the minimum standard platform configuration as the given elevated platform configuration. (The additional elements amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18, the system of claim 17, further recites, select a next largest standard platform configuration if, after iterative geometrically rearrangement of the required equipment, no geometric rearrangement of the required equipment fits the minimum standard platform configuration. The additional elements amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20, the tangible processor-readable storage media of claim 19, further recites, initially selecting a minimum standard platform configuration with an area that is greater than the minimum adequate elevated platform area; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
geometrically arranging required equipment within the minimum standard platform configuration based, at least in part, upon relevant equipment dimension data and relevant equipment clearance data for the required equipment from the platform equipment data structure; (The additional elements further amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform each limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim is directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer. The claim limitations also further amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes) or other exception on a computer.)
determining whether the geometric arrangement of the required equipment fits within the minimum standard platform configuration; and one or more of the following: if the required equipment does not fit, iteratively geometrically rearranging the required equipment within the minimum standard platform configuration to determine whether any successive geometric rearrangement of the required equipment fits; or if the required equipment fits, selecting the minimum standard platform configuration as the given elevated platform configuration; or if, after iteratively geometrically rearranging the required equipment, no geometric rearrangement of the required equipment fits the minimum standard platform configuration, selecting a next largest standard platform configuration. (The additional elements further amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) since a person can reasonably perform each limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the limitations are directed towards performing mental processes on a generic computer. The claim limitations also further amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes) or other exception on a computer.)
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over visTABLE® Manual, available online Sept. 26, 2021 at https://web.archive.org/web/20210801052155/https://doc.vistable.com/help/vtt3/en/index.html (hereinafter referred to as “visTABLE”), in view of YouTube video by MiTek, “How to Use Deck Designer Software”, published Oct 31, 2016, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfH87lD3UNg&t=303s (hereinafter referred to as “MiTek”).
Regarding claim 1, visTABLE discloses, ;
retrieving equipment dimension data from a platform equipment data structure; (visTABLE allows for “equipment lists” (i.e. data structures such as spreadsheets), which contain equipment dimension data, to be imported (i.e. retrieved). “The equipment list represents all layout objects (i.e. equipment) in the form of a table and provides an overview of the object attributes (i.e. equipment dimension data) [...] If e.g. the information of an equipment list was modified in an external application (e.g. Microsoft Excel), it can be accepted in the corresponding layout. When an equipment list is imported, only objects are refreshed which occur both in the layout and in the equipment list to be imported. When an equipment list is imported, no new objects are generated. The following information is accepted from the imported equipment list in the layout: Color, Area type, Layer, All user-specific attributes (i.e. equipment dimension data).” visTABLE [Equipment List – Import]. The equipment list in the form of a spreadsheet is interpreted as a data structure due to Applicant’s disclosure “FIG. 6A (i.e. spreadsheet) presents a first matrix 610 the form of a selection table in which a site design manager may input equipment requirements [...] a platform dimension matrix 708, or other appropriate data structure” Spec. [P.0052, 0057]. See visTABLE Equipment list below with equipment dimensions.)
PNG
media_image1.png
320
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
retrieving equipment clearance data from the platform equipment data structure; (Equipment clearance data is interpreted to be included within the equipment data structure since the object (i.e. equipment) properties, as shown below, includes “Safety Clearance”. visTABLE [Properties – User Interface])
PNG
media_image2.png
731
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
first determining a minimum adequate platform area based upon the equipment dimension data and the equipment clearance data (“You will be assisted by the Layout Optimization (i.e. minimum adequate platform area) by way of heuristics. In other words: You [...] must arrange the objects (i.e. equipment) manually, based on appropriate information provided by way of the priority list and the coloring of the objects in the layout, which indicate how objects or areas are to be arranged relative to (in the vicinity of) other objects.” visTABLE [Layout Optimization – Procedure]. Once the user has arranged the equipment accordingly, a total area (i.e. minimum adequate) is given using the Area Balance function (see below). visTABLE [Area Balance]. Note: Objects (i.e. equipment) is interpreted to include dimension/clearance data for reasons previously given.)
PNG
media_image3.png
727
810
media_image3.png
Greyscale
second determining a given platform configuration based upon the determined minimum adequate elevated platform area; (See Layout Optimization function disclosed by visTABLE above. Layout optimization is interpreted as platform configuration due to Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. P.0060], “the platform specification algorithm 700 considers whether all possible configurations of the selected equipment have been consider[ed]”)
; ; .
However, visTABLE fails to specifically disclose receiving a platform height value for an elevated structure, retrieving platform height information from a platform dimension data structure, retrieving elevated platform dimension options from the platform dimension data structure, third determining, based upon the platform height value and the platform height information, an access structure size, fourth determining a total footprint area of the elevated structure based upon the selected elevated platform configuration and the selected access structure size, and generating elevated platform specifications that include the total footprint area.
On the other hand, analogous art of MiTek discloses receiving a platform height value for an elevated structure; (MiTek [2:28] discloses selecting/setting a deck (i.e. platform) height. See below.)
PNG
media_image4.png
973
1437
media_image4.png
Greyscale
retrieving platform height information from a platform dimension data structure; (MiTek [2:28] discloses - See image above for platform height information. The platform height drop-down menu is interpreted as a platform dimension data structure.)
retrieving elevated platform dimension options from the platform dimension data structure; (MiTek [2:28] - See platform height drop-down menu (i.e. dimension data structure) in image above for elevated platform dimension options.)
third determining, based upon the platform height value and the platform height information, an access structure size; (MiTek [3:18 – 3:43] discloses the addition of steps/staircase (i.e. access structure) and its determined dimensions/size displayed [3:43]. See images below. Note that the size of steps/staircase is determined based on previously selected platform height value/information. The steps/staircase are interpreted as an access structure size due to Applicant’s disclosure “a selection of a staircase as an access structure option” Spec. [P.0007])
PNG
media_image5.png
838
1446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
829
1443
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
833
1443
media_image7.png
Greyscale
fourth determining a total footprint area of the elevated structure based upon the selected elevated platform configuration and the selected access structure size; (MiTek [3:42] discloses the total footprint area/dimensions based upon selected elevated platform configuration and selected access structure size. See image below.)
PNG
media_image8.png
833
1443
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and generating elevated platform specifications that include the total footprint area. (MiTek [8:11] discloses outputting design and permit documentation/specifications which is interpreted to include total footprint area. See below.)
PNG
media_image9.png
912
1439
media_image9.png
Greyscale
VisTABLE® software and MiTek Deck Designer are analogous art as they both relate to computer aided design tools, primarily aimed at visualizing, planning, and generating material lists for future development. VisTABLE® is directed towards optimizing equipment layout and spacing, while MiTek is directed towards designing elevated decks, which is analogous to elevated platforms such as the claimed invention.
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 incorporated the elevated platform design capabilities of MiTek with the equipment layout capabilities of visTABLE®, in order to aid in the optimized design and development of an elevated platform requiring a plurality of equipment.
Regarding claim 2, visTABLE and MiTek disclose the limitations of claim 1, visTABLE further discloses, receiving a maximum dimension limitation for the (see Claim 1 MiTek) structure; (VisTABLE discloses [Layout Properties] defining Layout Properties (see below) which can include a user defining a maximum dimension limitation. The layout area is analogous to the structure dimensions since “1. A layout area is the area of a layout in which functionally interrelated objects (layout objects) are to be positioned. The layout area can be limited (normal case, e.g. workshop, existing building, parcel of land). visTABLE [Methodical Concept – Layout areas and layout objects])
PNG
media_image10.png
511
170
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and wherein the second determining of the given elevated platform configuration is further based upon the maximum dimension limitation. (See Layout Optimization function disclosed by visTABLE in Claim 1. Note that layout optimization is performed within user created boundaries (i.e. dimension limitations). Layout optimization is interpreted as platform configuration due to Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. P.0060], “the platform specification algorithm 700 considers whether all possible configurations of the selected equipment have been consider[ed]”)
VisTABLE discloses the limitations of claim 2 and maintains the same rationale for combination with MiTek as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, visTABLE and MiTek disclose the limitations of claim 1, MiTek further discloses, receiving a selection of a staircase as an access structure option; (MiTek [4:03] discloses receiving a selection of a staircase as an access structure option. See below.)
PNG
media_image11.png
911
1442
media_image11.png
Greyscale
fifth determining a staircase size based on the platform height value; (MiTek [3:18 – 3:43] discloses the addition of steps/staircase and its determined dimensions / size displayed [3:43]. See images below. Note that the size of steps/staircase is determined based on previously selected platform height value (see claim 1).)
PNG
media_image6.png
829
1443
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
833
1443
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and wherein the fourth determining of the total footprint area is further based upon the staircase size. (MiTek [3:42] discloses the total footprint area/dimensions based upon staircase size. See image below.)
PNG
media_image8.png
833
1443
media_image8.png
Greyscale
MiTek discloses the limitations of claim 3 and maintains the same rationale for combination with visTABLE as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, visTABLE and MiTek disclose the limitations of claim 1, visTABLE further discloses, receiving a selection of required platform equipment; (visTABLE discloses the capability to create Equipment lists (i.e. list of required equipment) of required equipment which can then be selected. “The equipment list represents all layout objects in the form of a table and provides an overview of the object attributes [...] To be able to request specific information about the objects in a layout, you can apply a filter to browse the equipment list for identifiers and attributes” visTABLE [Equipment list – Display and filtering])
and wherein the second determining of the given (see Claim 1 MiTek) configuration is further based upon the required platform equipment selection. (“You will be assisted by the Layout Optimization (i.e. configuration) by way of heuristics. In other words: You [...] must arrange the objects (i.e. required equipment) manually, based on appropriate information provided by way of the priority list and the coloring of the objects in the layout, which indicate how objects or areas are to be arranged relative to (in the vicinity of) other objects.” visTABLE [Layout Optimization – Procedure]. Layout Optimization is interpreted to mean platform configuration due to Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. P.0060], “the platform specification algorithm 700 considers whether all possible configurations of the selected equipment have been consider[ed]”)
VisTABLE discloses the limitations of claim 5 and maintains the same rationale for combination with MiTek as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, visTABLE and MiTek disclose the limitations of claim 1, visTABLE further discloses, receiving a selection of an equipment option priority; (“In addition, the layout priority of the appropriate layout objects (i.e. equipment) is indicated in the layout by way of color coding.” visTABLE [Layout Optimization – User Interface]. See Layout Optimization interface below.)
and wherein the second determining of the given (see Claim 1 MiTek) configuration is further based upon the equipment option priority. (The Layout Optimization (i.e. configuration determination) is controlled in the Task and Tool Area where the results are also represented. In addition, the layout priority of the appropriate layout objects (i.e. equipment) is indicated in the layout by way of color coding.” visTABLE [Layout Optimization – User Interface])
PNG
media_image12.png
757
816
media_image12.png
Greyscale
VisTABLE discloses the limitations of claim 6 and maintains the same rationale for combination with MiTek as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, visTABLE and MiTek disclose the limitations of claim 1, MiTek further discloses, generating a bill of materials; wherein the bill of materials identifies one or more components for building the elevated structure per the elevated platform specifications. (MiTek [7:56-8:10] discloses generating a bill of materials that identifies components for building the elevated structure per elevated platform specifications. See image below.)
PNG
media_image13.png
834
1441
media_image13.png
Greyscale
MiTek discloses the limitations of claim 7 and maintains the same rationale for combination with visTABLE as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, visTABLE and MiTek disclose the limitations of claim 1, visTABLE further, wherein the second determining of the given (see MiTek Claim 1) configuration further comprises: selecting a minimum standard platform configuration; (As can be seen below, visTABLE allows for an area to be saved as a specified type (i.e. minimum standard platform configuration) and then selected from Area Type drop-down list. visTABLE [Explorer/Search])
PNG
media_image14.png
699
832
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein the minimum standard platform configuration includes an area greater than the minimum adequate (see Claim 1 MiTek) area; (The minimum standard configuration area can be specified per user requirements (i.e. area greater than the minimum adequate area) under Layout Properties, saved and retrieved when necessary. visTABLE [Layout Properties])
PNG
media_image15.png
685
515
media_image15.png
Greyscale
geometrically arranging, based upon the retrieved equipment dimension data and the retrieved equipment clearance data, required equipment within the minimum standard platform configuration; (“You will be assisted by the Layout Optimization by way of heuristics. In other words: You [...] must arrange the objects (i.e. required equipment) manually, based on appropriate information provided by way of the priority list and the coloring of the objects in the layout, which indicate how objects or areas are to be arranged relative to (in the vicinity of) other objects. visTABLE [Layout Optimization - Procedure]. The objects (i.e. equipment) is interpreted to include dimension and clearance data because “The object properties are displayed in the Task and Tool Area; it is divided into sections of which some can be hidden. Which sections are displayed depends on the selection in the Layout Area.” visTABLE [Properties – User Interface]. See Dimensions and Safety clearance below.)
PNG
media_image16.png
662
833
media_image16.png
Greyscale
determining whether the geometric arrangement of the required equipment fits within the minimum standard platform configuration; if the required equipment does not fit, iteratively geometrically rearranging the required equipment within the minimum standard platform configuration to determine whether any successive geometric rearrangement of the required equipment fits; (“You will be assisted by the Layout Optimization by way of heuristics. In other words: You [...] must arrange the objects (i.e. required equipment) manually, based on appropriate information provided by way of the priority list and the coloring of the objects in the layout, which indicate how objects or areas are to be arranged relative to (in the vicinity of) other objects. The improvement or worsening of the spatial structure compared the previous arrangement is visualized by way of the efforts indicator above the priority list. Usually, iteration steps are required to achieve a good structure” visTABLE [Layout Optimization - Procedure])
and if the required equipment fits, selecting the minimum standard platform configuration as the given elevated platform configuration. (As shown above, visTABLE allows for an area to be saved as a specified type (i.e. minimum standard platform configuration) and then selected from Area Type drop-down list. visTABLE [Explorer/Search])
VisTABLE discloses the limitations of claim 8 and maintains the same rationale for combination with MiTek as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, visTABLE and MiTek disclose the limitations of claim 8, visTABLE further discloses, wherein if after iteratively geometrically rearranging the required equipment no geometric rearrangement of the required equipment fits the minimum standard platform configuration, the method further comprises: selecting a next largest standard platform configuration. (As shown in Claim 8, visTABLE allows for an area to be saved as a specified type (i.e. next largest standard platform configuration) and then selected from Area Type drop-down list. visTABLE [Explorer/Search])
VisTABLE discloses the limitations of claim 9 and maintains the same rationale for combination with MiTek as claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, visTABLE discloses, A system comprising:
a computing processor; a non-transient storage device configured with non-transient, computer executable instructions for directing the computing processor to determine optimal footprint dimensions for an elevated structure including: (It is understood that all referenced art necessitates the use of a computing processor and executable instructions.)
r
instantiate a platform area calculation module configured to perform operations including: iteratively determining a minimum adequate area based on stored data (”Planning of the layout for factories comprises the arrangement of objects (Layout Objects) in a three-dimensional space (Layout Area) optimally [...] Iterative procedure models are deemed the best choice.” visTABLE [Methodical Concept – The Planning Process]) including: equipment dimension data; equipment clearance data; (The objects (i.e. equipment) is interpreted to include dimension and clearance data because “The object properties are displayed in the Task and Tool Area; it is divided into sections of which some can be hidden. Which sections are displayed depends on the selection in the Layout Area.” visTABLE [Properties – User Interface]. See Dimensions and Safety clearance below.)
PNG
media_image16.png
662
833
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein the stored data is stored in the platform dimension data structure; (“Generally, information is stored by the visTABLE® apps [...] The layout document (i.e. data structure) comprises all 2D geometry data integrated into the project (e.g. platform dimension data) and all transaction data regarding the Material Flow created or imported in visTABLE®logix and/or imported in visTABLE®touch. The layout document is stored by visTABLE®touch as a file in the proprietary format .vtlx in the file system in a location by selection of the user.” visTABLE [Software Concept – Data Backup])
and selecting a given platform configuration based on the determined minimum adequate elevated platform area; (As can be seen below, visTABLE allows for an area to be saved as a specified type (i.e. minimum standard platform configuration) and then selected from Area Type drop-down list. visTABLE [Explorer/Search])
PNG
media_image14.png
699
832
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
VisTABLE fails to specifically disclose receiving a platform height value, storing the platform height value in a platform dimension data structure, elevated platform dimension options, an access structure selection module configured to perform operations including: determining an access structure size; and wherein the access structure size depends upon the platform height value, a footprint calculation module configured to perform operations including: determining a total footprint area of the elevated structure; wherein the total footprint area depends upon the given elevated platform configuration and the access structure size, and a specification output module configured to perform operations including: outputting elevated platform specifications.
However, analogous art of MiTek discloses receiving a platform height value; (MiTek [2:28] discloses selecting/setting a deck (i.e. platform) height. See below.)
PNG
media_image4.png
973
1437
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and storing the platform height value in a platform dimension data structure; (MiTek [2:28] discloses - See image above for platform height information. The platform height drop-down menu is interpreted as data saved in a dimension data structure.)
and elevated platform dimension options; (MiTek [2:28] - See platform height drop-down menu (i.e. dimension data structure) in image above for elevated platform dimension options.)
an access structure selection module configured to perform operations including: determining an access structure size; and wherein the access structure size depends upon the platform height value; (MiTek [3:18 – 3:43] discloses the addition of steps/staircase (i.e. access structure) and its determined dimensions/size displayed [3:43]. See images below. Note that the size of steps / staircase is determined based on previously selected platform height value/information. The steps/staircase are interpreted as an access structure size due to Applicant’s disclosure “a selection of a staircase as an access structure option” Spec. [P.0007])
PNG
media_image5.png
838
1446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
829
1443
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
833
1443
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a footprint calculation module configured to perform operations including:
determining a total footprint area of the elevated structure; wherein the total footprint area depends upon the given elevated platform configuration and the access structure size; (MiTek [3:42] discloses the total footprint area/dimensions based upon selected elevated platform configuration and selected access structure size. See image below.)
PNG
media_image8.png
833
1443
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and a specification output module configured to perform operations including: outputting elevated platform specifications (MiTek [8:11] discloses outputting design and permit documentation/specifications which is interpreted to include total footprint area. See below.)
PNG
media_image9.png
912
1439
media_image9.png
Greyscale
VisTABLE® software and MiTek Deck Designer are analogous arts as they both relate to computer aided design tools, primarily aimed at visualizing, planning, and generating material lists for future development. VisTABLE® is directed towards optimizing equipment layout and spacing, while MiTek is directed towards designing elevated decks, which is analogous to elevated platforms such as the claimed invention.
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 incorporated the elevated platform design capabilities of MiTek with the equipment layout capabilities of visTABLE®, in order to aid in the optimized design and development of an elevated platform requiring a plurality of equipment.
Regarding Claim 11, visTABLE and MiTek disclose the limitations of claim 10, visTABLE further recites receiving user input information indicating a maximum dimension limitation of the (see MiTek claim 10) structure; (VisTABLE discloses [Layout Properties] defining Layout Properties (see below) which can include a user defining a maximum dimension limitation. The layout area is analogous to the structure dimensions since “1. A layout area is the area of a layout in which functionally interrelated objects (layout objects) are to be positioned. The layout area can be limited (normal case, e.g. workshop, existing building, parcel of land). visTABLE [Methodical Concept – Layout areas and layout objects])
PNG
media_image10.png
511
170
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and storing the maximum dimension limitation in the platform dimension data structure; (“Generally, information is stored by the visTABLE® apps [...] The layout document (i.e. data structure) comprises all 2D geometry data integrated into the project (e.g. platform dimension data) and all transaction data regarding the Material Flow created or imported in visTABLE®logix and/or imported in visTABLE®touch. The layout document is stored by visTABLE®touch as a file in the proprietary format .vtlx in the file system in a location by selection of the user.” visTABLE [Software Concept – Data Backup])
and wherein the access structure selection module is further configured to perform operations including: selecting the given (see MiTek claim 10) platform configuration based on the maximum dimension limitation. (As can be seen below, visTABLE allows for an area to be saved as a specified type (i.e. maximum dimension platform configuration) and then selected from Area Type drop-down list. visTABLE [Explorer/Search])
PNG
media_image14.png
699
832
media_image14.png
Greyscale
VisTABLE discloses the limitations of claim 11 and maintains the same rationale for combination with MiTek as claim 10.
Claim 12 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 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, visTABLE discloses, A tangible processor-readable storage media embedded with non-transient computer instructions for executing a process on a computing device to determine optimal footprint dimensions for an elevated structure, the process comprising: (It is understood that all referenced art necessitates the use of a computing processor and executable instructions.)
; ;
determining a minimum adequate area (“The objective (i.e. layout optimization) is to achieve that objects (i.e. equipment) [...] are arranged as close as possible to each other in the layout.” visTABLE [Layout Optimization – Structure Types]. Once the layout is optimized, using the Area Balance function (see Area Balance – Creating an Area Balance) results in a total area, as can be seen below.)
PNG
media_image17.png
732
798
media_image17.png
Greyscale
based, at least in part, upon equipment dimension data and equipment clearance data stored in a platform equipment data structure (“You will be assisted by the Layout Optimization by way of heuristics [...] arrange the objects (i.e. equipment) manually, based on appropriate information provided by way of the priority list and the coloring of the objects in the layout, which indicate how objects or areas are to be arranged relative to (in the vicinity of) other objects. visTABLE [Layout Optimization - Procedure]. The objects (i.e. equipment) is interpreted to include dimension and clearance data because “The object properties are displayed in the Task and Tool Area; it is divided into sections of which some can be hidden. Which sections are displayed depends on the selection in the Layout Area.” visTABLE [Properties – User Interface]. See Dimensions and Safety clearance below. Equipment data is
PNG
media_image16.png
662
833
media_image16.png
Greyscale
stored as an equipment list (i.e. data structure) within Model Library as seen below.)
PNG
media_image18.png
710
806
media_image18.png
Greyscale
selecting a given configuration based, at least in part, upon the determined minimum adequate area; (Layout configurations (i.e. platform area) can be stored as a Layout Document. From the visTABLE interface [The User Interface of visTABLE®touch], Layout Documents can be selected. See below.)
PNG
media_image19.png
648
868
media_image19.png
Greyscale
;
VisTABLE fails to specifically disclose receiving user input information within the computing device indicating a platform height value of the elevated structure, storing the platform height information in a platform dimension data structure, elevated platform dimension options stored in the platform dimension data structure, determining and selecting an access structure size based, at least in part, upon the platform height value stored in the platform dimension data structure, determining a total footprint area of the elevated structure based, at least in part, upon the selected elevated platform configuration and the selected access structure size, and outputting elevated platform specifications to a user including the total footprint area.
However, analogous art of MiTek discloses receiving user input information within the computing device indicating a platform height value of the elevated structure; (MiTek [2:28] discloses selecting/setting a deck (i.e. platform) height. See below.)
PNG
media_image4.png
973
1437
media_image4.png
Greyscale
storing the platform height information in a platform dimension data structure; (MiTek [2:28] - See platform height drop-down menu (i.e. dimension data structure) in image above for stored platform height information.)
and elevated platform dimension options stored in the platform dimension data structure; (MiTek [2:28] - See platform height drop-down menu (i.e. dimension data structure) in image above for elevated platform dimension options.)
determining and selecting an access structure size based, at least in part, upon the platform height value stored in the platform dimension data structure; (MiTek [3:18 – 3:43] discloses the addition of steps/staircase (i.e. access structure) and its determined dimensions/size displayed [3:43]. See images below. Note that the size of steps/staircase is determined based on previously selected platform height value/information. The steps/staircase are interpreted as an access structure size due to Applicant’s disclosure “a selection of a staircase as an access structure option” Spec. [P.0007])
PNG
media_image5.png
838
1446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
829
1443
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
833
1443
media_image7.png
Greyscale
determining a total footprint area of the elevated structure based, at least in part, upon the selected elevated platform configuration and the selected access structure size; (MiTek [3:42] discloses the total footprint area/dimensions based upon selected elevated platform configuration and selected access structure size. See image below.)
PNG
media_image8.png
833
1443
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and outputting elevated platform specifications to a user including the total footprint area. (MiTek [8:11] discloses outputting design and permit documentation/specifications which is interpreted to include total footprint area. See below.)
PNG
media_image9.png
912
1439
media_image9.png
Greyscale
VisTABLE® software and MiTek Deck Designer are analogous arts as they both relate to computer aided design tools, primarily aimed at visualizing, planning, and generating material lists for future development. VisTABLE® is directed towards optimizing equipment layout and spacing, while MiTek is directed towards designing elevated decks, which is analogous to elevated platforms such as the claimed invention.
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 incorporated the elevated platform design capabilities of MiTek with the equipment layout capabilities of visTABLE®, in order to aid in the optimized design and development of an elevated platform requiring a plurality of equipment.
Regarding claim 20, visTABLE and MiTek disclose the limitations of claim 19, visTABLE further discloses, initially selecting a minimum standard platform configuration with an area that is greater than the minimum adequate elevated platform area; (As can be seen below, visTABLE allows for an area to be saved as a specified type (i.e. minimum standard platform configuration) and then selected from Area Type drop-down list. visTABLE [Explorer/Search]. The minimum standard configuration area can be specified per user requirements (i.e. area greater than the minimum adequate area) under Layout Properties, saved and retrieved when necessary. visTABLE [Layout Properties])
PNG
media_image14.png
699
832
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
685
515
media_image15.png
Greyscale
geometrically arranging required equipment within the minimum standard configuration based, at least in part, upon relevant equipment dimension data and relevant equipment clearance data for the required equipment from the equipment data structure; (“You will be assisted by the Layout Optimization by way of heuristics. In other words: You [...] must arrange the objects (i.e. required equipment) manually, based on appropriate information provided by way of the priority list and the coloring of the objects in the layout, which indicate how objects or areas are to be arranged relative to (in the vicinity of) other objects. visTABLE [Layout Optimization - Procedure]. The objects (i.e. equipment) is interpreted to include dimension and clearance data because “The object properties are displayed in the Task and Tool Area; it is divided into sections of which some can be hidden. Which sections are displayed depends on the selection in the Layout Area.” visTABLE [Properties – User Interface]. See Dimensions and Safety clearance below.)
PNG
media_image16.png
662
833
media_image16.png
Greyscale
determining whether the geometric arrangement of the required equipment fits within the minimum standard platform configuration; and one or more of the following: if the required equipment does not fit, iteratively geometrically rearranging the required equipment within the minimum standard platform configuration to determine whether any successive geometric rearrangement of the required equipment fits; (“You will be assisted by the Layout Optimization by way of heuristics. In other words: You [...] must arrange the objects (i.e. required equipment) manually, based on appropriate information provided by way of the priority list and the coloring of the objects in the layout, which indicate how objects or areas are to be arranged relative to (in the vicinity of) other objects. The improvement or worsening of the spatial structure compared the previous arrangement is visualized by way of the efforts indicator above the priority list. Usually, iteration steps are required to achieve a good structure” visTABLE [Layout Optimization - Procedure])
or if the required equipment fits, selecting the minimum standard platform configuration as the given elevated platform configuration; (As shown above, visTABLE allows for an area to be saved as a specified type (i.e. minimum standard platform configuration) and then selected from Area Type drop-down list. visTABLE [Explorer/Search])
or if, after iteratively geometrically rearranging the required equipment, no geometric rearrangement of the required equipment fits the minimum standard platform configuration, selecting a next largest standard platform configuration. (As shown above, visTABLE allows for an area to be saved as a specified type (i.e. next largest standard platform configuration) and then selected from Area Type drop-down list. visTABLE [Explorer/Search])
VisTABLE discloses the limitations of claim 20 and maintains the same rationale for combination with MiTek as claim 19.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over visTABLE® Manual, available online Sept. 26, 2021 at https://web.archive.org/web/20210801052155/https://doc.vistable.com/help/vtt3/en/index.html (hereinafter referred to as “visTABLE”), in view of YouTube video by MiTek, “How to Use Deck Designer Software”, published Oct 31, 2016, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfH87lD3UNg&t=303s (hereinafter referred to as “MiTek”), in further view of AUTODESK® AUTOCAD PLANT 3D 2018, available online Jul 31, 2017 at https://web.archive.org/web/20170731003704/https://help.autodesk.com/view/PLNT3D/2018/ENU/ (hereinafter referred to as “AC”).
Regarding claim 4, visTABLE and MiTek disclose the limitations of claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, analogous art of AC discloses, receiving a selection of a ladder as an access structure option; (AC discloses ladder options (see image below) [3D Model – Equipment - Tasks])
PNG
media_image20.png
755
460
media_image20.png
Greyscale
fifth determining a ladder size based on the platform height value; (AC discloses ladder geometry options including start height. (see image below) [Command Reference – Commands – P Commands – PLANTSTEELLADDER]])
PNG
media_image21.png
758
910
media_image21.png
Greyscale
and wherein the fourth determining of the total footprint area is further based upon the ladder size. (AC discloses multiple options for determining the total footprint area associated with an AREA command. AC discloses the AREA (Command) “Calculates the area and perimeter of objects or of defined areas. You can obtain measurements by selecting an object, or by specifying points to define what you want to measure. The area and perimeter of the specified object are displayed at the Command prompt and in the tooltip. The MEASUREGEOM command provides additional measurement options. You can also use BOUNDARY to create a closed polyline or region and then use LIST or the Properties palette to find the area.” AC [AREA (Command)])
AC is analogous art as it relates to computer aided design of equipment layouts. Specifically, AC relates to the designing and modeling of process plants, to include access structures, such as ladders. 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 included a ladder, as AC discloses, with the visTABLE-MiTek combination in order to properly take into account access structures (e.g. ladders) when designing an elevated platform.
Claim 13 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Benson (Digital Platform For A Design And Build Process – US Pub. No 20230052254 A1). “The subject matter described herein relates in general to a design and build process, and in particular to using a digital platform for a design and build process.” [P.0002]
Vanker et al. (Smart Plans – US Pat. No 11222145 B2). “The present application discloses smart plan portal that may be used in conjunction with a computer aided design (CAD) software application module for building information modeling (BIM).” [Col.1 Ln.37]
Okada et al. (Layout Design Support System, Method, And Program – US Pub. No 20100274536 A1). “a layout design support system has a layout editing unit which edits equipment arrangement data, equipment connection element data and the other data, and depicts the edited data, and a storage unit which storage such data.” [Abstract]
Benjamin et al. (Computer-implemented Techniques For Creating Layouts For Physical Spaces – US Pub. No 12293136 B2). “One or more embodiments disclose techniques for generating a layout for a physical space or a building.” [Abstract]
Chan (A System For Generating A Mechanical And Electrical Service System Design For A Structure And A Method Thereof – WIPO | PCT No WO2022150015 A1). “The present invention provides a system and method for generating a system design for mechanical and electrical services” [P.0025]
Ejeh, Jude O., et al. "Optimization-based approach for process plant layout." Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 57.31 (2018): 10482-10490. “This paper presents an optimization-based approach for the multifloor process plant layout problem” [Abstract]
Hu, Xiaomei, et al. "A Novel Workshop Layout Optimization Algorithm Based on SA-PSO." 2018 2nd IEEE Advanced Information Management, Communicates, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IMCEC). IEEE, 2018. “A mathematical model of workshop layout optimization method is proposed.” [Abstract]
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 2186 /RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186