DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 19 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 19 are rejected.
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 .
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Element “800” in paragraph [0032], elements “904” and “906 in paragraph [0033], elements “1206” and “1208” in paragraph [0035], element “cut sheet 1300” in par [0036], and element “1650” in paragraph [0045] are not disclosed in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 1554 in FIG. 15e is not disclosed in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because element “1400” in FIG. 13 should recite “1300” or the cut sheet “1300” recited multiple times, including in paragraph [0036], amended to recite “1400” to correspond with FIG. 13. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0024] recites “(see fig 804c “C” resultant shapes, but there is no element 804c or figure 804c in the drawings to disclose the “C” resultant shapes. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0038] recites element 1604, but it is recommended the element is amended to recite 1504, to correspond with FIG. 15A. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0042] ends with two periods. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0045] recites element 1546, but it is recommended the element is amended to recite 1554, to correspond with FIG. 15E. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6, line 3 recites “an adjacent polygon type such a floor or ceiling”, but it is recommended the phrase recites “an adjacent polygon type including a floor or ceiling” or “an adjacent polygon type for a floor or ceiling”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, applying Step 1, the preamble of claim 1 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A method comprising:
receiving a building information model comprising walls, floors, and/or ceilings, hosted wall objects;
generating serialized model data; converting the serialized model data into graph structures, the graph structures being determined by identifying wall corners, ceiling vertical transitions, horizontal constraints for ceilings and floors, and hosted conditions for each of the walls; and
generating an updated building information model from the graph structures.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “generating serialized model data; converting the serialized model data into graph structures, the graph structures being determined by identifying wall corners, ceiling vertical transitions, horizontal constraints for ceilings and floors, and hosted conditions for each of the walls”, are abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper", including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could mentally evaluate model data, including evaluating wall corners, ceilings, etc. to provide a graph structure and evaluate the graph structure, using pen or paper or a generic computer, to provide an updated building information model.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only presents additional elements that merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering. In particular, the claim recites “receiving a building information model comprising walls, floors, and/or ceilings, hosted wall objects”. Simply receiving data in the form of the building information model does not add meaningful limitations to the claim.
The claim as a whole, is linked to providing an updated building information model by creating a graph structure based on evaluation of an existing building information model.
For Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained above, the additional elements merely recite insignificantly extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering. An added step of receiving data in the form of a building information model does not add a meaningful limitation to the claim.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more.
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.
With respect to claim 15, applying Step 1, the preamble of claim 15 claims a system so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 15 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory for storing instructions, the processor executing the instructions to:
receive a building information model comprising walls and hosted wall objects;
generate serialized model data;
convert the serialized model data into graph structures, the graph structures being determined by identifying wall corners, ceiling vertical transitions, horizontal constraints for ceilings and floors, and hosted conditions for each of the walls, wherein the graph structures define any one or more of straight edge cuts, cut patterns, top of wall conditions, as well as types of cuts to be milled for a sheet material, wherein a cut sheet is generated for a sheet material based on the updated building information model; and
generate an updated building information model from the graph structures.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “generate serialized model data; convert the serialized model data into graph structures, the graph structures being determined by identifying wall corners, ceiling vertical transitions, horizontal constraints for ceilings and floors, and hosted conditions for each of the walls, wherein the graph structures define any one or more of straight edge cuts, cut patterns, top of wall conditions, as well as types of cuts to be milled for a sheet material, wherein a cut sheet is generated for a sheet material based on the updated building information model”, are abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper", including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could mentally evaluate model data, including evaluating wall corners, ceilings, etc. to provide a graph structure and evaluate the graph structure, using pen or paper or a generic computer, to provide an updated building information model.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea presents additional elements that merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering. In particular, the claim recites “receive a building information model comprising walls and hosted wall objects”. Simply receiving data in the form of the building information model does not add meaningful limitations to the claim. In addition, the additional limitations of “a processor”; and “a memory for storing instructions, the processor executing the instructions to” are terms to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a memory and a processor in communication with the memory simply adds generic computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2016.05(f). There are no additional steps making this feature a meaningful limitation on the claim.
The claim as a whole, is linked to providing an updated building information model by creating a graph structure based on evaluation of an existing building information model.
For Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained above, the additional elements merely recite insignificantly extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering and the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. An added step of receiving data in the form of a building information model does not add a meaningful limitation to the claim, and the recitation of a memory in communication with a processor to perform the abstract idea simply adds generic computer components after the fact to an abstract idea.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 15 does not amount to significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 2 recites an additional step of mental process performed, as determining a first and second vertex of each wall is an additional step in evaluating the building information model to obtain the graph structure. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 3, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 due to its dependence on claim 2, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 2 and 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 3 recites an additional step of mental process performed, as determining an end type for the first and second vertex of each wall is an additional step in evaluating the building information model to obtain the graph structure, with the isolated, on edge, or duplicated end types provide details of the end types, without adding significantly more. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 4, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 due to its dependence on claims 2 and 3, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 3, 2 and 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 4 recites an additional step of mental process performed, as using a connecting graph to evaluate a weight and a measurement of a material is performing an abstract idea, without adding significantly more. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 5, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 due to its dependence on claims 2, 3 and 4, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 4, 3, 2 and 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 5 recites additional mental process steps performed, as evaluating the graph structure from the building information model to for vertices of a wrap, shales and shape edges based on a termination rule, does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 6, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 due to its dependence on claims 2 - 5, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 6 recites additional mental process steps performed, as performing evaluations to determine height shapes and the end of the end of the vertical of the shape using termination rules, edge type rules, and vertical height rules, do not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 7, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 7 recites additional mental process step performed, as performing evaluations to define end points as vertices do not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 8, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 due to its dependence on claims 7, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 7 and 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 8 recites a description of the additional mental process step performed, as defining the distance with regards to elements on the graph structure do not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 9, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 9 recites additional mental process steps performed, as performing evaluations to determine conditions and measurements for elements, do not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 10, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 10 recites additional mental process steps performed, as performing evaluations to determine conditions for wall corners, as recited in the claim, do not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 11, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 11 recites additional mental process steps performed, as an evaluation to obtain a condition as claimed, does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 12, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 due to its dependence on claim 11, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 11 and 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 12 recites additional mental process steps performed, as determining conditions of different sides, and evaluating a portion of the sides being represented on a subgraph of the graph structure, does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 13, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 due to its dependence on claims 12 and 11, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 12, 11 and 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 13 recites additional mental process steps performed, as evaluating the graph to determine an uninterrupted distance does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 14, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1 falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 14 recites a description of the graph structure based on metadata, along with additional mental process steps performed, as performing evaluations to a cut sheet metal for an updated building model does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea
With respect to claim 16, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 15, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 15, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 16 recites an additional step of mental process performed, as determining an end type for the first and second vertex of each wall is an additional step in evaluating the building information model to obtain the graph structure, with the isolated, on edge, or duplicated end types provide details of the end types, as well as using a connecting graph to evaluate a weight and a measurement of a material is performing an abstract idea, without adding significantly more. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 17, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 15 due to its dependence on claim 16, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 16 and 15, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 17 recites additional mental process steps performed, as performing evaluations to determine height shapes and the end of the end of the vertical of the shape using termination rules, edge type rules, and vertical height rules, along with performing evaluations to define end points as vertices, and defining the distance with regards to elements on the graph structure, do not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 18, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 15 due to its dependence on claims 16 and 17, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 17, 16 and 15, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 18 recites additional mental process steps performed, as performing evaluations to determine conditions and measurements for elements, and performing evaluations to determine conditions for wall corners, do not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 19, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 15 due to its dependence on claims 16, 17, and 18 falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 18, 17, 16 and 15, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 19 recites additional mental process steps performed, as an evaluation to obtain a condition as claimed, along with determining conditions of different sides, and evaluating a portion of the sides being represented on a subgraph of the graph structure, and evaluating the graph to determine an uninterrupted distance, does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 - 3 and 7 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidlingmaier (“A Mechanism for Capturing Implicit Design Knowledge in Building Information Models Using Graph Transformations”), hereinafter “Bidlingmaier”, in view of Skandhakumar et al. (“Graph Theory Based Representation of Building Information Models for Access Control Applications”), hereinafter “Skandhakumar”, and further in view of Segev et al. (U.S. 2021/0073449 A1), hereinafter “Segev”.
As per claim 1, Bidlingmaier discloses:
a method comprising receiving a building information model comprising walls, floors, and/or ceilings, hosted wall objects (Bidlingmaier, page 2, lines 11 - 12 discloses creation of building information models (BIM) and page 6, lines 5 - 11 adds obtaining elements and relationships between elements, including rooms, doors, walls, and other building elements.)
generating serialized model data (Bidlingmaier, page 15, lines 20 - 21 discloses taking a floorplan of a building and extracting a graph transformation rule, which captures design knowledge used to create a building (page 15, ln 7 - 8).)
converting the serialized model data into graph structures (Bidlingmaier, page 15, lines 20 - 23 and page 16, lines 3 - 6 discloses floor plans of different levels of a building used to generate graphs based on the graph transformation rule, shown in FIG. 3.2.)
While Bidlingmaier discloses matching a wall using the graph transformation to data from a floor plan, Bidlingmaier does not expressly disclose:
the graph structures being determined by identifying wall corners, ceiling vertical transitions, horizontal constraints for ceilings and floors, and hosted conditions for each of the walls; and
generating an updated building information model from the graph structures.
Skandhakumar however discloses:
the graph structures being determined by identifying wall corners, ceiling vertical transitions, horizontal constraints for ceilings and floors, and hosted conditions for each of the walls (Skandhakumar, page 48, left column, lines 31 - 33 through page 48, right column, line 1 discloses creating a graph from a building information model based on object type classification of building elements with nodes and edges representing BIM objects, and page 45, right column, lines 14 - 16 and 23 - 33 adds objects from the BIM including representations of walls, windows, doors, ceiling spaces and floors.)
FIG. 5 shows a two-story building floor plan, and a corresponding graph.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier with the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar. The motivation to do so would have been because Skandhakumar discloses the benefit of using a graph model for building information models that encapsulates objects associated with most access control applications in a building, while also introducing approaches for how a BIM graph can be used to present functions using BIM, and shows how a BIM graph can be used in real-life application scenarios (Skandhakumar, page 50, right column, lines 52 - 59).
The combination of Bidlingmaier and Skandhakumar does not expressly disclose:
generating an updated building information model from the graph structures.
Segev however discloses:
generating an updated building information model from the graph structures (Segev, par [0137] discloses floor plans with connectivity of rooms, spaces, floors and rooms, with a graph showing the connectivity and parsing of BIM data to obtain connectivity information, and par [0715] adding an updating of a building information model using updated objects not previously associated with the BIM objects.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier and the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar with the updated building information model and graph connectivity teaching of Segev. The motivation to do so would have been because Segev discloses the benefit of a spatial map in the form of a weighted graph to define rooms and identify wall boundaries (Segev, par [0674]).
For claim 2: The combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, and Segev discloses claim 2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising
determining a first vertex and a second vertex for each of the walls (Segev, par [0687] discloses wall height obtained according to a floor plan in 2D used to create the 3D BIM to indicate wall boundaries.)
The height of a wall and its boundaries are interpreted to perform a similar function as a first and second vertex for each wall.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier and the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar with the updated building information model and graph connectivity teaching of Segev, and the additional teaching of wall height from 2D floor plans to generate a 3D BIM, also in Segev. The motivation to do so would have been because Segev discloses the benefit of a spatial map in the form of a weighted graph to define rooms and identify wall boundaries (Segev, par [0674]).
For claim 3: The combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, and Segev discloses claim 3: The method according to claim 2, further comprising
determining an end type for each of the first vertex and the second vertex, the end type being selected from isolated, on edge, and duplicated (Segev, par [0698] discloses alignment of edges of 3D walls from 3D models with 2D lines from the 2D floorplan when both model and floorplan are displayed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier and the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar with the updated building information model and graph connectivity teaching of Segev, and the additional teaching of end of walls in the form of edges, also in Segev. The motivation to do so would have been because Segev discloses the benefit of a spatial map in the form of a weighted graph to define rooms and identify wall boundaries (Segev, par [0674]).
For claim 7: The combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, and Segev discloses claim 7: The method according to claim 1, further comprising
defining end points of the hosted wall objects on the graph as vertices (Bidlingmaier, page 4, lines 6 - 8 discloses a graph showing relationships between objects, modeled as edges and vertices, with page 5, FIG. 2.1 showing a graph with vertices representing objects, including inner wall and outer walls of a floorplan.)
For claim 8: The combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, and Segev discloses claim 8. The method according to claim 7, wherein
a distance between end points of the vertices are equivalent to a weight for each edge in the graph (Bidlingmaier, page 21, lines 19 - 21 discloses a distance from a location to a wall end point in a floorplan, with page 21, lines 28 - 31 adds distance and length values to an end point regarding an inner wall.)
For claim 9: The combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, and Segev discloses claim 9. The method according to claim 1, further comprising
determining conditions in the graph that for wrapping (Bidlingmaier, page 7, lines 14 - 23 discloses an indication of the type of connecting edges are labeled based on the functionality of the spaces indicated by nodes, for example in FIGS. 2.1 and 2.2, which shows specified nodes of an inner wall, office and stairwell, and the connection between them as edges based on the type of connection between the rooms, as a connection between an office node and stairwell node provides a different connection than two offices represented as nodes in the floorplan of the building information model.)
In other words, the connection between the nodes is based on the representation of the node, and which is interpreted as a condition of wrapping two different areas in a graph representing a BIM.
along with a sheet size for the material (Segev, par [0122] discloses elements from floorplans of a BIM and their materials, including walls, doors, and windows, and the geometric information of the elements, including sizes of the windows, doors, and walls.)
For claim 10: The combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, and Segev discloses claim 10. The method according to claim 1, further comprising
determining wall corner conditions for the walls (Segev, par [0429] discloses using room geometry and room feature in floor plan analysis to determine the number of corners for a room.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier and the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar with the updated building information model and graph connectivity teaching of Segev, and the additional teaching of wall corners based on an analysis performed, also in Segev. The motivation to do so would have been because Segev discloses the benefit of a spatial map in the form of a weighted graph to define rooms and identify wall boundaries (Segev, par [0674]).
Claims 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidlingmaier (“A Mechanism for Capturing Implicit Design Knowledge in Building Information Models Using Graph Transformations”), in view of Skandhakumar et al. (“Graph Theory Based Representation of Building Information Models for Access Control Applications”), in view of Segev et al. (U.S. 2021/0073449 A1), and further in view of Langenhan et al. (“Graph-Based Retrieval of Building Information Models for Supporting the Early Design Stages”), hereinafter “Langenhan”.
As per claim 11, the combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, and Segev discloses the method of claim 1.
The combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, and Segev does not expressly disclose:
further comprising determining a hosted condition by determining a tuple of a hosted object and a host wall, along with wrapping conditions.
Langenhan however discloses:
further comprising determining a hosted condition by determining a tuple of a hosted object and a host wall, along with wrapping conditions (Langenhan, page 417, left column, lines 28 - 34 through right column, lines 1 - 2 discloses a relationship between a wall with an opening and a door attached to connect rooms, with page 420, left column, lines 9 - 14 and 24 - 26 through right column, lines 1 - 5 defining rooms of a building information model being connected and represented by graphs, with a graph labeled as multi-numbered tuple (6-tuple in the example).
FIG. 6 shows a floorplan with its associated connectivity graph, showing direct and indirect connections between rooms.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier, the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar, and the updated building information model and graph connectivity teaching of Segev with the multi-numbered tuple and graphs representing building information models teaching of Langenhan. The motivation to do so would have been because Langenhan discloses the benefit of providing corresponding existing solutions to sketches or fragments of a design idea, taking into account recent BIM-based approaches in addition to graph matching and sketch-based interactions (Langenhan, page 413, Abstract, lines 8 -13).
For claim 12: The combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, Segev, and Langenhan discloses claim 12: The method according to claim 11, further comprising
determining top, bottom, left, and right sides of the hosted condition (Skandhakumar, page 46, lines 1 - 13 discloses a graph from a BIM with a number of stories defined, as well as its corresponding subgraph, with labeled nodes indicating spaces and edges that include attributes for portal openings, including measurements and types, with page 46, right column, lines 24 - 25, in which a path between two spaces defined by the number of edges.)
FIG. 5 showing the top and bottom floors, as well as openings, considered rooms, on the left and right side on each floor of the multi-storey building, each space depicted by labeled graph nodes.
wherein the left and right sides are further defined as vertices of a sub graph of the graph (Skandhakumar, page 46, right column, lines 4 - 8 discloses the sub-graph of the building with openings in terms of portals connecting spaces, as labeled in the graph of FIG. 3, with FIG. 5 providing the location of the openings defined by the nodes subgraph, for example D2020 on the top depicting an opening for the left and right side of the BIM and its corresponding nodes and edges.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier, the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar, and the updated building information model and graph connectivity teaching of Segev with the multi-numbered tuple and graphs representing building information models teaching of Langenhan, and the additional teaching of the graph of the BIM and sub-graph indicating edges representing portals or openings, also found in Skandhakumar. The motivation to do so would have been because Skandhakumar discloses the benefit of using a graph model for building information models that encapsulates objects associated with most access control applications in a building, while also introducing approaches for how a BIM graph can be used to present functions using BIM, and shows how a BIM graph can be used in real-life application scenarios (Skandhakumar, page 50, right column, lines 52 - 59).
For claim 13: The combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, Segev, and Langenhan discloses claim 13. The method according to claim 12, further comprising traversing the graph from each vertex and defining an uninterrupted distance to any adjacent vertex (Skandhakumar, page 48, lines 34 - 39 discloses connecting a path between two spaces, in which a distance is calculated, and page49, right column, lines 6 - 14 adds the graph in FIG. 5 used to find a path between spaces, with path options without conditions are found and labeled.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier, the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar, and the updated building information model and graph connectivity teaching of Segev with the multi-numbered tuple and graphs representing building information models teaching of Langenhan, and the additional teaching of the graph of the BIM and sub-graph indicating edges representing portals or openings, also found in Skandhakumar. The motivation to do so would have been because Skandhakumar discloses the benefit of using a graph model for building information models that encapsulates objects associated with most access control applications in a building, while also introducing approaches for how a BIM graph can be used to present functions using BIM, and shows how a BIM graph can be used in real-life application scenarios (Skandhakumar, page 50, right column, lines 52 - 59).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidlingmaier (“A Mechanism for Capturing Implicit Design Knowledge in Building Information Models Using Graph Transformations”), in view of Skandhakumar et al. (“Graph Theory Based Representation of Building Information Models for Access Control Applications”), in view of Segev et al. (U.S. 2021/0073449 A1), and further in view of DeWalt et al (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0171633 A1), hereinafter “DeWalt”.
As per claim 14, the combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, and Segev discloses the method of claim 1.
The combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar and Segev does not expressly disclose:
wherein the graph structures define, using metadata, any one or more of straight edge cuts, cut patterns, top of wall conditions, as well as types of cuts to be milled for a sheet material, wherein a cut sheet is generated for the sheet material based on the updated building information model.
DeWalt however discloses:
wherein the graph structures define, using metadata, any one or more of straight edge cuts, cut patterns, top of wall conditions, as well as types of cuts to be milled for a sheet material, wherein a cut sheet is generated for the sheet material based on the updated building information model (DeWalt, par [0031] discloses tasks to perform including sheet metal cutting and installing drywall, with par [0047] adds the sheet metal cut to a proper size, with {0053] adding an update in real-time the building information model from the features performed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier, the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar, and the updated building information model and graph connectivity teaching of Segev with the sheet metal cutting and updating a building information model teaching of DeWalt. The motivation to do so would have been because DeWalt discloses the benefit of including materials in a building information model that can allow application of productivity metric to a specific site, including optimal process ordering, mass flow and turbulence (DeWalt, par [0053]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidlingmaier (“A Mechanism for Capturing Implicit Design Knowledge in Building Information Models Using Graph Transformations”), in view of Skandhakumar et al. (“Graph Theory Based Representation of Building Information Models for Access Control Applications”), in view of DeWalt et al (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0171633 A1), and further in view of Segev et al. (U.S. 2021/0073449 A1).
As per claim 15, Bidlingmaier discloses:
a system comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing instructions (Bidlingmaier, page 4, lines 1 - 2 discloses using computer assisted design and Building Information Modeling (BIM), interpreted to be performed on a computer that includes at least one processor and at least one form of memory.)
the processor executing the instructions to receive a building information model comprising walls and hosted wall objects (Bidlingmaier, page 2, lines 11 - 12 discloses creation of building information models (BIM) and page 6, lines 5 - 11 adds obtaining elements and relationships between elements, including rooms, doors, walls, and other building elements.)
generate serialized model data (Bidlingmaier, page 15, lines 20 - 21 discloses taking a floorplan of a building and extracting a graph transformation rule, which captures design knowledge used to create a building (page 15, ln 7 - 8).)
convert the serialized model data into graph structures (Bidlingmaier, page 15, lines 20 - 23 and page 16, lines 3 - 6 discloses floor plans of different levels of a building used to generate graphs based on the graph transformation rule, shown in FIG. 3.2.)
While Bidlingmaier discloses matching a wall using the graph transformation to data from a floor plan, Bidlingmaier does not expressly disclose:
the graph structures being determined by identifying wall corners, ceiling vertical transitions, horizontal constraints for ceilings and floors, and hosted conditions for each of the walls,
wherein the graph structures define any one or more of straight edge cuts, cut patterns, top of wall conditions, as well as types of cuts to be milled for a sheet material, wherein a cut sheet is generated for a sheet material based on the updated building information model; and
generate an updated building information model from the graph structures
Skandhakumar however discloses:
the graph structures being determined by identifying wall corners, ceiling vertical transitions, horizontal constraints for ceilings and floors, and hosted conditions for each of the walls (Skandhakumar, page 48, left column, lines 31 - 33 through page 48, right column, line 1 discloses creating a graph from a building information model based on object type classification of building elements with nodes and edges representing BIM objects, and page 45, right column, lines 14 - 16 and 23 - 33 adds objects from the BIM including representations of walls, windows, doors, ceiling spaces and floors.)
FIG. 5 shows a two-story building floor plan, and a corresponding graph.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier with the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar. The motivation to do so would have been because Skandhakumar discloses the benefit of using a graph model for building information models that encapsulates objects associated with most access control applications in a building, while also introducing approaches for how a BIM graph can be used to present functions using BIM, and shows how a BIM graph can be used in real-life application scenarios (Skandhakumar, page 50, right column, lines 52 - 59).
The combination of Bidlingmaier and Skandhakumar does not expressly disclose:
wherein the graph structures define any one or more of straight edge cuts, cut patterns, top of wall conditions, as well as types of cuts to be milled for a sheet material, wherein a cut sheet is generated for a sheet material based on the updated building information model; and
generate an updated building information model from the graph structures.
DeWalt however discloses:
wherein the graph structures define any one or more of straight edge cuts, cut patterns, top of wall conditions, as well as types of cuts to be milled for a sheet material, wherein a cut sheet is generated for a sheet material based on the updated building information model (DeWalt, par [0031] discloses tasks to perform including sheet metal cutting and installing drywall, with par [0047] adds the sheet metal cut to a proper size, with {0053] adding an update in real-time the building information model from the features performed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier and the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar with the sheet metal cutting and updating a building information model teaching of DeWalt. The motivation to do so would have been because DeWalt discloses the benefit of including materials in a building information model that can allow application of productivity metric to a specific site, including optimal process ordering, mas flow and turbulence (DeWalt, par [0053]).
While DeWalt discloses an updated building model, the update to the building model does not expressly come from a graph structure, and thus the combination of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, and DeWalt does not expressly disclose:
generate an updated building information model from the graph structures.
Segev however discloses:
generate an updated building information model from the graph structures (Segev, par [0137] discloses floor plans with connectivity of rooms, spaces, floors and rooms, with a graph showing the connectivity and parsing of BIM data to obtain connectivity information, and par [0715] adding an updating of a building information model using updated objects not previously associated with the BIM objects.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graph generated from a building information model teaching of Bidlingmaier, the graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building teaching of Skandhakumar, and the sheet metal cutting and updating a building information model teaching of DeWalt with the updated building information model and graph connectivity teaching of Segev. The motivation to do so would have been because Segev discloses the benefit of a spatial map in the form of a weighted graph to define rooms and identify wall boundaries (Segev, par [0674]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of Bidlingmaier (“A Mechanism for Capturing Implicit Design Knowledge in Building Information Models Using Graph Transformations”) discloses a graph generated from a building information model, the prior art of Skandhakumar et al. (“Graph Theory Based Representation of Building Information Models for Access Control Applications”) discloses a graph representing elements of a building information model, including the ceiling, wall, and different floors of a building, with the prior art of Segev et al. (U.S. 2021/0073449 A1) discloses an updated building information model and graph connectivity, along with the prior art of DeWalt et al (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0171633 A1) discloses sheet metal cutting and updating a building information model, and the prior art of Langenhan et al. (“Graph-Based Retrieval of Building Information Models for Supporting the Early Design Stages”) discloses multi-numbered tuple and graphs representing building information models.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Bidlingmaier, Skandhakumar, Segev, DeWalt, and Langenhan, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses:
Claim 4, further comprising iterating over connecting graphs until a combined weight is no greater than a board width of the material and does not continue past construction object points on the graph, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 5 and 6 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 4, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 16, which includes the step of “iterate over connecting graphs until a combined weight is no greater than a board width of the material and does not continue past construction object points on the graph when corners are wrapped physically”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 17 - 19 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 16, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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.
/Cedric Johnson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
February 20, 2026