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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/25/2026 has been entered.
2. The amendment filed 06/25/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “obtaining an interior point cloud using an interior scanning machine, the interior point cloud having been generated by scanning at least one room of the building;
defining a set of space bodies within a building by processing the interior point cloud”. The limitation “the building” has no earlier recitation when it is first used; for consistency, the limitation “the building” in line 4 in obtaining step would be better as “a building” and the defining step “a building” in line 5 should be as “the building”. Claims 8 and 15 recite the same two phrases in the same order. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
4. Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struzyna (US 20200004900 A1) in view of Khanzode (US 2015/0186558 A1).
As per Claim 1, 8 and 15, Struzyna teaches a computer-implemented method/system/ on-transitory computer-readable medium of placing a set of building elements within a building model (Fig. 8, [0036]-[0042]) comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Fig. 8), the method comprising:
obtaining an interior point cloud using an interior scanning machine, the interior point cloud having been generated by scanning at least one room of the building (Fig. 1 [0020] “an interior point cloud 114 may be generated by an interior scanning machine 112 by scanning the internal surfaces of building 106.”, [0037] “At step 802, an interior point cloud (e.g., interior point cloud 114) is received from a first scanning machine (e.g., interior scanning machine 112: the point cloud of a room's interior surfaces is produced by a scanning machine positioned inside the room and received for modelling);
defining a set of space bodies within a building by processing the interior point cloud ([0026] “interior space bodies 140B may be defined based on interior point cloud 114 using a surface reconstruction technique”; [0038] “At step 804, a plurality of space bodies (e.g., space bodies 140) are defined. In some embodiments, the plurality of space bodies are defined using the interior point cloud and/or the exterior point cloud by performing surface reconstruction….For example, the previously constructed building model may be analyzed to define the size, shape, and position of each of the plurality of space bodies.”: the room volumes are built by surface reconstruction over the interior point cloud, so the space bodies are derived by processing that cloud), wherein each of the set of space bodies represents a non-overlapping volume within the building ([0038] “the previously constructed building model may be analyzed to define the size, shape, and position of each of the plurality of space bodies. Each of the plurality of space bodies may represent a non-overlapping volume within the building”: each space body is a volume of the building that does not overlap any other space body);
forming a set of gaps between the set of space bodies ([0039] “At step 806, a plurality of gaps between the plurality of space bodies are determined. One or more of the plurality of gaps may be a line extending between a first and a second space body of the plurality of space bodies, or may be a volume between a first and a second space body of the plurality of space bodies. In some embodiments, the plurality of gaps may include all possible volumes between at least two space bodies.”: the gaps are determined as the lines or volumes between pairs of space bodies after the bodies are defined);
…, the physical characteristics including thicknesses of the set of gaps ([0027]-[0029] “rules 500 may define simulation parameters as a function of gap thickness (listed in column 502), gap angle (listed in column 504), and gap height (listed in column 506)… where a particular gap of the plurality of gaps is defined as a volume, the gap thickness may be equal to the minimum thickness of the volume, the maximum thickness of the volume, the average thickness of the volume, among other possibilities”; [0040] “At step 808, a set of geometric rules (e.g., rules 500 or rules 700) are obtained”; Fig. 5: the rule engine already keys its outputs to the thickness of the gap between space bodies)
Struzyna fails to teach explicitly obtaining a set of placement rules for the set of building elements based on physical characteristics of the set of gaps, …; and
generating a set of placements for the set of building elements within the building model in accordance with the set of placement rules.
Khanzode teaches obtaining a set of placement rules for the set of building elements based on physical characteristics of the set of gaps, the physical characteristics including thicknesses of the set of gaps ([0025] “The design specifications may include information about local building codes, physical laws and building design rules”; [0030] “rules from a database may be used to determine space for MEP based on information in the first model. For example, space in the walls of the building may be analyzed to determine open polygons of space”; [0036] “The additional elements may be a part of the path determined to connect two MEP components. These components may be selected from the database of components. In order to match the components to the determined path, properties of the available MEP components may be matched with the determined properties of the path between two MEP end points”; [0040] “in certain circumstances, this may not be true if the HVAC duct is large and there is a lack of space; the priority rules may account for this and in those circumstances favor the HVAC duct”; [0041] “The structural model may include information about walls in the building, including their location and thickness”: design rules read from a database decide where mechanical, electrical and plumbing components go by analysing the space inside the walls of the model, walls whose location and thickness are part of that model, and the components are matched to the dimensions of the path found through that space, with the rules accounting for a duct that is too large for the space. In the primary reference the rule engine already keys its outputs to the thickness of the gap between space bodies; thus, the combination applies that thickness-keyed rule engine to the placement rules); and
generating a set of placements for the set of building elements within the building model in accordance with the set of placement rules ([0029] “Space allocated for MEP may be divided into vertices and endpoints, and Dijkstra's algorithm may be used to determine an optimal path through the space that connects the two points”; [0036] “the method may include analyzing the information about the building and the design specifications to determine additional elements for the first structural model of the building, and automatically preparing a second structural model of the building. The second structural model may include the additional elements”; [0037] “the determined refuse water pipes may be added to the first model to create an intermediate model”: the building model is analysed against the design rules to determine the additional MEP elements and a second model containing those elements along the determined paths is automatically prepared, which is the generation of their placements).
In particular, Khanzode teaches automatically designing the mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) system of a building: design rules from a database determine the space available for MEP inside the walls of the structural model, whose location and thickness that model carries, paths for ducts, pipes and wiring are found through that space, the components are matched to the properties of the path, and a second model containing the placed MEP elements is prepared automatically.
Struzyna and Khanzode are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, computer-aided placement of building elements within a three-dimensional model of a building (In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Khanzode into Struzyna's invention for the purpose of automatically generating and simulating a building model from scanned space bodies and the gaps between them to provide automation of the creation of a comprehensive model of an MEP system, which is otherwise a time-consuming task requiring a great amount of manual work (Khanzode: [0003]). This rationale is the use of a known technique (design rules from a database that determine the space available for MEP components inside the walls of a structural model whose location and thickness the model carries, Khanzode [0030], [0041]) to improve a similar device (a rule-driven building model that assigns parameters to the gaps between space bodies as a function of the gap thickness, Struzyna col. 6 lines 22-25) in the same way, MPEP 2143(I)(C); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
As per Claim 5, 12 and 19, Struzyna teaches obtaining an exterior point cloud using an exterior scanning machine, the exterior point cloud having been generated using the exterior scanning machine by scanning an exterior of the building, wherein the set of space bodies are defined further using the exterior point cloud (Fig. 1, [0019] “an exterior scanning machine 102 is used to generate an exterior point cloud 104 of the external surfaces of building 106.”; [0038] “the plurality of space bodies are defined using the interior point cloud and/or the exterior point cloud by performing surface reconstruction”: a drone or other exterior scanner captures a point cloud of the building's external surfaces that is received as the second point cloud and the space bodies are reconstructed from the interior and the exterior point cloud together).
As per Claim 6 and 13, Struzyna teaches wherein the interior scanning machine and the exterior scanning machine are different scanning machines (Fig. 1 element 102 and 112 [0019]-[0020] “exterior scanning machine 102 may be an autonomous computer-guided vehicle such as a drone configured to fly around building 106”, “interior scanning machine 112 may be a mountable device or a self-standing device that may be positioned near the center of a room by a user.”, “interior scanning machine 112 and exterior scanning machine 102 may be the same machine or different machines.”: the interior and exterior scanning machines may be different machines).
As per Claim 7, 14 and 20, Struzyna teaches further comprising: receiving an existing building model, wherein the set of space bodies are defined further by analyzing the existing building model ([0003] “receiving an existing building model. In some embodiments, the plurality of space bodies is defined by analyzing the existing building model.”; “; [0038] “At step 804, a plurality of space bodies (e.g., space bodies 140) are defined. In some embodiments, the plurality of space bodies are defined using the interior point cloud and/or the exterior point cloud by performing surface reconstruction….For example, the previously constructed building model may be analyzed to define the size, shape, and position of each of the plurality of space bodies.”: an already existing architectural model of the building is read in and converted and the previously constructed building model is analysed to define the size, shape and position of each space body).
5. Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struzyna (US 20200004900 A1) in view of Khanzode (US 2015/0186558 A1), and further in view of Xiong et al. (“Automatic creation of semantically rich 3D building models from laser scanner data”).
Struzyna as modified by Khanzode teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, 19, and 20 above.
As per Claim 3, 10 and 17, Struzyna as modified by Khanzode teaches (i) the physical characteristics of the set of gaps (Struzyna: [0027]-[0029] “rules 500 may define simulation parameters as a function of gap thickness (listed in column 502), gap angle (listed in column 504), and gap height (listed in column 506)… where a particular gap of the plurality of gaps is defined as a volume, the gap thickness may be equal to the minimum thickness of the volume, the maximum thickness of the volume, the average thickness of the volume, among other possibilities”; [0040] “At step 808, a set of geometric rules (e.g., rules 500 or rules 700) are obtained”; Fig. 5; Khanzode: [0030] “rules from a database may be used to determine space for MEP based on information in the first model. For example, space in the walls of the building may be analyzed to determine open polygons of space”).
Struzyna as modified by Khanzode fails to teach explicitly wherein obtaining the set of placement rules includes: classifying a set of faces of the set of space bodies to obtain a set of face classifications; and obtaining the set of placement rules for the set of building elements based on both … and (ii) the set of face classifications.
Xiong et al. teaches wherein obtaining the set of placement rules includes: classifying a set of faces of the set of space bodies to obtain a set of face classifications; and obtaining the set of placement rules for the set of building elements based on both … and (ii) the set of face classifications (section 3, Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
206
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
pg 328: the planar patches bounding the scanned rooms are classified by a context-based learner into wall, floor, ceiling and clutter categories, i.e. the faces of the room volumes receive a side/bottom/top classification). In particular, Xiong et al. teaches classifying planar patches extracted form a pint cloud into the categories wall, floor, ceiling, and clutter using a context based stacked classification algorithm (section 3). Thus, the rule table of the primary reference is indexed jointly by gap thickness and by the gap angle (the orientation of the face normal, horizontal vs vertical), so a rule is retrieved from both the thickness and the orientation class of the face and the filler supplies explicit wall/floor/ceiling face classes as that second index, and the placement nature of the rules follows from the second filler.
Struzyna, Khanzode, and Xiong are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, computer-aided placement of building elements within a three-dimensional model of a building.
Struzyna, Austern et al. and Xiong et al. are analogous art because they are both related to a method for building design model.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Xiong into Struzyna as modified by Khanzode's invention for the purpose of automatically generating and simulating a building model from scanned space bodies and the gaps between them to provide automation of the creation of a comprehensive model of an MEP system, which is otherwise a time-consuming task requiring a great amount of manual work (Khanzode: [0003]) and to provide an automatic classification of the surfaces into wall, floor and ceiling in place of a conversion from laser scan data to BIM that is primarily a manual operation, labor-intensive and error-prone (Xiong: Abstract, p. 1).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument – in view of Khanzode.
To the extent the arguments bear on Struzyna and Xiong, which continue to be applied, they have been considered and are addressed as follows:
Applicants have argued that:
The combination of Struzyna and Austern fails to render the pending claims obvious because it relies on impermissible hindsight to stitch together disparate references that use the word "gap" to describe completely unrelated concepts.[1] …As acknowledged by the Office Action, Struzyna discloses 3D volumetric gaps with thicknesses between space bodies, but has no placement rules for building elements. [2] Austern teaches generative placement rules for equipment based on functional requirements (like sensor coverage dead zones or distances to doors), but its rules are never based on the thicknesses of interstitial gaps.
…combining Austern’s generative placement logic with Struzyna’s space bodies does not yield a system that places equipment based on gap thickness. The combination fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because it does not teach the limitation as properly construed.
As per [1], it is noted that the argument was directed to Austern, which is no longer applied.
As per [2], it is noted that the new ground of rejection relies on Struzyna for exactly the first of these points where the set of gaps determined between the space bodies and the rule table whose entries are selected as a function of the thickness of each gap ([0027]-[0029] “rules 500 may define simulation parameters as a function of gap thickness (listed in column 502), gap angle (listed in column 504), and gap height (listed in column 506)… where a particular gap of the plurality of gaps is defined as a volume, the gap thickness may be equal to the minimum thickness of the volume, the maximum thickness of the volume, the average thickness of the volume, among other possibilities”; [0040] “At step 808, a set of geometric rules (e.g., rules 500 or rules 700) are obtained”; Fig. 5: the rule engine already keys its outputs to the thickness of the gap between space bodies), whose design rules determine the space available for mechanical, electrical and plumbing components inside the walls of the structural model, walls whose location and thickness that model carries (Khanzode [0041] "The structural model may include information about walls in the building, including their location and thickness"), as set forth above.
Further, with respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, applicant argues only that the addition of Xiong “does not cure the fundamental deficiency in the primary combination of Struzyna and Austern” (Remarks, page 9, paragraph 2). Xiong continues to be relied upon solely for the classification of the faces of the space bodies into wall, floor and ceiling; the limitation Applicant identified as deficient is addressed by Khanzode in the new ground, as set forth above.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tierney (US 2021/0232724 A1) teaches generating placements of objects within a building model in accordance with placement rules.
Schnackel (US 12,208,821 B2) teaches placing routed mechanical, electrical and plumbing elements within a building model in accordance with placement rules.
Schnackel (US 12,541,625 B2) teaches placing routed mechanical, electrical and plumbing elements within a building model in accordance with placement rules.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
