DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: A person could not reasonably perform the claimed features mentally.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as Applicant has not provided any evidence as to why a person cannot perform the claim limitations mentally, beyond reciting the claimed limitations. Here, the claims do not state how the point cloud is generated or what is doing the partitioning. Assuming that it is already done, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this could be a person reading machine generated data on a piece of paper. The claims do not impose any limits on the point cloud data such that it cannot be read and analyzed by a person. As far as generating a respective geometric representation and a finite element mesh, this can also be done on the same piece of paper as the points can be connected to form a geometric representation and connected to form a mesh. The claim does not state how large or how many elements the representation must have, so this limitation can be done with the aid of pen and paper. Next, the claim limitations do not state how the combination occurs. Just that respective finite elements, two under BRI, must be combined. As no limitations are imposed on how or what must do the combining, this can be done on the same piece of pen and paper. This reasoning is supported by the Memorandum dated August 4, 2025. As such, Applicant’s argument that the steps of the claim cannot be performed mentally is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: The claim is integrated into a practical application and reflect an improvement to a "technology or technical field."
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the improvement is not expressed through the additional elements of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”.
Applicant’s Argument: The Specification in [0004] sets forth the improvement.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the present claims do not reflect the purported improvements cited by the Applicant, with reference to the sections of the specification cited in the arguments. The present claims do not improve the functioning of the computer as well as any other technology or technical field.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 102 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Barazzetti does not teach the partitioning of a point cloud as it teaches BIM to FEM conversion.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the present claims do not limit the steps of the partitioning. The claims only require the partitioning of point loud “data”. There are no further limitations on the data, other than it is of a real-world object. Second the claims do not state what is doing the processing, or whether the processing occurs in a specific order. This means that intermediate steps, like the conversion of the point cloud to a BIM, is not excluded by the claimed limitations. Therefore, the conversion of the point cloud to a partitioned BIM, through the use of the colored areas, shows that point cloud “data” is being partitioned. This is still in line with the remainder of the claim as ultimately a FEM is created that represents the real-world object. Additionally, the claims state a “respective geometric representation…” is created. There are no limitations in the claim that preclude the representation from being a BIM. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
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.
Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-14 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 15-19 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 15 and 20 recite the abstract idea of generating partitioned groups in a finite element model, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "generating a respective geometric representation of each group of points;” covers mental processes including making a judgment about how to group points into a geometric representation. Additionally, the limitation of “generating a respective finite element mesh (FEM) of each respective geometric representation generated; and” covers mental processes including making a judgement about how to mesh the geometric representation as well as drawing out the mesh. Additionally, the limitation of “combining each generated respective FEM to create a FEM representing the real-world object.” covers mental processes including making a judgement about how to piece the FEM representations together and drawing out the completed product. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 7, the additional element of “a solid computer-aided design (CAD) model”, as well as “a processor”, “a memory”, in claims 15-19, as well as “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices”, “a processor”, in claim 20, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “partitioning point cloud data of a real-world object into groups of points, each group corresponding to a component of the real-world object;” in claims 1, 12 and 18, as well as reciting “performing ray-tracing on the given group of points to identify scanned spaces and un-scanned spaces in the given group of points” in claim 6, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 15 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 7, the additional element of “a solid computer-aided design (CAD) model”, as well as “a processor”, “a memory”, in claims 15-19, as well as “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices”, “a processor”, in claim 20, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “partitioning point cloud data of a real-world object into groups of points, each group corresponding to a component of the real-world object;” in claims 1, 12 and 18, as well as “performing object detection on the point cloud data to determine each component of the real-world object; and” in claims 2 and 16, as well as reciting “performing ray-tracing on the given group of points to identify scanned spaces and un-scanned spaces in the given group of points” in claim 6, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 16 are directed to further defining the identification of points, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3 and 17 are directed to further defining the processing of the groups, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the sand detection model through how it is trained, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further classification of spaces, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 8 and 18 are directed to further defining additional selection and generation of a FEM, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 9 and 19 are directed to further defining how the space is meshed, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a) as being anticipated by Barazzetti et al. “Cloud-to-BIM-to-FEM: Structural simulation with accurate historic BIM from laser scans.”
Regarding claim 1, Barazzetti anticipates A method for generating a finite element mesh (FEM) representing a real-world object, the method comprising: (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, a finite element model of a building is created)
partitioning point cloud data of a real-world object into groups of points, each group corresponding to a component of the real-world object; (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, the building is partitioned into groups by color)
generating a respective geometric representation of each group of points; (Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, a geometric representation of each group is created in the model)
generating a respective finite element mesh (FEM) of each respective geometric representation generated; and (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, a finite element model is created)
combining each generated respective FEM to create a FEM representing the real-world object. (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, all of the different FEM models are combined)
Regarding claim 2, Barazzetti anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Barazzetti also anticipates performing object detection on the point cloud data to determine each component of the real-world object; and (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, walls, windows, floors and ceilings are found through object detection
identifying points corresponding to each determined component as the groups of points. (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, each of the groups if given distinct colors)
Regarding claim 7, Barazzetti anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Barazzetti also anticipates wherein each respective geometric representation generated is a solid computer-aided design (CAD) model. (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, the model created is a solid mesh CAD model)
Regarding claim 8, Barazzetti anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Barazzetti also anticipates wherein generating a respective FEM of each respective geometric representation includes: for each geometric representation (i) selecting a given mesh generation methodology from amongst a plurality of methodologies, based on an object type represented by the geometric representation and (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, any one of the mesh sections can be selected)
(ii) generating a FEM of the geometric representation using the given mesh generation methodology selected. (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, a FEM mesh is created for all selected objects)
Regarding claim 9, Barazzetti anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Barazzetti also anticipates combining each generated respective FEM based on spatial relationships of the groups of points; (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, all of the groups are combined into one big FEM)
identifying one or more overlapping mesh elements of the FEMs combined; (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, intersections are identified)
deleting the one or more overlapping mesh elements from the FEMs combined to create a blank space in the FEMs combined; and (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, using anauto meshing algorithm, the intersections are removed to ensure a perfect node to node fit)
remeshing the blank space to create the FEM representing the real-world object. (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, the result of the perfect node to node fit is re-meshed using the auto-meshing algorithm)
Regarding claim 11, Barazzetti anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Barazzetti also anticipates wherein the real-world object is a bridge. (Introduction, the Bim model cab be a bridge)
Regarding claim 12, Barazzetti anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Barazzetti also anticipates wherein a given component is a structural member. (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, many structural members are part of the FEM model)
Regarding claim 14, Barazzetti anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Barazzetti also anticipates performing a simulation of the real-world object using the FEM representing the real-world object; and (Figures 10, 12-14, Sections 4-4.3, a stress simulation is done on the FEM of the building)
based on results of performing the simulation, determining at least one of: a design change to the real-world object; and structural behavior of the real-world object under load. (Figures 10, 12-14, Sections 4-4.3, the behavior of the real-world object under load is determined)
In regards to claim 15, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 16, it is the system embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
In regards to claim 18, it is the system embodiment of claim 8 with similar limitations to claim 8, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 8.
In regards to claim 19, it is the system embodiment of claim 9 with similar limitations to claim 9, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 9.
In regards to claim 20, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-5, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barazzetti in view of Yu et al. “Automated finite element modeling and analysis of cracked reinforced concrete beams from three dimensional point cloud.”
Regarding claim 3, Barazzetti teaches the limitations of claim 1. Barazzetti also teaches processing a given group of points to identify unoccupied space in the given group of points; (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, windows and doors are identified in the groups of points)
classifying the identified unoccupied space as empty space or occluded space; (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, all spaces are identified as empty without a mesh or occluded with a mesh)
Barazzetti does not explicitly teach solving each of a plurality of parameterization equations using the given group of points and the unoccupied space classified as empty space or occluded space to identify (i) parameter values for each of the plurality of parameterization equations and (ii) a given parameterization equation from amongst the plurality with a lowest error; and generating a geometric representation based on the given parameterization equation with the lowest error and identified parameter values of the given parameterization equation with the lowest error.
Yu teaches solving each of a plurality of parameterization equations using the given group of points and the unoccupied space classified as empty space or occluded space to identify (i) parameter values for each of the plurality of parameterization equations and (Sections 4 and 5.1, an equation is used for each point to determine the geometry of the beams)
(ii) a given parameterization equation from amongst the plurality with a lowest error; and (Sections 4 and 5.1, the parameterization that results in an acceptable error (lowest) is chosen)
generating a geometric representation based on the given parameterization equation with the lowest error and identified parameter values of the given parameterization equation with the lowest error. (Sections 4 and 5.1, Figures 3 and 4, a model of the beam is created from the parameterization equation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Barazzetti with Yu as the references deal with creating a finite element model, in order to implement a system that solves parameterization equations to describe a shape to be modeled and generates a geometric representation with the lowest error. Yu would modify Barazzetti by solving parameterization equations to describe a shape to be modeled and generating a geometric representation with the lowest error. The benefit of doing so is the method can accurately simulate the propagation of a crack and be accurately used to investigate small damage. (Yu Section 4)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Barazzetti and Yu teaches the limitations of claim 3. Barazzetti does not explicitly teach wherein each parameterization equation corresponds to a given geometric shape type.
Yu teaches wherein each parameterization equation corresponds to a given geometric shape type. (Sections 4 and 5.1, Figures 3 and 4, the equations correspond to a beam)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Barazzetti and Yu teaches the limitations of claim 3. Barazzetti teaches wherein, in classifying the identified unoccupied space as empty space or occluded space, the method further comprises: classifying the identified unoccupied space as empty if the space was scanned and no point data was collected; or classifying the identified unoccupied space as occluded if the space was not scanned and no point data was collected. (Abstract, Introduction, Section 3-3.2, Figures 6-11, the area of the windows was scanned and no point data was collected, so the model identifies them as unoccupied by not putting a mesh in the windows)
Regarding claim 10, Barazzetti teaches the limitations of claim 1. Barazzetti does not explicitly teach wherein the FEM representing the real-world object is a conformal hexahedron FEM.
Yu teaches wherein the FEM representing the real-world object is a conformal hexahedron FEM. (Section 5.1, hexahedral elements are used)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Barazzetti with Yu as the references deal with creating a finite element model, in order to implement a system that uses hexahedral elements. Yu would modify Barazzetti by using hexahedral elements. The benefit of doing so is the mesh can vary in size so a mesh size that balances accuracy and computation time can be used. (Yu Section 6.1)
In regards to claim 17, it is the system embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barazzetti in view of Yu, and in further view of Xiong et al. “Automatic creation of semantically rich 3D building models from laser scanner data.”
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Barazzetti and Yu teach the limitations of claim 5. The combination of Barazzetti and Yu does not explicitly teach performing ray-tracing on the given group of points to identify scanned spaces and un-scanned spaces in the given group of points.
Xiong teaches performing ray-tracing on the given group of points to identify scanned spaces and un-scanned spaces in the given group of points. (Section 1, 4-4.3, ray tracing is used to identify scanned and unscanned spaces in the group of points around the sensor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Barazzetti and Yu with Xiong as the references deal with creating a model of a structure, in order to implement a system that uses ray tracing to identify scanned and unscanned spaces. The benefit of doing so is the algorithm works well in areas with a high level of occlusion and missing data, as well as provides good accuracy. (Xiong Section 5.2)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barazzetti in view of Rua et al. “First results of a methodology to obtain a 1D variable geometry model for the structural analysis of corroded steel beams from the point cloud.”
Regarding claim 13, Barazzetti anticipates the limitations of claim 12. Barazzetti does not explicitly teach wherein the structural member is a deck, a steel girder, a sub-element of a cross-frame, or a sub-element of a transverse diaphragm.
Rua teaches wherein the structural member is a deck, a steel girder, a sub-element of a cross-frame, or a sub-element of a transverse diaphragm. (Section 1, Figures 1, 15 and 16, the member is a bridge containing a deck and steel girders)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Barazzetti with Rua as the references deal with creating a structural model, in order to implement a system that contains a structural member of a deck and steel girder. The benefit of doing so is the system can be uses as an effective and efficient method of analysis of steel frame structures so that rust can be identified. (Rua Abstract Section 5)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Castellazzi et al. “From Laser Scanning to Finite Element Analysis of Complex Buildings by Using a Semi-Automatic Procedure”: Also teaches a method of partitioning point cloud data to create a FEM.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188