DETAILED ACTION
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
2. The Amendment filed on January 15, 2026 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-23 and the addition of claims 27-29.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to abstract ideas and cites the USPTO Director in that ‘improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes.’ The Examiner notes that the abstract ideas are identified throughout the 35 U.S.C. § 101 step 2A-Prong 1 process, enumerating the abstract ideas observed in the independent claim for the method a clause at a time, and that by their very nature, models, as described throughout the claims are abstractions of the real world. The Examiner also notes that in the quoted text above, the assumption is that logical structures and processes are defined, thus disclosing the improvements to software. In neither the claims nor the specification, a definition/description of the improvement is apparent. Claims draw upon multiple models for information concerning architecture, engineering, and construction, but without detail. The specification describes techniques used to map cost metrics associated with the physical structure from one type of model to a different type model used in the AEC field without describing the (notionally inventive) mechanisms employed to achieve the claimed result. Although amended claims stress aspects of the cost modeling providing the impetus to detecting an error in the structural model, the path from the initial indicator to the final structural cause appears to be left as an exercise. It is not disclosed if the processing system automates this error analysis or provides the user access to the various models to be manually applied and implemented. These observations suggest that the descriptions are conclusory. In view of these observations, the present arguments in favor of an improvement to the technology or a technical field are not compelling, and as a result, the rejections under 35 USC § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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, 5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-23 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-23 are directed to a process (method), machine (system which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-23 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of calculating and visualizing cost metrics and placing them on models of physical structures for illustration.
Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: A method for modifying an engineering model and a corresponding architectural massing model for different elements of a physical structure, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), the method comprising:
obtaining, the engineering model that represents the physical structure, the engineering model specifying structural elements distributed among different levels of the physical structure; wherein the structural elements are determinative of load paths between at least some pairs of structural elements from the structural elements; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
obtaining, the corresponding architectural massing model used for visualization of the physical structure, the corresponding architectural massing model
specifying architectural elements distributed among different levels of the physical structure and representing an outline of the physical structure; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
obtaining, a value of a cost metric for each of the structural elements, wherein the cost metric is one or more of weight or embodied carbon; (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining, an accumulated value of the cost metric for at least a first area of the corresponding architectural massing model of the physical structure, the first area being associated with a predetermined level of the different levels of the physical structure (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and the accumulated value being mapped from the engineering model to the corresponding architectural massing model using the load paths of the physical structure to propagate cost back to its root cause, the determining comprising calculating a direct contribution to the accumulated value of the cost metric using data from the engineering model for one or more of the structural elements by projecting, for each of the one or more of the structural elements located in the first area, the corresponding direct contribution being projected from the first area in the engineering model to the first area in the architectural model, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
identifying at least one structural element of the one or more of the structural
elements located in the first area that is connected, via load transmission through at least one load path in the engineering model, to at least one source structural element located in a second area of the corresponding architectural massing model of the physical structure, the second area being different from the first area and being in the predetermined level or at least one other level of the different levels, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
calculating an indirect contribution to the accumulated value of the cost metric
using data from the engineering model for the at least one source structural element located in the second area by projecting, for the at least one source structural element located in the second area, the indirect contribution being projected from the second area in the engineering model to the first area in the architectural model; (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
using the accumulated value of the cost metric including the indirect contribution for the at least one source structural element located in the second area, detecting a structural error condition comprising a gap or a force imbalance in a load path at a junction involving a structural element through which the at least one load path passes from the at least one structural element located in the first area to the at least one source structural element located in the second area; (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
causing modification of the engineering model of the physical structure based on the detection of the structural error condition comprising the gap or the force imbalance in the load path at the junction involving a structural element through which the at least one load path passes from the at least one structural element located in the first area to the at least one source structural element located in the second area to produce a modified engineering model; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
computing an updated accumulated value of the cost metric for a modified architectural massing model using the modified engineering model; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
showing a representation of the architectural massing model, a first user interface element that indicates the updated accumulated value of the cost metric for at least the first area in the corresponding architectural massing model determined and a second user interface element that indicates the at least one load path on a representation of the engineering model using the modified engineering model of the physical structure and the modified architectural massing model, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
the second user interface element including, for a structural element through which the at least one load path passes from the at least one structural element located in the first area to the at least one source structural element located in the second area, an indicator of the structural error condition for the structural element, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method for calculating the indirect contribution to the accumulated value of the cost metric comprises:
determining the at least one load path for a predetermined load case; and
identifying, for each structural element in the at least one load path, a reverse
neighborhood comprising structural elements that are part of a reverse load path from the
structural element to the at least one structural element located in the first area, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 2), determining a set of dependent elements of the area, wherein the set of dependent elements comprises the reverse neighborhood of each structural element in the area, and calculating the accumulated value of the cost metric for the area as a difference between i) an accumulated value of the cost metric for the physical structure without the set of dependent elements of the area and ii) an accumulated value of the cost metric for the physical structure without the area and the set of dependent elements of the area, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 3), calculating an accumulated value of the cost metric for the physical structure; (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), applying a load on the area; and calculating the accumulated value of the cost metric for the area as a difference between i) the accumulated value of the cost metric for the physical structure and ii) an accumulated value of the cost metric for the physical structure after applying the load on the area, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 4), i) determining a local neighborhood, wherein the local neighborhood comprises structural elements adjacent to each structural element, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), ii) determining the indirect contribution to the accumulated value of the cost metric from the structural elements in the local neighborhood, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), iii) determining a local weight for each structural element in the local neighborhood, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and iii) iteratively transferring the indirect contribution from the structural elements in the local neighborhood along a reverse load path, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 5), removing, for each structural element, forces and/or moments caused on the structural element by one of each of the structural elements in the local neighborhood; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and determining, for each structural element, an indirect contribution to the accumulated value of the cost metric from the one of each of the structural elements in the local neighborhood as a difference between a value of the cost metric for the structural element before and after the removing, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk – claim 6), applying, for each structural element, a load to the forces and/or moments caused on the structural element by one of the of the structural elements in the local neighborhood; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and determining, for the structural element, an indirect contribution to the accumulated value of the cost metric from the one of each of the structural elements in the local neighborhood as a difference between a value of the cost metric for the structural element before and after the applying, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk – claim 7), determining, for each structural element, an indirect contribution to the accumulated value of the cost metric from a safety factor as a function of forces and/or moments caused on the structural element by one of each of the structural elements in the local neighborhood, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk – claim 8), wherein the cost metric is one or more of weight, embodied carbon, materials cost, construction cost, and construction time, the one or more of the structural elements located in the first area are multiple structural elements comprising a column, a beam and a slab, and the at least one structural element located in the first area is the column or the beam, but not the slab, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 9), displaying, for one or more structural elements through which the at least one load path passes, from the first area to the second area, one or more of at least one indicator representing a direction of load transfer at the structural element, at least one indicator representing a load at the structural element, and at least one indicator of a structural error condition, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk – claim 10), wherein the causing comprises assisting a user, using the graphical user interface, in modification of the engineering model to optimize the cost metric including: receiving a modification to the architectural massing model, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); making a corresponding modification to the engineering model, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 11), receiving at least one load modification, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and displaying a modified at least one load path on the engineering model, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 12), and detecting the structural error condition comprising a gap or a force imbalance in a load path at a junction involving a structural element, through which the load passes and displaying modifications to one or more of the load path, at the junction, the engineering model, the architectural massing model or a combination thereof, are made, until the structural error condition is resolved, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk – claim 13), where identifying the reverse neighborhood comprises: identifying, for each structural element in the at least one load path, a reverse neighborhood comprising structural elements including a first structural element in the engineering model and a second structural element in the architectural model that are part of a reverse load path from the structural element to the at least one structural element located in the first area in the architectural model, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk – claim 27), and detecting, for at least part of the accumulated value of the cost metric on the structural
element, the root cause from the at least one source structural element located in a second area of the physical structure, wherein displaying the accumulated value comprises displaying, in the graphical user interface, the accumulated value and a user interface element that indicates the root cause, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 29).
Each of these claimed limitations employ mental processes involving judgement, observation, evaluation and opinion as well as organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles based on mitigating risk.
Claims 14-26, and 28 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-13, 27 and 29.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-29 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-29 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a processing system, one or more computers, a graphical user interface, one or more random access memories, a computer-readable medium, a display device, and a transmitter, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-29 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-29 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-29 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624