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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 07/12/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to the statutory category of processes.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A method for presenting a unified digital deliverable (UDD) of an infrastructure, the method comprising:
obtaining an assemblage of the infrastructure, the assemblage including at least one or more plan sheets of the infrastructure,
receiving a selection of a plan sheet representation, from a selected plan sheet, of an object of the infrastructure;
in response to receiving the selection, determining if a three-dimensional (3D) representation of the object exists in a 3D representation of the infrastructure;
in response to determining that the 3D representation of the object does not exist, providing an indication that the 3D representation does not exist;
in response to determining that the 3D representation of the object exists in the 3D representation of the infrastructure, presenting a unified digital deliverable (UDD) of the infrastructure,
wherein the UDD comprises at least (1) the one or more plan sheets of the infrastructure and (2) the 3D representation of the infrastructure that includes the 3D representation of the object, wherein the 3D representation of the object is selectable to present characteristic information describing the object of the infrastructure.
The limitations “presenting a unified digital deliverable (UDD) of an infrastructure”, “determining if a three-dimensional (3D) representation of the object exists in a 3D representation of the infrastructure”, “providing an indication that the 3D representation does not exist”, and “presenting a unified digital deliverable (UDD) of the infrastructure” are an abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
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 present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“obtaining an assemblage of the infrastructure, the assemblage including at least one or more plan sheets of the infrastructure” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving a selection of a plan sheet representation, from a selected plan sheet, of an object of the infrastructure” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to determining that the 3D representation of the object does not exist” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
“in response to determining that the 3D representation of the object exists in the 3D representation of the infrastructure” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the UDD comprises at least (1) the one or more plan sheets of the infrastructure and (2) the 3D representation of the infrastructure that includes the 3D representation of the object, wherein the 3D representation of the object is selectable to present characteristic information describing the object of the infrastructure” (Field of Use, MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further recites: “wherein the UDD further comprises a two-dimensional (2D) representation of the infrastructure that is interactive.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the outcomes that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “when receiving the selection of the plan sheet representation, the method further comprising: filtering a plan set, that includes a plurality of plan sheets, by displaying only selected plan sheets that include the object of the infrastructure” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the plan sets that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “further comprising: receiving a selection of 3D representation of the object from the UDD; and in response to receiving the selection, filtering a plan set, that includes a plurality of plan sheets, by displaying only selected plan sheets that include the object of the infrastructure” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the plan sets that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the assemblage further includes a two- dimensional (2D) model of the infrastructure and the 3D representation of the infrastructure is a 3D model of the infrastructure” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the representation that are being determined (mental observation of determining or setting an equation to perform the determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the 2D model, the 3D model, and the one or more plan sheets are linked” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the relationship (mental observation of segmenting with pen and paper) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “further comprising: identifying a first object of the infrastructure in a selected plan sheet; identifying the first object of the infrastructure in the 3D model and the 2D model based on the linkage” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the identifying object (mental observation of defining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1:
Claims 8-14 are directed to the statutory category of system.
Claim 8 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim language is substantially similar as claim 1, except for the following claim elements/limitations: A system for presenting a unified digital deliverable (UDD) of an infrastructure, the system comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to:
The claim does not include any additional abstract ideas from claim 1.
Claim 8 Step 2A prong 2:
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 present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A system for presenting a unified digital deliverable (UDD) of an infrastructure” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
“a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to:” (Particular Machine –referencing MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Claim 8 Step 2B:
The additional limitations found in claim 8 are recited at a high level of generality (memory, processor, configured to) and would function in its ordinary capacity for processing, storing data, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Step 2A Prong I and Step 2B.
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 8 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 2; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 10 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 3; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 11 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 4; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 5; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 13 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 6; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 7; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1:
Claims 15-20 are directed to the statutory category of medium, an article of manufacture.
Claim 15 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim language is substantially similar as claim 1, except for the following claim elements/limitations: A non-transitory computer readable medium having software encoded thereon, the software when executed by one or more computing devices operable to:
The claim does not include any additional abstract ideas from claim 1.
Claim 15 Step 2A prong 2:
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 present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A non-transitory computer readable medium having software encoded thereon, the software when executed by one or more computing devices operable to:” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15 Step 2B:
The additional limitations found in claim 15, are recited at a high level of generality (medium, executed) and would function in its ordinary capacity for processing, storing data, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Step 2A Prong I and Step 2B.
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 15 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 2; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 17 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 3; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 4; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 19 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 5; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 20 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 6; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over G. Costa, NPL “Connecting building component catalogues with BIM models using semantic technologies: an application for precast concrete components”, Published: 22 June 2015, (hereafter Costa), in views of Paul Poinet, NPL, “Enhancing Collaborative Practices in Architecture, Engineering and Construction through Multi-Scalar Modelling Methodologies”, Published: October 22, 2019 (hereafter Poinet).
Regarding claim 1. Costa teaches a method for presenting a digital deliverable (DD) of an infrastructure (Page 240, Col 1, Par 1, BIM model, components are described by means of parametric rules, geometric properties and other attributes) (Page 245, Col 1, Par 1, structure in the BIM model), the method comprising:
obtaining an assemblage of the infrastructure, the assemblage including at least one or more plan sheets of the infrastructure (Page 243, fig 1, CAD of multiple floors) (Page 245, Fig 5, Autodesk structure, multiple floors),
receiving a selection of a plan sheet representation, from a selected plan sheet, of an object of the infrastructure (Page 245, Sec 4, facilitates the search of structural precast products in the process);
in response to receiving the selection, determining if a three-dimensional (3D) representation of the object exists in a 3D representation of the infrastructure (Page 245, Fig 5, Selection components, doble click) (Page 246, Fig 6, configuring the selection, 3D image being displayed) (Page 246, Col 1, Par 1, relationships, provided with a list of compatible products);
in response to determining that the 3D representation of the object does not exist, providing an indication that the 3D representation does not exist (Page 245, Sec 4, search, service retrieves all the instances that are compatible with the type of possible components connected, lack of components indicates not compatible and lacks 3D representation);
in response to determining that the 3D representation of the object exists in the 3D representation of the infrastructure, presenting a digital deliverable (DD) of the infrastructure (Page 245, Fig 5, list of retrieved components, CAD of the infrastructure),
wherein the DD comprises at least (1) the one or more plan sheets of the infrastructure and (2) the 3D representation of the infrastructure that includes the 3D representation of the object (Page 245, Fig 5, CAD of the infrastructure, 3D representation of the structure and the object selected),
wherein the 3D representation of the object is selectable to present characteristic information describing the object of the infrastructure (Page 245, Fig 5, list of retrieved components).
Costa does not teach unified digital deliverable (UDD).
Poinet teaches unified digital deliverable (UDD) (Page 28, sec 2.1, Universal Scene Description (USD)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Costa to incorporate the teachings of Poinet to integrate USD into the BIM model one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it allows seamless interoperability and communication across levels and trades, with cost and difficulties being distributed among many contributors (Poinet, Page 27, Par 1 and Par 8).
Regarding claim 2. Costa and Poinet teach the method of claim 1, wherein the UDD further comprises a two-dimensional (2D) representation of the infrastructure that is interactive (Poinet, Page 46, Fig 2.11, development cycles and collaborative dependencies during design of the augmented FRAME architectural project) (Poinet, Page 45, Par 1, next iteration, repeated until the last level of detail was modeled).
Regarding claim 3. Costa and Poinet teach the method of claim 1, when receiving the selection of the plan sheet representation (Costa, Page 245, Sec 4, facilitates the search of structural precast products in the process), the method further comprising: filtering a plan set, that includes a plurality of plan sheets, by displaying only selected plan sheets that include the object of the infrastructure (Costa, Page 246, fig 6, select the pillars and the unions, in different levels, thus filtering by selection of the pillars and levels).
Regarding claim 4. Costa and Poinet teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a selection of 3D representation of the object from the UDD (Costa, Page 245, Fig 5, selection components); and in response to receiving the selection, filtering a plan set, that includes a plurality of plan sheets, by displaying only selected plan sheets that include the object of the infrastructure (Costa, Page 246, fig 6, select the pillars and the unions, in different levels, thus filtering by selection of the pillars and levels).
Regarding claim 5. Costa and Poinet teach the method of claim 1, wherein the assemblage further includes a two- dimensional (2D) model of the infrastructure and the 3D representation of the infrastructure is a 3D model of the infrastructure (Costa, Page 246, Fig 7, 2D model) (Costa, Page 246, Fig 6, 3D model representing the infrastructure).
Regarding claim 6. Costa and Poinet teach the method of claim 5,wherein the 2D model, the 3D model, and the one or more plan sheets are linked (Costa, Page 242, sec 2.5, BIM process is to forge links between the model and the building products) (Costa, Page 243, Fig 1, connection between 3D model , web apps, 2D model, product catalogues).
Regarding claim 7. Costa and Poinet teach the method of claim 6, further comprising: identifying a first object of the infrastructure in a selected plan sheet (Costa, Page 246, Fig 6, positioning of corbels);
identifying the first object of the infrastructure in the 3D model and the 2D model based on the linkage (Costa, Page 246, Fig 6, 3D model highlight the pilar and position) (Costa, Page 6, Fig 7, 2D model, representing core slabs must fit the perimeter) (Costa, Page 247, plug-in gets BIM model information about the context in which the component is going to be inserted, thus the 3D model and 2D model communicating withing the BIM application and linked with product catalogues keep track of the components).
Regarding claim 8. Costa teaches a system for presenting a digital deliverable (DD) of an infrastructure (Page 240, Col 1, Par 1, BIM model, components are described by means of parametric rules, geometric properties and other attributes) (Page 245, Col 1, Par 1, structure in the BIM model), the system comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (Page 244, Sec 3.3, service oriented computing, web, desktop applications, BIM Software, thus being processed by a computer having a processor coupled to memory), the processor configured to:
obtain an assemblage of the infrastructure, the assemblage including at least one or more plan sheets of the infrastructure (Page 243, fig 1, CAD of multiple floors) (Page 245, Fig 5, Autodesk structure, multiple floors),
receive a selection of a plan sheet representation, from a selected plan sheet, of an object of the infrastructure (Page 245, Sec 4, facilitates the search of structural precast products in the process);
in response to receiving the selection, determine if a three-dimensional (3D) representation of the object exists in a 3D representation of the infrastructure (Page 245, Fig 5, Selection components, doble click) (Page 246, Fig 6, configuring the selection, 3D image being displayed) (Page 246, Col 1, Par 1, relationships, provided with a list of compatible products);
in response to determining that the 3D representation of the object does not exist, provide an indication that the 3D representation does not exist (Page 245, Sec 4, search, service retrieves all the instances that are compatible with the type of possible components connected, lack of components indicates not compatible and lacks 3D representation);
in response to determining that the 3D representation of the object exists in the 3D representation of the infrastructure, presenting a digital deliverable (DD) of the infrastructure (Page 245, Fig 5, list of retrieved components, CAD of the infrastructure),
wherein the DD comprises at least (1) the one or more plan sheets of the infrastructure and (2) the 3D representation of the infrastructure that includes the 3D representation of the object (Page 245, Fig 5, CAD of the infrastructure, 3D representation of the structure and the object selected),
wherein the 3D representation of the object is selectable to present characteristic information describing the object of the infrastructure (Page 245, Fig 5, list of retrieved components).
Costa does not teach unified digital deliverable (UDD).
Poinet teaches unified digital deliverable (UDD) (Page 28, sec 2.1, Universal Scene Description (USD)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Costa to incorporate the teachings of Poinet to integrate USD into the BIM model one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it allows seamless interoperability and communication across levels and trades, with cost and difficulties being distributed among many contributors (Poinet, Page 27, Par 1 and Par 8).
Regarding claim 9. Costa and Poinet teach the system of claim 8, wherein the UDD further comprises a two-dimensional (2D) representation of the infrastructure that is interactive (Poinet, Page 46, Fig 2.11, development cycles and collaborative dependencies during design of the augmented FRAME architectural project) (Poinet, Page 45, Par 1, next iteration, repeated until the last level of detail was modeled).
Regarding claim 10. Costa and Poinet teach the system of claim 8, when receiving the selection of the plan sheet representation (Costa, Page 245, Sec 4, facilitates the search of structural precast products in the process), the processor further configured to: filter a plan set, that includes a plurality of plan sheets, by displaying only selected plan sheets that include the object of the infrastructure (Costa, Page 246, fig 6, select the pillars and the unions, in different levels, thus filtering by selection of the pillars and levels).
Regarding claim 11. Costa and Poinet teach the system of claim 8, wherein the processor further configured to: receive a selection of 3D representation of the object from the UDD (Costa, Page 245, Fig 5, selection components); and
in response to receiving the selection, filter a plan set, that includes a plurality of plan sheets, by displaying only selected plan sheets that include the object of the infrastructure (Costa, Page 246, fig 6, select the pillars and the unions, in different levels, thus filtering by selection of the pillars and levels).
Regarding claim 12. Costa and Poinet teach the system of claim 8, wherein the assemblage further includes a two- dimensional (2D) model of the infrastructure and the 3D representation of the infrastructure is a 3D model of the infrastructure (Costa, Page 246, Fig 7, 2D model) (Costa, Page 246, Fig 6, 3D model representing the infrastructure).
Regarding claim 13. Costa and Poinet teach the system of claim 12,wherein the 2D model, the 3D model, and the one or more plan sheets are linked (Costa, Page 242, sec 2.5, BIM process is to forge links between the model and the building products) (Costa, Page 243, Fig 1, connection between 3D model , web apps, 2D model, product catalogues).
Regarding claim 14. Costa and Poinet teach the system of claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured to: identify a first object of the infrastructure in a selected plan sheet (Costa, Page 246, Fig 6, positioning of corbels);
identify the first object of the infrastructure in the 3D model and the 2D model based on the linkage (Costa, Page 246, Fig 6, 3D model highlight the pilar and position) (Costa, Page 6, Fig 7, 2D model, representing core slabs must fit the perimeter) (Costa, Page 247, plug-in gets BIM model information about the context in which the component is going to be inserted, thus the 3D model and 2D model communicating withing the BIM application and linked with product catalogues keep track of the components).
Regarding claim 15. Costa teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having software encoded thereon (Page 244, Sec 3.3, service oriented computing, web, desktop applications, BIM Software), the software when executed by one or more computing devices operable to:
obtain an assemblage of the infrastructure, the assemblage including at least one or more plan sheets of the infrastructure (Page 243, fig 1, CAD of multiple floors) (Page 245, Fig 5, Autodesk structure, multiple floors),
receive a selection of a plan sheet representation, from a selected plan sheet, of an object of the infrastructure (Page 245, Sec 4, facilitates the search of structural precast products in the process);
in response to receiving the selection, determine if a three-dimensional (3D) representation of the object exists in a 3D representation of the infrastructure (Page 245, Fig 5, Selection components, doble click) (Page 246, Fig 6, configuring the selection, 3D image being displayed) (Page 246, Col 1, Par 1, relationships, provided with a list of compatible products);
in response to determining that the 3D representation of the object does not exist, provide an indication that the 3D representation does not exist (Page 245, Sec 4, search, service retrieves all the instances that are compatible with the type of possible components connected, lack of components indicates not compatible and lacks 3D representation);
in response to determining that the 3D representation of the object exists in the 3D representation of the infrastructure, presenting a digital deliverable (DD) of the infrastructure (Page 245, Fig 5, list of retrieved components, CAD of the infrastructure),
wherein the DD comprises at least (1) the one or more plan sheets of the infrastructure and (2) the 3D representation of the infrastructure that includes the 3D representation of the object (Page 245, Fig 5, CAD of the infrastructure, 3D representation of the structure and the object selected),
wherein the 3D representation of the object is selectable to present characteristic information describing the object of the infrastructure (Page 245, Fig 5, list of retrieved components).
Costa does not teach unified digital deliverable (UDD).
Poinet teaches unified digital deliverable (UDD) (Page 28, sec 2.1, Universal Scene Description (USD)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Costa to incorporate the teachings of Poinet to integrate USD into the BIM model one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it allows seamless interoperability and communication across levels and trades, with cost and difficulties being distributed among many contributors (Poinet, Page 27, Par 1 and Par 8).
Regarding claim 16. Costa and Poinet teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the UDD further comprises a two-dimensional (2D) representation of the infrastructure that is interactive (Poinet, Page 46, Fig 2.11, development cycles and collaborative dependencies during design of the augmented FRAME architectural project) (Poinet, Page 45, Par 1, next iteration, repeated until the last level of detail was modeled).
Regarding claim 17. Costa and Poinet teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, when receiving the selection of the plan sheet representation (Costa, Page 245, Sec 4, facilitates the search of structural precast products in the process), the software when executed by the one or more computing devices further operable to:
filter a plan set, that includes a plurality of plan sheets, by displaying only selected plan sheets that include the object of the infrastructure (Costa, Page 246, fig 6, select the pillars and the unions, in different levels, thus filtering by selection of the pillars and levels).
Regarding claim 18. Costa and Poinet teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the software when executed by the one or more computing devices further operable to: receive a selection of 3D representation of the object from the UDD (Costa, Page 245, Fig 5, selection components); and
in response to receiving the selection, filter a plan set, that includes a plurality of plan sheets, by displaying only selected plan sheets that include the object of the infrastructure (Costa, Page 246, fig 6, select the pillars and the unions, in different levels, thus filtering by selection of the pillars and levels).
Regarding claim 19. Costa and Poinet teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the assemblage further includes a two-dimensional (2D) model of the infrastructure and the 3D representation of the infrastructure is a 3D model of the infrastructure (Costa, Page 246, Fig 7, 2D model) (Costa, Page 246, Fig 6, 3D model representing the infrastructure).
Regarding claim 20. Costa and Poinet teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19,wherein the 2D model, the 3D model, and the one or more plan sheets are linked (Costa, Page 242, sec 2.5, BIM process is to forge links between the model and the building products) (Costa, Page 243, Fig 1, connection between 3D model , web apps, 2D model, product catalogues).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Starr Long, NPL, “Building an Active Digital Twin Using NVIDIA Omniverse and Project Gemini”, discloses an active digital twin framework and toolkit fully connected to NVIDIA Omniverse, a scalable platform for design and collaboration using Universal Scene Description (USD).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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.
/A.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights