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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosengaus US 20130096873 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Rosengaus teaches a method of data management of the construction of a building ([0027]), said method comprising the following steps:
(a) optically 3D scanning the building with a laser scanner so as to obtain 3D data of the building ([0031, 44, 93-95]);
(b) storing the 3D data ([0075, 125]);
(c) iterating steps (a) and (b) at different points in time ([0097, 108], “subsequent data acquisitions”); and
(d) formatting the 3D data obtained at the different points in time so as to display the 3D data with a point of time selector enabling, upon selection, to display the 3D data at any of the different points in time ([0097, 99, 108, 125], discusses multiple data acquisition times (later in construction project or later in time) and formatting to display to a user and “displaying…any of the information described herein that is generated by the system” which would implicitly require a point of time selection option to view data from different times).
Regarding claim 15, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein the different points in time correspond to different stages of the construction of the building ([0027, 33, 48, 97, 99, 100], generally discusses subsequent data acquisitions “later in the construction project”).
Regarding claim 16, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein among the stages of the construction of the building, each stage differs from a preceding stage in that additional equipment or construction material of the building is mounted or applied (Figs 3-5, [0048], “New partitions may be added to the construction sites”).
Regarding claim 17, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein step (d) further comprises characterizing at least one object in the 3D data for each point in time by assigning a name and a geometry to each of the at least one object (acquire characteristics of construction elements of the construction site including type and dimensions, [0078-83]).
Regarding claim 18, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein the at least one object corresponds to an equipment mounted to the building or a unit of construction material applied to the building (“presence/absence of construction elements such as walls, sockets, fixtures, pipes, rebar, and glass”, [0079]).
Regarding claim 19, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein at step (d) the at least one object is characterized such that by selecting the at least one object with a pointer on the display the name, position and/or dimensions thereof are displayed ([0079, 80, 99, 109 122], Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 20, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein at step (d) each of the characterized at least one object is compared with a Building Information Model BIM of the object stored in a project of the building ([0027, 37, 79-82], “cross-reference the output or the images to the BIM”).
Regarding claim 21, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 20, further comprising a step: (e) comparing the at least one characterized object with the corresponding BIM of the object and outputting a compliance note of the object ([0079-82, 99, 107]; monitor placement accuracy of construction elements versus a BIM and provide user feedback).
Regarding claim 22, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein step (a) is carried out at different points in time according to step (c) by positioning the laser scanner at the same place relative to the building under construction (Figs. 3-4, [0047]) or by correcting the obtained 3D data so as to compensate for a different place where the laser scanner is positioned (Figs. 4-5, [0048]).
Regarding claim 23, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein steps (a), (b), (c) and (d) are carried out at different sites in the building under construction (Figs. 2, 4-5, [0029, 48, 77, 84]).
Regarding claim 24, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein step (d) comprises producing a set of files enabling a user to display the building under construction at any of the different points in time by selecting the point in time at the point of time selector ([0108, 125]).
Regarding claim 25, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 24 wherein steps (a), (b), (c) and (d) are carried out at different sites in the building under construction, and the set of files produced at step (d) enables to selectively display each of the sites of the building under construction ([0097, 99, 108, 125], discusses multiple data acquisition times (later in construction project or later in time) and formatting to display to a user and “displaying…any of the information described herein that is generated by the system” which would implicitly require a point of time selection option to view data from different times).
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.
Claims 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosengaus US 20130096873 A1 in view of White US 20200279367 A1.
Regarding claim 26, Rosengaus teaches the method according to claim 14,
Rosengaus does not explicitly teach wherein at step (d) the point of time selector is located at the bottom of the displayed 3D data.
White teaches time and date selectors on the side of displayed 3D data (time/date selectors 1712 and 1714 and point cloud selector 1718 in Figs. 16-17, [0221, 228]; each of which can update the displayed 3D data based on time (either time image was taken or adjustments to image based on time)). Additionally, the position of the time and date selectors is a simple rearrangement of parts because shifting the selectors would not have modified the operation of the device and would be an obvious matter of design choice (See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C., In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rosengaus such that at step (d) the point of time selector is located at the bottom of the displayed 3D data similar to White with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the user to easily switch between which data sets they would like to view.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Holmquist US 20190340564 A1 teaches a time selector to choose which data to display ([0122])
Priest US 20200288330 A1 teaches obtaining drone images of structure at different times (Fig. 22)
Tasch US 20180170719 A1 teaches construction monitoring using sensors on cranes (Fig. 1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights