DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are presented for examination.
Claim 8 was withdrawn per election.
This office action is in response to the election submitted on 24-AUG-2026.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "providing the building" renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear how the “providing” is being accomplished. The specification does not provide additional details regarding “providing”. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 use the term “facilitating”. Examiner interprets “providing” to be a similar scope to the term “facilitating”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
receiving an input specification for the building, said input specification specifying pre-harmonisation modules required to provide the building, said pre-harmonisation modules defined by respective pre-harmonisation module specifications comprising respective geometric parameters and respective attributes;
The “input specification” can be reasonably observed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The elements of the “geometric parameters” and “respective attributes” can be determined by observing the “specification” and making a judgement or opinion to determine the “geometric parameters” and “respective attributes”.
identifying which of the pre-harmonisation module specifications are stored …, said identified pre-harmonisation module specifications being referred to as first pre-harmonisation module specifications having associated geometric parameters and attributes which are stored in separate sections of the database;
The “specification” can be reasonably observed and the “identifying” can be reasonably interpreted as a judgement or an evaluation when determining the “first pre-harmonisation”.
harmonising the module specifications in the first pre-harmonisation module specifications to form a set of parametrised and harmonised module specifications which specify harmonised modules which (a) substantially do not clash when they are used to provide the building, and (b) when assembled to form the building satisfy attribute criteria specified in the input specification; and
”Harmonizing” is an observation of the “input specification” and an evaluation to determine if the elements “substantially do not clash” and “building satisfy attribute criteria”. A person of ordinary skill can evaluate the observed “input specification” to determine if a “clash” has occurred and if the “criteria” is met based on judgement.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Post-solution activity:
facilitating construction of the building using the harmonised module specification.
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception has found simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
A computer implemented method
in an electronically accessible database
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and a general purpose computer do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP 2106.05(g) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); is extra-solution activity.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
2. The method according to claim 1 further comprising, prior to harmonising the module specifications in the first pre- harmonisation module specifications: generating pre-harmonisation module specifications which are not stored in the database, said generated module specifications being referred to as second pre-harmonisation module specifications; wherein the first pre-harmonisation module specifications together with the second pre-harmonisation module specifications form a set of pre- harmonisation module specifications; and wherein harmonising the module specifications in the first pre- harmonisation module specifications comprises harmonising the set of pre- harmonisation module specifications comprising the first pre-harmonisation specification modules together with the second pre-harmonisation module specifications.
The claim further recites a “second pre-harmonisation”, which is interpreted as an evaluation of the observed input as the “first pre-harmonization” is interpreted in claim 1. (Step 2A Prong 1).
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the pre-harmonisation modules required to provide the building comprise one or more of part specifications, assembly specifications, master-assembly specifications, and building specifications, and wherein harmonising the module specifications to form the set of harmonised module specifications comprises: determining geometric parameters for the one or more of the part specifications, assembly specifications, master-assembly specifications, and building specifications; determining attributes for at least some of the one or more of the part specifications, assembly specifications, master-assembly specifications, and building specifications; and storing the geometric parameters and the attributes in the electronically accessible database, wherein the geometric parameters and the attributes for each of the one or more of the part specifications, assembly specifications, master-assembly specifications, and building specifications are stored in separate sections of the database.
The “determining” of the “geometric parameters” and “attributes” are an evaluation of the observed “specifications”. (Step 2A Prong 1).
5. A method according to claim 2 wherein the first and second pre-harmonisation module specifications are stored as validated tokens in a blockchain network.
Storing the “validated tokens in a blockchain network” is interpreted as post solution activity. (Step 2A Prong 2).
Claim 6 is a system claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 1, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claim 1, respectively, Mutatis mutandis. The additional components of “one or more computer processors; one or more tangible non-transitory computer readable storage media storing a computer executable software program for directing the one or more computer processors to execute a method comprising” are interpreted as a general purpose computer and mere instructions to apply. The additional component of “providing the building using the harmonised module specification” is interpreted as post solution activity and rejected similarly as “facilitating construction of the building using the harmonised module specification” in claim 1.
Claim 7 is a medium claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 1, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claim 1, respectively, Mutatis mutandis. The additional components of “One or more tangible non-transitory computer readable storage media storing a computer executable software program for directing one or more computer processors to execute a method comprising” are interpreted as a general purpose computer and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 9 is a substantiality similar scope to claim 2 (which depends from claim 1) and is rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticpated by Wakelam et al., United State Patent 7,529,650 B2 (hereinafter ‘Wakelam’).
Regarding Claim 1: A computer implemented method of harmonised parameter based design of a building in facilitating construction of the building, the method comprising:
Wakelam teaches receiving an input specification for the building, said input specification specifying pre-harmonisation modules required to provide the building, said pre-harmonisation modules defined by respective pre-harmonisation module specifications comprising respective geometric parameters and respective attributes; (Col 2 lines 6-25 Wakelam “Element” refers to an object that, when placed in the spatial database, represents a construction com~ ponent of the structure being modeled and "massing element" refers to an object that has the same properties as an element, but can additionally place instances of other elements and massing elements into the spatial database ... These dialog boxes allow data to be entered directly into a current instance of the object for use in the design of the building model. “…As used herein, "element" refers to an object that, when placed in the spatial database, represents a construction component of the structure being modeled and "massing element" refers to an object that has the same properties as an element, but can additionally place instances of other elements and massing elements into the spatial database. Typical programming code included in massing elements to enable them to place instances of other elements and massing elements in the database is set forth in Appendix A hereto…”
Col 3 Line 56 - Col 4 line 15 Wakelam The DMES system is capable of using fixed, non-parametric graphical objects as components of the building model while gathering useful information from them. The high-level functionality can be added to these non-parametric elements when they are automatically assembled into the building model. “…In one aspect, the DMES system is capable of using fixed, non-parametric graphical objects as components of the building model while gathering useful information from them. This is achieved through use of a parametric massing element referred to as a grouping massing element, that has the ability to assemble any single instance or grouped instances of elements. Each such massing element assembled in the model contains the names of the element or elements it in tum has assembled in the model. This massing element also contains functions that store specific information about the various elements it may be assembling, along with functionality and calculations associated with those elements. The grouping massing element therefore contains the parametric behavior required of the elements it assembles in the model, and those elements can therefore either be parametric or fixed, nonparametric graphical elements. The result is that non-parametric graphical elements may be transferred into the database of the DMES system from traditional CAD systems and those elements can be added to the element hierarchy used to assemble the building model. The high-level functionality can be added to these non-parametric elements when they are automatically assembled into the building model. In another aspect, the DMES system is capable of detecting physical clashes between various components of the building model as the model is being automatically assembled and automatically redesign the model to relocate the affected component(s) to avoid the clash…”)
Wakelam teaches identifying which of the pre-harmonisation module specifications are stored in an electronically accessible database, said identified pre-harmonisation module specifications being referred to as first pre-harmonisation module specifications having associated geometric parameters and attributes which are stored in separate sections of the database; (Col 2 lines 15-38 Wakelam Objects that are defined as "massing elements" may be capable of directly creating instances of other objects and positioning them accurately in the building model, and passing data to and from these instances ... Manually interfacing with lower tier elements and massing elements through their respective dialog boxes allows design requirements for those elements to be stored in external data files for use by the automated building assembly process when it is run. “…In accordance with still another embodiment, objects that are defined as "massing elements" may be capable of directly creating instances of other objects and positioning them accurately in the building model, and passing data to and from these instances. As previously indicated, each of the objects also includes programing code that defines a graphical user interface, in the form of a dialog box, to the object that is displayed for enabling a user to create an instance of the object in the database. These dialog boxes allow data to be entered directly into a current instance of the object for use in the design of the building model. In operation, an Interview massing element is manually placed in the spatial database, at which point its dialog box is displayed and the client's high-level requirements for the project are entered using the dialog box, then the automatic assembly process is run to create the building model. Additionally, manually placing a lower tier element into the database causes its dialog box to be displayed, allowing the user to control its configuration directly by inputting the desired parameters. Manually interfacing with lower tier elements and massing elements through their respective dialog boxes allows design requirements for those elements to be stored in external data files for use by the automated building assembly process when it is run…”
Col 8 lines 5-23 “…Specifically, the code segment set forth in Appendix B is incorporated into a Structural massing element (FIG. 2a) and calculates the necessary girder reinforcements, while the code segment set forth in Appendix C is incorporated into a HVAC Tables element (FIG. 2a) and reads a glass solar gain external file associated with that element and creates a table from the data contained therein. When compiled, the API source code in the objects 122 is cross-compiled into dynamic link libraries ("DLLs") that link directly with executable code of the DMES system 110 to create classes in the database 118. They are organized in groups related to the various subsets of a construction project (applications), and ordered in an assembly hierarchy 200 (FIG. 2a) that forms a logical sequence for the assembly of a building model. When instantiated in the database 118, the objects 122 automatically display appropriate graphical representations from different view points to produce two-and three-dimensional views of the resultant building model…”
Col 12 lines 56-67 “…The completed building model created in the database 118 contains all of the detailed two- and three-dimensional information necessary to generate a complete set of coordinated construction documents, including full-color photo-realistic renderings and movies. As will be described in greater detail below in connection with the "rattle the box" feature, the Interview massing element 201 also contains the functionality to allow variable building constraints to be input through its dialog, so that it then automatically assembles many buildings with varying parameters for design and/or cost comparison, for purposes to be described in greater detail below…”)
Wakelam teaches harmonising the module specifications in the first pre-harmonisation module specifications to form a set of parametrised and harmonised module specifications which specify harmonised modules which (a) substantially do not clash when they are used to provide the building, and (b) when assembled to form the building satisfy attribute criteria specified in the input specification; and (Col 17 lines 33-54 Wakelam The DMES system is capable of detecting physical clashes between various components of the building model as the model is being automatically assembled and automatically redesign the model to relocate the affected component(s) to avoid the clash. This process has a small incremental impact on the speed of the assembly process, but completely removes the need for a series of long clash detection exercises after the model is complete “…In another aspect, the DMES system is capable of detecting physical clashes between various components of the building model as the model is being automatically assembled and automatically redesign the model to relocate the affected component( s) to avoid the clash. In contrast to a conventional CAD tool, which uses software algorithms that scan and sort the locations and extents of all three-dimensional primitive geometries in a building model and compares all of the locations thereof for potential overlaps, the DMES system of the present disclosure performs clash detection, or interference checking, by cross checking the location and extents of the current instance against only those other existing instances in the model and adjusting its position if necessary before assembling it into the model. This automatic clash detection is part of the assembly process in each massing element and each element uses its own specific functions to determine the parameters of a clash and the rules by which to reposition the instance. This process has a small incremental impact on the speed of the assembly process, but completely removes the need for a series of long clash detection exercises after the model is complete…”
Col 7 lines 58 – col 8 line 11 Wakelam “…The DMES system 110 includes a plurality of objects 122 comprising elements and massing elements described in detail below with reference to FIG. 2a and developed using the API 120. Each of the objects 122 includes an internal interface through which it communicates with other objects in the hierarchy and a set of internal functions and variables that contain formulas and values that are calculated and assigned when the object is instantiated in the database 118. These formulas and values encapsulate the knowledge and expertise of the industry's designers, engineers, specialists, manufacturers, city building codes and regulations, and combine to create an expert system for the design and construction of a building. Exemplary code segments for encapsulating such information are set forth in Appendices Band C hereto. Specifically, the code segment set forth in Appendix B is incorporated into a Structural massing element (FIG. 2a) and calculates the necessary girder reinforcements, while the code segment set forth in Appendix C is incorporated into a HVAC Tables element (FIG. 2a) and reads a glass solar gain external file associated with that element and creates a table from the data contained therein…”
Col 4 lines 11 – line 31 Wakelam “…In another aspect, the DMES system is capable of detecting physical clashes between various components of the building model as the model is being automatically assembled and automatically redesign the model to relocate the affected component(s) to avoid the clash. In contrast to a conventional CAD tool, which uses software algorithms that scan and sort the locations and extents of all three-dimensional primitive geometries in a building model and compares all of the locations thereof for potential overlaps, the DMES system of the present disclosure performs clash detection, or interference checking, by cross-checking the location and extents of a current instance of an object against only those other existing instances in the model, i.e., the spatial database, and adjusting its position if necessary before assembling it into the model. This automatic clash detection is part of the assembly code included in each massing element and each element uses its own specific functions to determine the parameters of a clash and the rules by which to reposition the instance. This process has a small incremental impact on the speed of the assembly process, but completely removes the need for a series of long clash detection exercises after the model is complete…”
Col 13 line 48 – col 14 line 6 Wakelam “…FIG. 3 illustrates a process flow diagram for developing one or more building models using the DMES system 110. Execution begins in step 300 responsive to a request from a client to develop a project scenario. In step 300, parameters for the project are defined and input to the DMES system 110 as described below. Examples of project parameters include, but are not limited to, number of floors, total gross area, floor plate area, type of structure, and cladding systems. Upon completion of step 300, execution proceeds to step 302, in which a DMES process, implemented via the DMES system 110, is initiated. As described herein, and as generally shown and described with reference to FIG. la, the DMES process of step 302 is a continual feedback loop that produces a variety of building models and associated project scenarios, including cost estimates and construction schedules, intended to distill the vision of the client into a comprehensive solution, including a building model, cost estimate, and construction schedule, which is submitted to the client for design, budget, and schedule review and approval (step 304) and then forwarded to the appropriate authorities for code review and permitting purposes (step 306). In particular, the DMES process (step 302) results in the development of construction documentation, including construction drawings, details, specifications, renderings, movie paths, and shop drawings, itemized budgets, and detailed construction schedules, which are simultaneously produced for each building model…”)
Wakelam teaches facilitating construction of the building using the harmonised module specification. (Col 12 lines 14-19 Wakelam All of the above software allows suitably detailed and coordinated documents to be sent to a printer to produce dimensionally accurate scaled drawings and details, schedules and specifications, detailed cost estimates and construction sequence schedules “…Referring again to FIG. 1, all of the above software allows 15 suitably detailed and coordinated documents to be sent to a printer 169 to produce dimensionally accurate scaled drawings and details 170, schedules and specifications 172, detailed cost estimates 174 and construction sequence schedules 176…”)
Regarding Claim 2: The method according to claim 1 further comprising, prior to harmonizing the module specifications in the first pre-harmonisation module specifications:
Wakelam teaches generating pre-harmonisation module specifications which are not stored in the database, said generated module specifications being referred to as second pre-harmonisation module specifications; (Col 13 lines 1-16 Wakelam “…FIGS. 2b-2e illustrate values passed between the component elements of a selected branch, in this case, the third, or "Core Zone" branch, of the assembly hierarchy 200. It should be recognized that this branch is executed immediately after execution of the "Building Shape" branch, headed by the Building Shape massing element 202a, and immediately prior to execution of the "Cladding" branch, headed by the Cladding massing element 202b. FIG. 2b illustrates the values passed between the Interview massing element 201 and the Core Zone massing element 202b. The Interview massing element 201 gathers some basic information regarding the project and allows the user to change some high-level parameters of the building design and then controls the assembly hierarchy to produce a full-scale, three-dimensional model of the building, complete with drawings, specifications cost estimation, and schedule…”)
Wakelam teaches wherein the first pre-harmonisation module specifications together with the second pre-harmonisation module specifications form a set of pre-harmonisation module specifications; and (Col 10 lines 5-25 Wakelam “…As illustrated in steps 150-154, there are effectively two ways of running the DMES system. The initial method with the customer (building owner) is to place an instance of the Interview massing element and input various high-level choices into its dialog, then run the DMES system on that high-level information only. This causes a building to be assembled based on those high-level design decisions, and all of the other choices in the lower elements and massing elements in the hierarchy use their default (best practice) values. The second method includes an initial ( optional) pre-pass, which involves placing individual instances of some or all of the elements and massing elements in the hierarchy, and inputting more detailed design decisions into their respective dialogs, and having that lower level detailed information saved in external data files for use by the DMES system when it is run. Then an instance of the Interview massing element is placed, as above, and various high-level choices are input into its dialog and the DMES system is then run based on that high-level information plus all of the design information gathered from the external data files by the elements and massing elements as they are automatically assembled…”)
Wakelam teaches wherein harmonizing the module specifications in the first pre-harmonisation module specifications comprises harmonising the set of pre-harmonisation module specifications comprising the first pre-harmonisation specification modules together with the second pre-harmonisation module specifications. (Col 7 line 58 – col 8 line 11 Wakelam “…The DMES system 110 includes a plurality of objects 122 comprising elements and massing elements described in detail below with reference to FIG. 2a and developed using the API 120. Each of the objects 122 includes an internal interface through which it communicates with other objects in the hierarchy and a set of internal functions and variables that contain formulas and values that are calculated and assigned when the object is instantiated in the database 118. These formulas and values encapsulate the knowledge and expertise of the industry's designers, engineers, specialists, manufacturers, city building codes and regulations, and combine to create an expert system for the design and construction of a building. Exemplary code segments for encapsulating such information are set forth in Appendices Band C hereto. Specifically, the code segment set forth in Appendix B is incorporated into a Structural massing element (FIG. 2a) and calculates the necessary girder reinforcements, while the code segment set forth in Appendix C is incorporated into a HVAC Tables element (FIG. 2a) and reads a glass solar gain external file associated with that element and creates a table from the data contained therein…”)
Regarding Claim 3: The method according to claim 1, wherein the pre-harmonisation modules required to provide the building comprise one or more of part specifications, assembly specifications, master-assembly specifications, and building specifications, and wherein harmonising the module specifications to form the set of harmonised module specifications comprises:
Wakelam teaches determining geometric parameters for the one or more of the part specifications, assembly specifications, master-assembly specifications, and building specifications; (Col 17 lines 33-53 Wakelam ““…In another aspect, the DMES system is capable of detecting physical clashes between various components of the building model as the model is being automatically assembled and automatically redesign the model to relocate the affected component( s) to avoid the clash. In contrast to a conventional CAD tool, which uses software algorithms that scan and sort the locations and extents of all three-dimensional primitive geometries in a building model and compares all of the locations thereof for potential overlaps, the DMES system of the present disclosure performs clash detection, or interference checking, by cross checking the location and extents of the current instance against only those other existing instances in the model and adjusting its position if necessary before assembling it into the model. This automatic clash detection is part of the assembly process in each massing element and each element uses its own specific functions to determine the parameters of a clash and the rules by which to reposition the instance. This process has a small incremental impact on the speed of the assembly process, but completely removes the need for a series of long clash detection exercises after the model is complete…”)
Wakelam teaches determining attributes for at least some of the one or more of the part specifications, assembly specifications, master-assembly specifications, and building specifications; and (Col 17 lines 17-25 Wakelam “…For example, based on a design parameter of 50 lb/sf live load, the DMES system 110 would design a end span beam with the following attributes: width 2'6"; depth 20¾"; reinforcing steel bottom 2-#11 's; top east 6-#4's; top west 7-#11 's; and #4 stirrups at 18" on center. Ifit was determined that the live load needed to increase to 80 lb/sf, the DMES system would redesign the beam to 3'0" wide and increase the reinforcing steel to: bottom 3-#11 's; top east 4-#5's; top west 8-#11 's; and #4 stirrups at 14" on center…”)
Wakelam teaches storing the geometric parameters and the attributes in the electronically accessible database, wherein the geometric parameters and the attributes for each of the one or more of the part specifications, assembly specifications, master-assembly specifications, and building specifications are stored in separate sections of the database. (Col 1 line 56 – col 2 line 5 Wakelam “…One embodiment, accordingly, may comprise a computer implemented automated building design and modeling and construction project cost estimating and scheduling system ("DMES system"). The system comprises a spatial database; means for defining a plurality of parametric objects, each of the parametric objects representing a construction component of at least a portion of a building being modeled and including an interface through which the parametric object communicates information with other ones of the parametric objects; a cost database containing, for each of parametric objects, cost information associated with the parametric object; means for assembling a model of the building utilizing the parametric objects, wherein each of the parametric objects is created in the spatial database; and means for generating in real-time a cost-estimate for the building model based on the cost information associated with the parametric objects as the parametric objects are created in the spatial database…”)
Claim 6 is a system claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 1, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 102 as Claim 1, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claim 7 is a medium claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 1, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 102 as Claim 1, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claim 9 is a substantiality similar scope to claim 2 (which depends from claim 1) and is rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wakelam et al., United State Patent 7,529,650 B2 (hereinafter ‘Wakelam’) in view of
Nawari et al., “Blockchain and Building Information Modeling (BIM): Review and Applications in Post-Disaster Recovery” [19 June 2019].
Regarding Claim 5: Wakelam teaches A method according to claim 2
Wakelam does not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the first and second pre-harmonisation module specifications are stored as validated tokens in a blockchain network.
However, Nawari teaches wherein the first and second pre-harmonisation module specifications are stored as validated tokens in a blockchain network. (Pg. 20 last paragraph Nawari “…Clash detection, or clash prevention, is the most frequently employed compliance-checking domain to validate models. This method is popular because of its favorable effort–benefit ratio, which allows the project team members to simultaneously detect discrepancies in the model from design, or detect a clash between two or more facets of the building structure [95]. Most BIM platforms generally provide tools to perform clash detection studies. This technique, however, is limited in that it does not facilitate a comprehensive code review and verification of information-rich content embedded in the BIM objects. A rule-based validation method is, therefore, essential for ACCC to be able to process complex building attributes, design specifications, environmental conditions, and other areas that can be sufficiently validated through visual methods…”
Pg. 21 2nd paragraph Nawari “…To address the issues related to post-disaster rebuilding, this paper introduces new approaches for automating, or semi-automating, the building permit process. These methods are based upon integrating the ACCC with blockchain systems (see Figure 5). The three primary components of the framework are the Generalized Adaptive Framework (GAF) for the ACCC model, as proposed by [82], smart contracts, and blockchain network systems…”)
Wakelam and Nawari are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, building design and modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the receiving an input specification for the building, said input specification specifying pre-harmonisation modules required to provide the building, said pre-harmonisation modules defined by respective pre-harmonisation module specifications comprising respective geometric parameters and respective attributes as disclosed by Wakelam by wherein the first and second pre-harmonisation module specifications are stored as validated tokens in a blockchain network as disclosed by Nawari.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide security when addressing recovery and rebuilding as discussed in the abstract of Nawari “…Blockchain Technology (BCT) is a growing digital technology that in recent years has gained widespread traction in various industries in the public and private sectors. BCT is a decentralized ledger that records every transaction made in the network, known as a ‘block’, the body of which is comprised of encrypted data of the entire transaction history. BCT was introduced as the working mechanism that forms the operational basis of Bitcoin, the first digital cryptocurrency to gain mainstream appeal. The introduction of decentralized data exchange technology in any industry would require strengthened security, enforce accountability, and could potentially accelerate a shift in workflow dynamics from current centralized architectures to a decentralized, cooperative chain of command and affect a cultural and societal change by encouraging trust and transparency. BCT aims at creating a system that would offer a robust self-regulating, self-monitoring, and cyber-resilient data transaction operation, assuring the facilitation and protection of a truly efficient data exchange system. In the state of Florida, climate change and unpredicted weather disasters have put pressure on state and local decision-makers to adapt quick and efficient post-disaster recovery systems. Part of the recovery efforts is the reconstruction of buildings and infrastructure. The introduction of new technologies in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry can contribute to addressing recovery and rebuilding after the event of a natural disaster. With parallel technological advancement in geospatial data and Geographic Information System (GIS), as well as worsening climatic conditions, concerns can be suitably addressed by employing an integrated system of both Building Information Modeling (BIM) and BCT…”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 is allowable.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Golparvar-Fard et al., United States Patent 9,070,216 B2 teaches the clash detection for BIM and teaches several of the elements found in the application.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected.
Claim 4 is objected to.
Claim 10 is allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
