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 (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.
Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 uses the term “floorspace” as in “edge floorspace” and “middle floorspace”. However, “floorspace” is not mentioned in the specification and should be removed as it is not defined. Appropriate correction is required. The claim will we be examined as best understood.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-4, 7-11, and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12031318, (hereinafter ‘318) in view of Vanker et al., US Patent Application Publication 20130211795, (herein after Vanker).
Regarding the claim 1, 8, and 15:
Instant application
12031318
A method of designing a building including transforming volumetric modules comprising:
generating a building plan including a plurality of volumetric modules, the volumetric modules including transforming support column-to-ceiling truss elements that enable floorplans uninterrupted by vertical columns between at least a portion of the plurality of volumetric modules;
and
automatically generating a set of build instructions based on the building plan that includes an alignment of each of the plurality of volumetric modules to a corresponding position and orientation in a prospective building, the set of build instructions further including a guide to an order in which to assemble and transform the plurality of volumetric modules.
A method of construction using prefabricated volumetric modules that generates open space without interrupting vertical columns comprising:
fabricating a plurality of transforming volumetric modules, each transforming volumetric module including a habitation zone and a truss zone positioned above the habitation zone, the plurality of transforming volumetric modules including vertical support columns that are configured to fold at a column joint, wherein the column joint is positioned where the habitation zone meets the truss zone; configuring the plurality of transforming volumetric modules for transport on trucks, wherein the vertical support columns are folded thereby reducing a height of each of the plurality of transforming volumetric modules and enabling multiple to stack on each truck; transporting the plurality of transforming volumetric modules to a construction site; arranging the plurality of transforming volumetric modules into a floorplan configuration with vertical support columns in a vertical arrangement in a specified order, wherein an interior module is placed into the floorplan configuration first and one or more edge modules are subsequently placed into the floorplan configuration leaning against the interior module; affixing the plurality of transforming volumetric modules together to one another; and transitioning the vertical support columns of the interior module from the vertical arrangement to a truss arrangement; and installing mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (“MEP”) elements in the truss zone.
Regarding claim 1, as shown above, ‘318 recites subject matter of transforming of support columns to ceiling trusses which enable floorplans that are uninterrupted by vertical columns. However, ‘318 does not recite subject matter of “a method of designing a building including transforming volumetric modules” and “automatically generating a set of build instructions based on the building plan that includes an alignment of each of the plurality of volumetric modules to a corresponding position and orientation in a prospective building, the set of build instructions further including a guide to an order in which to assemble and transform the plurality of volumetric modules.”
However, Vanker et al. teaches a method of designing a building including transforming volumetric modules automatically generating a set of build instructions based on the building plan that includes an alignment of each of the plurality of modules to a corresponding position and orientation in a prospective building, the set of build instructions further including a guide to an order in which to assemble and transform the plurality of modules (paragraph 121, macro file provided with instruction for assembling the component parts). While Vanker does not teach that the modules are volumetric, ‘318 teaches volumetric modules. Therefore, the combination of ‘318 with Vanker together would teach the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent because the teachings of Vanker would allow onsite construction to be easier because of the instructions and labeling of the parts/module due to the design.
Regarding claim 2, ‘318 together with Vanker teaches the method of claim 1 of designing a building including transforming volumetric modules as described above. ‘318 teaches transforming volumetric modules from claim 1 and Vanker further teaches:
generating an inventory list of the plurality of modules required based on the building plan (paragraph 104 and 1932 of figure 19, bill of materials); and
generating a fabrication order based on the inventory list (paragraphs 104, “generate purchase orders for parts”; and 105, “macro files may also include instructions to the manufacturing machines to generate labels for manufactured parts and standardized structural components”).
Regarding claim 3, ‘318 together with Vanker teaches the method of claim 1 of designing a building including transforming volumetric modules as described above. ‘318 teaches transforming volumetric modules and Vanker further teaches:
wherein the building plan is generated from linking together elements from a library of modules (figure 19 and paragraphs 92-97,standardized structural components are in stored in a database which is a library of modules and they are linked together using CAD software 1902 which generates the design using the structural components from 1908 and 1910).
Regarding claim 4, ‘318 together with Vanker teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Vanker further teaches where the building plan is free-designed via computer-aided-design (CAD) elements (paragraphs 106, CAD is used for design; paragraphs 125, an architect using the system can draw structural walls (i.e., free-design)).
Regarding claim 8 and 15, they contain limitation substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, they contain limitation substantially similar to claim 2 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, they contain limitation substantially similar to claim 3 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, they contain limitation substantially similar to claim 4 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 7, ‘318 together with Vanker teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. Vanker teaches further comprising:
determining, by a packing heuristic, a set of volumetric modules from a library of modules that fit into the free-designed building plan based on matching portions of the free-designed building plan to the library of modules (paragraph 83, 3D and 2D views based on data from the library the construction plan; paragraph 127, 3D views of the design).
Regarding claim 14, it contains limitations substantially similar to claim 7 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, ‘318 together with Vanker teaches the method of claim 15 as described above. Claim 1 of ‘318 discloses transforming vertical-to-lateral support columns relative to a current subset of volumetric models installed (“transitioning the vertical support columns of the interior module from the vertical arrangement to a truss arrangement”). Vanker, which teaches providing instructions for assembling the component parts (paragraph 121, macro file provided with instruction for assembling the component parts). As combined, ‘318 with Vanker teaches the claimed invention of claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, ‘318 together with Vanker teaches the method of claim 18 as described above. Claim 3 of ‘318 recites “wherein the plurality of transforming volumetric modules are fabricated as either of edge modules or interior modules.” Interior modules are equivalent to middle modules. As such, ’318 with Vanker would teach “where in the library of modules include at least an edge module and a middle module.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such module given the teachings of the claims of ‘318 and Vanker. Doing so would allow the design to be created using CAD which is more efficient for modifications and distribution of the design.
Claim 5 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12031318, (hereinafter ‘318) in view of Vanker et al., US Patent Application Publication 20130211795, (hereinafter Vanker) in further view of Vafaee, US Patent Application Publication 20220155758, (hereinafter Vafaee).
Regarding claim 5, ‘318 and Vanker teach the method according to claim 4 as described above. ‘318 further recites a set of volumetric modules in claim 1. Vanker teaches a library of modules that fit into the free-designed building plan based on matching portions of the free-designed building plan to the library of modules (paragraph 121, macro file provided with instruction for assembling the component parts). ‘318 and Vanker teach everything in the claim but do not explicitly disclose “determining, by a machine learning model.”
Vafaee teaches a construction model engine can be a machine learning model that can be trained (paragraph 88). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘319 and Vanker to include the construction model engine of Vafaee. Doing so would allow the system to have improved accuracy, efficiency of continuous improvement, uncovering hidden solutions.
Regarding claim 12, it recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5 and are also rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12031318, (hereinafter ‘318) in view of Vanker et al., US Patent Application Publication 20130211795 (hereinafter Vanker) in view of Vafaee, US Patent Application Publication 20220155758 (hereinafter Vafaee) in further view of Vandenbrouck et al., US Patent Application Publication 20200193700 (hereinafter Vandenbrouck).
Regarding claim 6, ‘318 in view of Vanker and Vafaee teach the method according to claim 5. ‘318 together with Vanker and Vafaee teaches training a machine learning model with available volumetric modules from the library of modules. However, neither ‘318 nor Vanker nor Vafaee teach that the machine learning model is based on a computer vision archetype that matches spatial requirements.
However, Vandenbrouck teaches a machine learning model based on computer vision archetype that matches spatial requirements (paragraph 6. Map file to identify building elements including rooms, floors, and objects of the building to identify the containment relationships; paragraph 37, geometric-spatial data is identified by computer vision algorithms).
It would have been obvious to modify ‘318 together with Vanker and Vafaee to include the learning model as taught by Vandebrouck because the machine learning would be enhanced to allow modeling of physical spaces that would new kinds of insights into the effectiveness of equipment, utilization of spaces, costs, efficiency etc. (paragraph 1 of Vandebrouck).
Regarding claim 13, it contains limitation substantially similar to claim 6 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication 20130055671 A1 to Bruce teaches a prefabricated modular building units that have folding beam sections that can be folded from a stored position out of a vertical plane to interconnect to a structural truss., paragraph 10.
US Patent 5461832 to Smith (cited in IDS dated 7/17/2023) teaches a method of erecting a transportable foldable building where the walls are pivoted from a horizontal position to a vertical position.
US Patent Application Publication 20170370091 A1 Dragan (cited in IDS dated 1/14/2026) teaches a method of modular construction where vertical support are folded out from a horizontal position.
US Patent Application Publication to 20220156424 A1 Poostchi teaches an automated manufacturing method for production of buildings and components. The document discloses producing modular building components.
US Patent Application Publication 20200250280 A1 to Chopson et al. teaches an automated building design guidance software to optimize the design of a building.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome. None of the prior art teaches “the volumetric modules including transforming support column-to-ceiling truss elements that enable floorplans uninterrupted by vertical columns between at least a portion of the plurality of volumetric modules.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James K. Trujillo whose telephone number is (571)272-3677. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dede Zecher can be reached at (571) 272-7771. 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.
JAMES K. TRUJILLO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights