DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filled application is acknowledged under 35 U.S.C 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application 63/341,977 filed on 13 May 2022.
Drawings
The drawings received on 12 May 2023 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0041] of the specification refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as “NCR”, which should be “NRC”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 13 recites the limitation “a model engine communicatively coupled to the data manager and an engineering interface, the model engine configured to: create a model for the site and the structure based on the … third-party data, to approximate site soil movement.” The “third-party data” includes “information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute”, which is not sufficiently disclosed in the specification. The specification in paragraph [0041] recites “Sources or data inputs may include: … deflection analysis (which may include information or data from the NCR website, the PTI, or both)”, which discloses that the information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) can be any data from the NRC website, PTI website, or both websites. In order to create a model based off of information from either the NRC, PTI, or both websites, the specific data from either of the websites need to be sufficiently disclosed. MPEP 2161.01 recites “Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” Regarding claim 13, the claim specifies a desired result, creating a model for the site and structure based on the third-party data, but the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function, the information from either the NRC, PTI, or both websites, are not explained in sufficient detail. Because the disclosure lacks sufficient technical detail or a representative number of species to support the broad functional language of the claim, the inventor has not demonstrated possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a model engine” and “a data manager” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “a model engine” and “a data manager” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See [0049]-[0051]. Paragraph [0052] recites “Within the system, the model engine 250 may propose customized or default language for a preparer to choose from, including suggestions made by artificial intelligence (Al), and suggested language based on algorithms accounting for known inputs and variables … In some embodiments, recommendation design platform 200 may use built-in artificial intelligence using natural language processing to generate text for the report/engineering recommendation based on the data inputted into recommendation design platform 200” and paragraph [0060] recites “In some embodiments, recommendation design platform 200 may use built-in artificial intelligence using natural language processing to generate text for the report/engineering recommendation based on the data inputted into recommendation design platform 200.” The general use of AI is not sufficient to work as the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 13-20 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 8, and 13 recite the abstract idea of creating remedial geotechnical engineering plans, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitations of “constructing a first topographical map of the floor of the structure using the first elevation measurements” and “constructing a second topographical map of the floor of the structure using the second elevation measurements” in claim 1 covers mental processes including taking data and drawing a map, which can be performed with the use of a pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitation of “comparing, by the recommendation design platform, the first elevation measurements for the floor of the structure and the second elevation measurements for the floor of the structure to determine soil movement over time” in claims 1 and 8 covers mental processes including comparing two pieces of data against each other and using the comparison to determine soil movement over time. Additionally, the limitation of “creating, by the recommendation design platform, proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure based on: the determined soil movement over time; the evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the first visit and at the time of the second visit; and the first and second moisture observations around the foundation of the structure” in claims 1 and 8 covers mental processes including analyzing data and creating the remediation steps and procedures based on that analysis. Additionally, the limitation of “create a model for the site and the structure based on the first data, second data, and third-party data, to approximate site soil movement” in claim 13 covers mathematical concepts including using utilizing mathematical calculations to generate the model of the sit and structure based on the data. Alternatively, this limitation covers mental processes including analyzing the data and drawing the model, which can be performed with the use of a pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitation of “create proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans from the model and the approximated site soil movement” covers mental processes including analyzing the model and approximated soil movement and creating the remediation steps and procedures based on that analysis. Additionally, the limitation of “create final remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure signed by the geotechnical engineer” in claim 13 covers mental processes including analyzing input from a licensed geotechnical engineer and construct final remediation steps and processes and have the engineer sign off on those plans. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 13, the additional elements of “a processor communicatively coupled to a memory and a network interface, the network interface communicatively coupled to a network”, “a data manager communicatively coupled to the network interface and the network”, and “a model engine communicatively coupled to the data manager and an engineering interface” merely use a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “receiving first data at the recommendation design platform from a first visit by a site technician to the structure, wherein the first data comprises: first manometer readings providing first elevation measurements for a floor of the structure; first moisture observations around a foundation of the structure; proximity of vegetation to the structure at a time of the first visit; and evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the first visit”, “receiving second data at the recommendation design platform from a second visit to the structure at least 1 year after the first visit, the second data comprising: second manometer readings providing second elevation measurements for the floor of the structure; second moisture observations around the foundation of the structure; proximity of vegetation to the structure at a time of the second visit; and evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the second visit”, and “receiving custom third-party input at the recommendation design platform, wherein the custom third-party input comprises: an aerial site image; historical rainfall information; a deflection analysis; information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute; and drone-captured lidar point cloud data”, and “receiving, at the recommendation design platform, modifications to the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans from a licensed engineer to create sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure” in claim 1, “receiving first data at the recommendation design platform from a first visit by a site technician to the structure, wherein the first data comprises first elevation measurements for a floor of the structure”, “receiving second data at the recommendation design platform from a second visit to the structure after the first visit, wherein the second data comprises second elevation measurements for a floor of the structure”, “receiving custom third-party input at the recommendation design platform”, and “receiving, at the recommendation design platform, modifications to the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans from a licensed engineer to create sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure” in claim 8, “receive first data from a first visit to the structure through the network”, “receive second data from a second visit to the structure, after the first visit, through the network”, “receive third-party data for a site of the structure, through the network”, and “receive input from, a licensed geotechnical engineer to finalize the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans” in claim 13 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Alternatively, these limitations can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information based on types of information and availability of information in a geotechnical engineering environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 13, the additional elements of “a processor communicatively coupled to a memory and a network interface, the network interface communicatively coupled to a network”, “a data manager communicatively coupled to the network interface and the network”, and “a model engine communicatively coupled to the data manager and an engineering interface” merely use a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “receiving first data at the recommendation design platform from a first visit by a site technician to the structure, wherein the first data comprises: first manometer readings providing first elevation measurements for a floor of the structure; first moisture observations around a foundation of the structure; proximity of vegetation to the structure at a time of the first visit; and evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the first visit”, “receiving second data at the recommendation design platform from a second visit to the structure at least 1 year after the first visit, the second data comprising: second manometer readings providing second elevation measurements for the floor of the structure; second moisture observations around the foundation of the structure; proximity of vegetation to the structure at a time of the second visit; and evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the second visit”, and “receiving custom third-party input at the recommendation design platform, wherein the custom third-party input comprises: an aerial site image; historical rainfall information; a deflection analysis; information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute; and drone-captured lidar point cloud data”, and “receiving, at the recommendation design platform, modifications to the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans from a licensed engineer to create sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure” in claim 1, “receiving first data at the recommendation design platform from a first visit by a site technician to the structure, wherein the first data comprises first elevation measurements for a floor of the structure”, “receiving second data at the recommendation design platform from a second visit to the structure after the first visit, wherein the second data comprises second elevation measurements for a floor of the structure”, “receiving custom third-party input at the recommendation design platform”, and “receiving, at the recommendation design platform, modifications to the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans from a licensed engineer to create sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure” in claim 8, “receive first data from a first visit to the structure through the network”, “receive second data from a second visit to the structure, after the first visit, through the network”, “receive third-party data for a site of the structure, through the network”, and “receive input from, a licensed geotechnical engineer to finalize the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans” in claim 13 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Alternatively, these limitations can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information based on types of information and availability of information in a geotechnical engineering environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 9, 10, 15, and 16 are directed to further defining when the second visit to the structure takes place regarding the first visit, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3 and 5 are directed to further defining the type of topographical map, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 19 are directed to further constructing the map based on given data, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining the first topographical map, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining the floor plan, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 12 and 20 are directed to further defining the third-party input, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 14 is directed to further defining how the first data is received, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 17 is directed to further defining the first data, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 18 is directed to further defining the second data, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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.
Claims 8-9, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0336652 A1, hereafter W, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0100282 A1, hereafter V, further in view of NPL: Merah, A. (2021). A case study of foundation failure of a residential building: From diagnosis to reparation. Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 2(1), 1-6, hereafter M, further in view of NPL: International Code Council (ICC), 2018 International Building Code, Chapter 1, Section 107 Submittal Documents, 6th printing (November 2021), hereafter IBC.
Regarding Claim 8: W discloses a method for creating remedial geotechnical engineering plans for a structure with a recommendation design platform, the method comprising:
receiving first data at the recommendation design platform from a first visit by a site technician to the structure, wherein the first data comprises first elevation measurements for a floor of the structure;
W [0066] “Another source of data is the USGS, which provides data including earthquake magnitude, duration of shaking, epicenter location, spectral acceleration (e.g., shakemap), soil type, elevation, and spectral acceleration at various return periods.”
W [0108] “For example, one of the data sources could be building tagging. After an earthquake, building inspectors visit buildings and assign a tag on the severity of the damage to the building. These tags may be used to modify the BDI predictions in real-time.”
receiving second data at the recommendation design platform from a second visit to the structure after the first visit, wherein the second data comprises second elevation measurements for a floor of the structure;
W [0211] “In many cases, the built environment data 1008 is refreshed periodically, such as once a year, with live updates that indicate changes to the buildings in the area, such as repairs, retrofits, upgrades, etc. The natural environment data 1012 may be updated, for example, as portions of soil near the coast become more or less saturated with the changing tides, and the instantaneous line data 1010 may be updated as the sensor data is processed and refined.”
W [0066] “Another source of data is the USGS, which provides data including earthquake magnitude, duration of shaking, epicenter location, spectral acceleration (e.g., shakemap), soil type, elevation, and spectral acceleration at various return periods.”
receiving … at the recommendation design platform, or comparing, by the recommendation design platform.
W [0048] “The server machine 110 and the devices 130 and 150 may each be implemented in a computer system, in whole or in part, as described below with respect to FIG. 26. The server machine 110 may contain algorithms that manipulate the data received from the user devices 150 to make the data usable, or to format the data, for use by the database 115.”
W does not disclose custom third-party input, the first elevation measurements for the floor of the structure and the second elevation measurements for the floor of the structure to determine soil movement over time.
However, V discloses custom third-party input;
V [0034] “The present disclosure relies on having the X, Y, and Z positions of discrete locations inside of the foundation at various points of time T so that the foundation topography can be mapped over time. FIG. 6A depicts the X and Y coordinates of a generic foundation where the depth Z and time T are implied as described earlier.” Examiner notes that drone-captured point cloud data is a custom third-party input.
and comparing, by the recommendation design platform, the first elevation measurements for the floor of the structure and the second elevation measurements for the floor of the structure to determine soil movement over time.
V [0040] “Likewise, the contour plot could also represent the relative change in elevation since another point in time like the time shown in FIG. 7b. For example, the data in FIG. 9C shows that at time T=4.3 years when the measuring sensor 14 was again inside conduit 7 with a payout reading of 12.0 ft, the X and Y value of the measuring sensor was still 6.12 ft and 9.34 ft respectively.”
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
W and V do not disclose creating, by the recommendation design platform, proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure based on: the determined soil movement over time, evidence of cracks in the structure, and moisture observations around a foundation of the structure, or receiving, at the recommendation design platform, modifications to the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans from a licensed engineer to create sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure.
However, M discloses creating, by the recommendation design platform, proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure based on:
M [Page 13: Section 3] “Based on the data collected, draw up a plan of action to begin repairing damaged structural elements.”
the determined soil movement over time;
M [Page 13: Section 3] “Perform a geotechnical study to determine the new properties of the foundation soil under the new hydrogeologic conditions.”
the evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the first visit and at the time of the second visit;
M [Page 13: Section 3] “Realization of the witnesses with plaster on the cracks, in order to follow their evolution.”
and the first and second moisture observations around the foundation of the structure;
M [Page 13: Section 3] “Inspecting the immediate environment of the building, this inspection makes it possible to detect if there are for example traces of humidity, deteriorated seams of assault, cracks on the buildings of proximity, stagnations of water near the building, rainwater pipes damaged.”
and receiving, at the recommendation design platform, modifications to the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans from a licensed engineer to create
M [Page 12: Section 3] “The interventions for diagnostic to be performed must be properly planned before starting reparations. Identifying the factors that can affect the success of the repair is crucial, including: the nature of the soil, identification of the affected structural elements, the soil moisture content, the interior conditions of the building and its surroundings and their respective locations. With the planning and research conducted, the criterion is established to define the correct technique in each case, thus obtaining a greater success in solving the problem. Due to the difficulty and variability of the factors, there is some unpredictability in the results.
The selection of the repair must be supported by a complete diagnosis to know the origin of the pathology, by studying the expected efficiency of the repair and by correlating this with the cost of repair.”
M [Page 13: Section 3] “In addition, the pre-diagnosis must make an inventory of the technical and functional situation of the building, as well as its environment. this information facilitates the understanding of pathologies and helps the technician in decision-making to successfully perform the intervention.”
W, V, and M are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W and V because M teaches an entire case study that goes through the entire process from diagnosis to reparation of the foundation of a building. The repair was carried out based on an intervention plan constructed during the diagnosis phase comprising stages spread over time, which allowed strengthening of the infrastructure and gave the building an acceptable level of security. (See M [Page 9: Abstract])
However, W, V, and M do not disclose sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans.
However, IBC discloses sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans.
IBC [Section 107.3.1] “When the building official issues a permit, the construction documents shall be approved, in writing or by stamp, as "Reviewed for Code Compliance." One set of construction documents so reviewed shall be retained by the building official. The other set shall be returned to the applicant, shall be kept at the site of work and shall be open to inspection by the building official or a duly authorized representative.”
W, V, M, and IBC are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the regulations of the IBC with W, V, M, and IBC because the IBC provides a model code that provides minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare of the occupants of new and existing building structures. (See IBC [Effective Use of the International Building Code])
Regarding Claim 9: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the second visit to the structure is at least 1 year after the first visit.
W [0211] “In many cases, the built environment data 1008 is refreshed periodically, such as once a year, with live updates that indicate changes to the buildings in the area, such as repairs, retrofits, upgrades, etc. The natural environment data 1012 may be updated, for example, as portions of soil near the coast become more or less saturated with the changing tides, and the instantaneous line data 1010 may be updated as the sensor data is processed and refined.”
Regarding Claim 11: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC disclose the method of claim 8.
W does not disclose constructing a first topographical map of the floor of the structure using the first elevation measurements, or constructing a second topographical map of the floor of the structure using the second elevation measurements.
However, V discloses constructing a first topographical map of the floor of the structure using the first elevation measurements, and constructing a second topographical map of the floor of the structure using the second elevation measurements;
V [0032] “FIG. 6C depicts another embodiment of the present disclosure. The foundation 3 is again fitted with conduit 7 designed to measure the elevation of the foundation 3 over time T.”
V [0034] “The present disclosure relies on having the X, Y, and Z positions of discrete locations inside of the foundation at various points of time T so that the foundation topography can be mapped over time. FIG. 6A depicts the X and Y coordinates of a generic foundation where the depth Z and time T are implied as described earlier.”
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 13: W discloses a system for creating remedial geotechnical engineering plans for a structure with a recommendation design platform, the system comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to a memory and a network interface, the network interface communicatively coupled to a network;
W [0045] “One general aspect includes a system including a memory having instructions and one or more computer processors.
W [0048] “FIG. 1 is a network diagram, according to some example embodiments, illustrating a network environment suitable for predicting structural damage caused by phenomena such as fire, earthquake, water, wind or the like. The network environment 100 includes a server machine 110, a database 115, and devices 130 and 150, all communicatively coupled to each other via a network 190. The server machine 110 may form all or part of a network-based system 105 (e.g., a cloud-based server system configured to provide one or more services to the devices 130 and 150). The server machine 110 and the devices 130 and 150 may each be implemented in a computer system, in whole or in part, as described below with respect to FIG. 26.”
a data manager communicatively coupled to the network interface and the network and configured to:
receive first data from a first visit to the structure through the network;
W [0066] “Another source of data is the USGS, which provides data including earthquake magnitude, duration of shaking, epicenter location, spectral acceleration (e.g., shakemap), soil type, elevation, and spectral acceleration at various return periods.”
W [0108] “For example, one of the data sources could be building tagging. After an earthquake, building inspectors visit buildings and assign a tag on the severity of the damage to the building. These tags may be used to modify the BDI predictions in real-time.”
receive second data from a second visit to the structure, after the first visit, through the network;
W [0211] “In many cases, the built environment data 1008 is refreshed periodically, such as once a year, with live updates that indicate changes to the buildings in the area, such as repairs, retrofits, upgrades, etc. The natural environment data 1012 may be updated, for example, as portions of soil near the coast become more or less saturated with the changing tides, and the instantaneous line data 1010 may be updated as the sensor data is processed and refined.”
receive … data for a site of the site of the structure, through the network;
W [0048] “The server machine 110 and the devices 130 and 150 may each be implemented in a computer system, in whole or in part, as described below with respect to FIG. 26. The server machine 110 may contain algorithms that manipulate the data received from the user devices 150 to make the data usable, or to format the data, for use by the database 115.”
W [0058] “In example embodiments, the CDI values computed for each response are considered to be a classification for machine learning. CDI values may be augmented by other damage indicators including post-disaster inspection reports (e.g., red, yellow, and green tagging data), aerial, or satellite imagery, etc. In example embodiments, the scope of analysis may be restricted to estimating damage to city blocks, or to single-family homes, or to commercial buildings, or to special buildings (e.g., hospitals, firehouses).”
and a model engine communicatively coupled to the data manager and an engineering interface, the model engine configured to:
W [0159] “In some example embodiments, simulations are performed to estimate damage caused by a hypothetical earthquake. For example, shaking data is simulated, and the corresponding ShakeMap data is created, which is then inputted to the algorithm. Further, a model is created and an estimate of damage is presented.”
create a model for the site and the structure based on the first data, second data… to approximate site soil movement;
W [0166] “FIG. 20 is an example embodiment of a screenshot of an interface for selecting the location and magnitude of an earthquake. After the operator selects the epicenter, a graphical display 2004 is presented to indicate the location of the earthquake. In addition, the latitude and longitude are presented. When the operator selects the button labeled “Request Simulation,” the simulation is started. Within a few minutes, the simulation is completed, and damage predictions are presented.” Examiner notes that simulating earthquakes is a method of soil movement that would affect a foundation.
create proposed … plans from the model and the approximated site soil movement;
W [160] “Simulating damage is an important feature for response managers because it allows the managers to plan for different catastrophic events. By knowing what could happen, the manager is able to prepare plans for a response (e.g., capacity planning) or for retrofitting at-risk buildings. The damage-simulation tool is also useful for training because it enables training exercises based on the hypothetical effects of a catastrophe.
and send the proposed … plans to the engineering interface;
W [160] “Simulating damage is an important feature for response managers because it allows the managers to plan for different catastrophic events. By knowing what could happen, the manager is able to prepare plans for a response (e.g., capacity planning) or for retrofitting at-risk buildings. The damage-simulation tool is also useful for training because it enables training exercises based on the hypothetical effects of a catastrophe. Examiner notes that the response manager would send the response plans to the engineering interface, which in turn could be used for training.
wherein the engineering interface is communicatively coupled to the network interface and the network…
W [0045] “One general aspect includes a system including a memory having instructions and one or more computer processors.
W [0048] “FIG. 1 is a network diagram, according to some example embodiments, illustrating a network environment suitable for predicting structural damage caused by phenomena such as fire, earthquake, water, wind or the like. The network environment 100 includes a server machine 110, a database 115, and devices 130 and 150, all communicatively coupled to each other via a network 190. The server machine 110 may form all or part of a network-based system 105 (e.g., a cloud-based server system configured to provide one or more services to the devices 130 and 150). The server machine 110 and the devices 130 and 150 may each be implemented in a computer system, in whole or in part, as described below with respect to FIG. 26.” Examiner notes that the simulation tool would be a part of the server machine connected to a remote device, which is coupled with the network.
W does not disclose third-party data for a site of the structure.
However, V discloses third-party data for a site of the structure.
V [0029] “FIG. 4 is an illustration of a plan view of one embodiment of this disclosure depicting the junction. It also depicts a reference grid for acquisition of three dimensional data along the conduit path from an aerial (plan view) photograph and elevation data.”
V [0034] “In order to determine the X and Y coordinates of the conduit, the present disclosure proposes that this can be done after the conduit 7 and junctions 9, if any, hereafter referred to as the conduit system 37, are placed in the forms 1 by use of an aerial photograph 38.”
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
W and V do not disclose proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans or receive input from a licensed geotechnical engineer to finalize the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans and create final remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure signed by the geotechnical engineer.
However, M discloses proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans or receive input from a licensed geotechnical engineer to finalize the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans and create final remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure
M [Page 12: Section 3] “The interventions for diagnostic to be performed must be properly planned before starting reparations. Identifying the factors that can affect the success of the repair is crucial, including: the nature of the soil, identification of the affected structural elements, the soil moisture content, the interior conditions of the building and its surroundings and their respective locations. With the planning and research conducted, the criterion is established to define the correct technique in each case, thus obtaining a greater success in solving the problem. Due to the difficulty and variability of the factors, there is some unpredictability in the results.
The selection of the repair must be supported by a complete diagnosis to know the origin of the pathology, by studying the expected efficiency of the repair and by correlating this with the cost of repair.”
M [Page 13: Section 3] “In addition, the pre-diagnosis must make an inventory of the technical and functional situation of the building, as well as its environment. this information facilitates the understanding of pathologies and helps the technician in decision-making to successfully perform the intervention.”
W, V and M are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W and V because M teaches an entire case study that goes through the entire process from diagnosis to reparation of the foundation of a building. The repair was carried out based on an intervention plan constructed during the diagnosis phase comprising stages spread over time, which this allowed strengthening of the infrastructure and gave the building an acceptable level of security. (See M [Page 9: Abstract])
However, W, V, and M do not disclose plans signed by the geotechnical engineer.
However, IBC discloses plans signed by the geotechnical engineer.
IBC [Section 107.3.1] “When the building official issues a permit, the construction documents shall be approved, in writing or by stamp, as "Reviewed for Code Compliance." One set of construction documents so reviewed shall be retained by the building official. The other set shall be returned to the applicant, shall be kept at the site of work and shall be open to inspection by the building official or a duly authorized representative.”
W, V, and M are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the regulations of the IBC with W, V, M, and IBC because the IBC provides a model code that provides minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare of the occupants of new and existing building structures. (See IBC [Effective Use of the International Building Code])
Regarding Claim 14: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC disclose the system of claim 13.
W does not disclose wherein the first data is received at the data manager from a site technician.
However, M discloses wherein the first data is received at the data manager from a site technician.
M [Page 13: Section 3] “In addition, the pre-diagnosis must make an inventory of the technical and functional situation of the building, as well as its environment. this information facilitates the understanding of pathologies and helps the technician in decision-making to successfully perform the intervention.”
M and W are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W because M teaches an entire case study that goes through the entire process from diagnosis to reparation of the foundation of a building. The repair was carried out based on an intervention plan constructed during the diagnosis phase comprising stages spread over time, which this allowed strengthening of the infrastructure and gave the building an acceptable level of security. (See M [Page 9: Abstract])
Regarding Claim 15: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC disclose the system of claim 13, wherein the second visit to the structure is at least 1 year after the first visit.
W [0211] “In many cases, the built environment data 1008 is refreshed periodically, such as once a year, with live updates that indicate changes to the buildings in the area, such as repairs, retrofits, upgrades, etc. The natural environment data 1012 may be updated, for example, as portions of soil near the coast become more or less saturated with the changing tides, and the instantaneous line data 1010 may be updated as the sensor data is processed and refined.”
Claims 17-19 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0336652 A1, hereafter W, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0100282 A1, hereafter V, further in view of NPL: Merah, A. (2021). A case study of foundation failure of a residential building: From diagnosis to reparation. Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 2(1), 1-6, hereafter M, further in view of NPL: International Code Council (ICC), 2018 International Building Code, Chapter 1, Section 107 Submittal Documents, 6th printing (November 2021), hereafter IBC, further in view of JP 2010112035 A, hereafter K.
Regarding Claim 17: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC disclose the system of claim 13, wherein the first data comprises:
first manometer readings providing first elevation measurements for a floor of the structure;
W [0066] “Another source of data is the USGS, which provides data including earthquake magnitude, duration of shaking, epicenter location, spectral acceleration (e.g., shakemap), soil type, elevation, and spectral acceleration at various return periods.”
first moisture observations around a foundation of the structure;
W [0113] ““Natural environment” refers to objects or structures present in nature, such as soil, damns, rivers, lakes, etc. Natural environment data 1012 includes features related to soil, such as soil type, soil density, soil liquefaction; data related to water table; elevation, etc.
W [0113] ““Natural environment” refers to objects or structures present in nature, such as soil, damns, rivers, lakes, etc. Natural environment data 1012 includes features related to soil, such as soil type, soil density, soil liquefaction; data related to water table; elevation, etc. Examiner notes that the surrounding vegetation would be a part of objects/structures present in nature.
and evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the first visit;
W [0056] “The respondent may then select the events associated with the earthquake, such as no damage was inflicted, there are hairline cracks in the walls, ceiling tiles or lighting fixtures fell, there are cracks in the chimney, etc.”
W does not disclose proximity of vegetation
However, K discloses proximity of vegetation.
K [0011] “When the uncertain numbers X and Y are determined, since the instability K and the surface soil displacement amount ε with respect to the future rainfall amount are uniquely obtained based on Equation 1, a program incorporating this equation is written in a memory in a web server on the Internet, and a general user activates this software through the web to input the position information of the slope to be evaluated and each data of the slope such as topography and vegetation on an existing geographic information database, and then the surface soil displacement amount ε of the slope is calculated by automatically referring to the rainfall amount information in the vicinity, and the result is displayed on a television screen through a personal computer or digital broadcasting in real time.”
W and K are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to analysis of factors that can affect the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of K with W, V, and M because the method of calculating surface soil displacement of K is more cost-effective method for disaster prevention. (See K [0002])
Regarding Claim 18: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC, further in view of K disclose the system of claim 17, wherein the second data comprises:
W [0211] “In many cases, the built environment data 1008 is refreshed periodically, such as once a year, with live updates that indicate changes to the buildings in the area, such as repairs, retrofits, upgrades, etc. The natural environment data 1012 may be updated, for example, as portions of soil near the coast become more or less saturated with the changing tides, and the instantaneous line data 1010 may be updated as the sensor data is processed and refined.”
second manometer readings providing first elevation measurements for a floor of the structure;
W [0066] “Another source of data is the USGS, which provides data including earthquake magnitude, duration of shaking, epicenter location, spectral acceleration (e.g., shakemap), soil type, elevation, and spectral acceleration at various return periods.”
second moisture observations around a foundation of the structure;
W [0113] ““Natural environment” refers to objects or structures present in nature, such as soil, damns, rivers, lakes, etc. Natural environment data 1012 includes features related to soil, such as soil type, soil density, soil liquefaction; data related to water table; elevation, etc.
W [0113] ““Natural environment” refers to objects or structures present in nature, such as soil, damns, rivers, lakes, etc. Natural environment data 1012 includes features related to soil, such as soil type, soil density, soil liquefaction; data related to water table; elevation, etc. Examiner notes that the surrounding vegetation would be a part of objects/structures present in nature.
and evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the second visit;
W [0056] “The respondent may then select the events associated with the earthquake, such as no damage was inflicted, there are hairline cracks in the walls, ceiling tiles or lighting fixtures fell, there are cracks in the chimney, etc.”
W does not disclose proximity of vegetation.
However, K discloses proximity of vegetation.
K [0011] “When the uncertain numbers X and Y are determined, since the instability K and the surface soil displacement amount ε with respect to the future rainfall amount are uniquely obtained based on Equation 1, a program incorporating this equation is written in a memory in a web server on the Internet, and a general user activates this software through the web to input the position information of the slope to be evaluated and each data of the slope such as topography and vegetation on an existing geographic information database, and then the surface soil displacement amount ε of the slope is calculated by automatically referring to the rainfall amount information in the vicinity, and the result is displayed on a television screen through a personal computer or digital broadcasting in real time.”
W and K are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to analysis of factors that can affect the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of K with W, V, and M because the method of calculating surface soil displacement of K is more cost-effective method for disaster prevention. (See K [0002])
Regarding Claim 19: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC, further in view of K disclose the system of claim 18, wherein the model engine is configured to: construct a first topographical map of the floor of the structure …, and construct a second topographical map of the floor of the structure.
W [0099] “FIG. 7 shows an example cross-validation contour plot for a preliminary dataset, according to some example embodiments. Several cross-validation contour plots were created as an example of tuning the model.”
W does not disclose using the first and second elevation measurements.
However, V discloses construct a first topographical map of the floor of the structure using the first elevation measurements, and construct a second topographical map of the floor of the structure using the second elevation measurements.
V [0032] “FIG. 6C depicts another embodiment of the present disclosure. The foundation 3 is again fitted with conduit 7 designed to measure the elevation of the foundation 3 over time T.”
V [0034] “The present disclosure relies on having the X, Y, and Z positions of discrete locations inside of the foundation at various points of time T so that the foundation topography can be mapped over time. FIG. 6A depicts the X and Y coordinates of a generic foundation where the depth Z and time T are implied as described earlier.”
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
Claims 1, 3-7, 12 and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0336652 A1, hereafter W, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0100282 A1, hereafter V, further in view of NPL: Merah, A. (2021). A case study of foundation failure of a residential building: From diagnosis to reparation. Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 2(1), 1-6, hereafter M, further in view of JP 2010112035 A, hereafter K, further in view of NPL: Post-Tensioning Institute. (2015). Evaluation guidelines for the performance of slab-on-ground foundations (1st ed.), hereafter PTI, further in view of NPL: International Code Council (ICC), 2018 International Building Code, Chapter 1, Section 107 Submittal Documents, 6th printing (November 2021), hereafter IBC, further in view of NPL: Shidiq, I. P. A., Wibowo, A., Kusratmoko, E., Indratmoko, S., Ardhianto, R., & Nugroho, B. P. (2017). Urban forest topographical mapping using UAV LIDAR. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 98(1), 012034, hereafter S.
Regarding Claim 1: W discloses a method for creating remedial geotechnical engineering plans for a structure with a recommendation design platform, the method comprising:
receiving first data at the recommendation design platform from a first visit by a site technician to the structure, wherein the first data comprises:
W [0108] “For example, one of the data sources could be building tagging. After an earthquake, building inspectors visit buildings and assign a tag on the severity of the damage to the building. These tags may be used to modify the BDI predictions in real-time.”
first manometer readings providing first elevation measurements for a floor of the structure;
W [0066] “Another source of data is the USGS, which provides data including earthquake magnitude, duration of shaking, epicenter location, spectral acceleration (e.g., shakemap), soil type, elevation, and spectral acceleration at various return periods.”
first moisture observations around a foundation of the structure;
W [0113] ““Natural environment” refers to objects or structures present in nature, such as soil, damns, rivers, lakes, etc. Natural environment data 1012 includes features related to soil, such as soil type, soil density, soil liquefaction; data related to water table; elevation, etc.
W [0113] ““Natural environment” refers to objects or structures present in nature, such as soil, damns, rivers, lakes, etc. Natural environment data 1012 includes features related to soil, such as soil type, soil density, soil liquefaction; data related to water table; elevation, etc. Examiner notes that the surrounding vegetation would be a part of objects/structures present in nature.
and evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the first visit;
W [0056] “The respondent may then select the events associated with the earthquake, such as no damage was inflicted, there are hairline cracks in the walls, ceiling tiles or lighting fixtures fell, there are cracks in the chimney, etc.”
receiving second data at the recommendation design platform from a second visit to the structure at least 1 year after the first visit, the second data comprising:
W [0211] “In many cases, the built environment data 1008 is refreshed periodically, such as once a year, with live updates that indicate changes to the buildings in the area, such as repairs, retrofits, upgrades, etc. The natural environment data 1012 may be updated, for example, as portions of soil near the coast become more or less saturated with the changing tides, and the instantaneous line data 1010 may be updated as the sensor data is processed and refined.”
second manometer readings providing first elevation measurements for a floor of the structure;
W [0066] “Another source of data is the USGS, which provides data including earthquake magnitude, duration of shaking, epicenter location, spectral acceleration (e.g., shakemap), soil type, elevation, and spectral acceleration at various return periods.”
second moisture observations around a foundation of the structure;
W [0113] ““Natural environment” refers to objects or structures present in nature, such as soil, damns, rivers, lakes, etc. Natural environment data 1012 includes features related to soil, such as soil type, soil density, soil liquefaction; data related to water table; elevation, etc.
W [0113] “Natural environment” refers to objects or structures present in nature, such as soil, damns, rivers, lakes, etc. Natural environment data 1012 includes features related to soil, such as soil type, soil density, soil liquefaction; data related to water table; elevation, etc.” Examiner notes that the surrounding vegetation would be a part of objects/structures present in nature.
and evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the second visit;
W [0056] “The respondent may then select the events associated with the earthquake, such as no damage was inflicted, there are hairline cracks in the walls, ceiling tiles or lighting fixtures fell, there are cracks in the chimney, etc.”
receiving … input at the recommendation design platform;
W [0048] “The server machine 110 and the devices 130 and 150 may each be implemented in a computer system, in whole or in part, as described below with respect to FIG. 26. The server machine 110 may contain algorithms that manipulate the data received from the user devices 150 to make the data usable, or to format the data, for use by the database 115.”
W does not disclose custom third-party input, wherein the custom third-party input comprises: an aerial site image, a deflection analysis, and drone-captured lidar point cloud data, or constructing a first topographical map of the floor of the structure using the first elevation measurements, or constructing a second topographical map of the floor of the structure using the second elevation measurements, or comparing, by the recommendation design platform, the first elevation measurements for the floor of the structure and the second elevation measurements for the floor of the structure to determine soil movement over time.
However, V discloses custom third-party input, wherein the custom third-party input comprises:
an aerial site image;
V [0029] “FIG. 4 is an illustration of a plan view of one embodiment of this disclosure depicting the junction. It also depicts a reference grid for acquisition of three dimensional data along the conduit path from an aerial (plan view) photograph and elevation data.”
V [0034] “In order to determine the X and Y coordinates of the conduit, the present disclosure proposes that this can be done after the conduit 7 and junctions 9, if any, hereafter referred to as the conduit system 37, are placed in the forms 1 by use of an aerial photograph 38.”
a deflection analysis;
V [0040] “FIG. 7C represents a contour plot 56 created from a topographical data set 12 at a point of time (e.g. moment in time) that is still later, in this case 4.3 years after the initial data set. This topographical data set 12 can be used to create a contour plot 56 with isobar 57 lines representing the total rise of fall of the foundation relative to the initial readings taken at time=0 shown in FIG. 7A. … At this new time, the measuring sensor pressure 24 recorded a pressure of −0.0411 psi which is converted to a datum depth 19 of −1.139 inches relative to the datum 11 which corresponds to a very slight change of just +0.011 inches relative to the previous recording at 2.1 years shown in FIG. 9B and equal to the elevation in the original data set in FIG. 9A. With any two or more topographical data sets 12 taken at separate points in time a rate of change calculation can be made and predictions about future positions can be forecast.”
Examiner notes that this discloses deflection monitoring by calculating the rise, fall or tilt of a structure by taking relative elevation measurements at set intervals, data conversion to display exact physical displacement or deflection of the foundation, and predictive modeling to forecast future deflection and structural behavior.
and drone-captured
V [0034] “The present disclosure relies on having the X, Y, and Z positions of discrete locations inside of the foundation at various points of time T so that the foundation topography can be mapped over time. FIG. 6A depicts the X and Y coordinates of a generic foundation where the depth Z and time T are implied as described earlier.”
constructing a first topographical map of the floor of the structure using the first elevation measurements;
constructing a second topographical map of the floor of the structure using the second elevation measurements;
V [0032] “FIG. 6C depicts another embodiment of the present disclosure. The foundation 3 is again fitted with conduit 7 designed to measure the elevation of the foundation 3 over time T.”
V [0034] “The present disclosure relies on having the X, Y, and Z positions of discrete locations inside of the foundation at various points of time T so that the foundation topography can be mapped over time. FIG. 6A depicts the X and Y coordinates of a generic foundation where the depth Z and time T are implied as described earlier.”
and comparing, by the recommendation design platform, the first elevation measurements for the floor of the structure and the second elevation measurements for the floor of the structure to determine soil movement over time.
V [0040] “Likewise, the contour plot could also represent the relative change in elevation since another point in time like the time shown in FIG. 7b. For example, the data in FIG. 9C shows that at time T=4.3 years when the measuring sensor 14 was again inside conduit 7 with a payout reading of 12.0 ft, the X and Y value of the measuring sensor was still 6.12 ft and 9.34 ft respectively.”
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
W and V do not disclose creating, by the recommendation design platform, proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure based on: the determined soil movement over time, the evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the first visit and at the time of the second visit, and the first and second moisture observations around the foundation of the structure, and receiving, at the recommendation design platform, modifications to the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans from a licensed engineer to create sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure.
However, M discloses creating, by the recommendation design platform, proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans for the structure based on:
M [Page 13: Section 3] “Based on the data collected, draw up a plan of action to begin repairing damaged structural elements.”
the determined soil movement over time;
M [Page 13: Section 3] “Perform a geotechnical study to determine the new properties of the foundation soil under the new hydrogeologic conditions.”
the evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the first visit and at the time of the second visit;
W [0211] “In many cases, the built environment data 1008 is refreshed periodically, such as once a year, with live updates that indicate changes to the buildings in the area, such as repairs, retrofits, upgrades, etc.
M [Page 13: Section 3] “Inspecting the immediate environment of the building, this inspection makes it possible to detect if there are for example traces of humidity, deteriorated seams of assault, cracks on the buildings of proximity, stagnations of water near the building, rainwater pipes damaged.”
M [Page 13: Section 3] “Realization of the witnesses with plaster on the cracks, in order to follow their evolution.”
and the first and second moisture observations around the foundation of the structure;
M [Page 13: Section 3] “Inspecting the immediate environment of the building, this inspection makes it possible to detect if there are for example traces of humidity, deteriorated seams of assault, cracks on the buildings of proximity, stagnations of water near the building, rainwater pipes damaged.”
and receiving, at the recommendation design platform, modifications to the proposed remedial geotechnical engineering plans from a licensed engineer to create
M [Page 12: Section 3] “The interventions for diagnostic to be performed must be properly planned before starting reparations. Identifying the factors that can affect the success of the repair is crucial, including: the nature of the soil, identification of the affected structural elements, the soil moisture content, the interior conditions of the building and its surroundings and their respective locations. With the planning and research conducted, the criterion is established to define the correct technique in each case, thus obtaining a greater success in solving the problem. Due to the difficulty and variability of the factors, there is some unpredictability in the results.
The selection of the repair must be supported by a complete diagnosis to know the origin of the pathology, by studying the expected efficiency of the repair and by correlating this with the cost of repair.”
M [Page 13: Section 3] “In addition, the pre-diagnosis must make an inventory of the technical and functional situation of the building, as well as its environment. this information facilitates the understanding of pathologies and helps the technician in decision-making to successfully perform the intervention.”
W, V, and M are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W and V because M teaches an entire case study that goes through the entire process from diagnosis to reparation of the foundation of a building. The repair was carried out based on an intervention plan constructed during the diagnosis phase comprising stages spread over time, which this allowed strengthening of the infrastructure and gave the building an acceptable level of security. (See M [Page 9: Abstract])
W, V and M do not disclose proximity of vegetation or historical rainfall information.
However, K discloses proximity of vegetation and historical rainfall information.
K [0011] “When the uncertain numbers X and Y are determined, since the instability K and the surface soil displacement amount ε with respect to the future rainfall amount are uniquely obtained based on Equation 1, a program incorporating this equation is written in a memory in a web server on the Internet, and a general user activates this software through the web to input the position information of the slope to be evaluated and each data of the slope such as topography and vegetation on an existing geographic information database, and then the surface soil displacement amount ε of the slope is calculated by automatically referring to the rainfall amount information in the vicinity, and the result is displayed on a television screen through a personal computer or digital broadcasting in real time.”
K [0036] “The surface soil displacement amount of the slope is calculated by using the coefficient model, and the relation of the surface soil displacement amount ε to the rainfall amount P is graphed to correspond to the warning of the year. However, the initial estimated value is based on past data, and as a result, the calculated displacement amount has a certain degree of error.
W, V, M and K are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to analysis of factors that can affect the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of K with W, V, and M because the method of calculating surface soil displacement of K is more cost-effective method for disaster prevention. (See K [0002])
W, V, M and K do not disclose information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute or sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans.
However, PTI discloses information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute;
PTI [Slide 10: Figure 3.5] discloses the PTI designs for slab-on-ground. Examiner notes that V [0021] utilizes a slab-on-grade foundation.
W, V, M, K and PTI are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the PTI designed slab-on-ground foundation of PTI with the slab-on-grade foundation of W, V, M, and K because the maximum differential soil movement will occur symmetrically on both sides of the PTI designed slab and be consistent around the entire slab perimeter, and the foundation system will dampen and mitigate some of this soil movement. (See PTI [Slide 10])
However, W, V, M, K, and PTI do not disclose sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans.
However, IBC discloses sealed remedial geotechnical engineering plans.
IBC [Section 107.3.1] “When the building official issues a permit, the construction documents shall be approved, in writing or by stamp, as "Reviewed for Code Compliance." One set of construction documents so reviewed shall be retained by the building official. The other set shall be returned to the applicant, shall be kept at the site of work and shall be open to inspection by the building official or a duly authorized representative.”
W, V, M, K, PTI, and IBC are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the regulations of the IBC with W, V, M, K, PTI, and IBC because the IBC provides a model code that provides minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare of the occupants of new and existing building structures. (See IBC [Effective Use of the International Building Code])
W, V, M, K, PTI, and IBC do not explicitly disclose using lidar.
However, S discloses the use of a lidar sensor.
S [Pages 3-4: Section 2.2.3] “LiDAR data in “.LAS” format were further processed using Terrasolid application. Two main processes here, were flight line matching and point cloud classification. LiDAR data from previous process were not yet geometrically corrected. The differences in X, Y, Z position between each flight line were causing gaps and affecting the validity of the information. In this step, we did surface-to-surface matching by correcting each point cloud and flight line and aligning them in the same X, Y, and Z references (Figure 3).”
S [Page 7: Conclusion] “This study shows the capability of UAV-based LiDAR to create topographical data and elevation map. The system is able to map the terrain of urban forest area in both densely vegetated area or less dense vegetated area.”
W, V, M, K, PTI, IBC and S are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of factors that would affect the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the LiDAR sensor of S with W, V, M, K, PTI, and IBC because the LiDAR system can quickly and precisely map the topography of a region using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).” (See S [Introduction])
Regarding Claim 3: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of K, further in view of PTI, further in view of IBC, further in view of S disclose the method of claim 1.
W does not disclose wherein the first topographical map of the floor of the structure comprises a two-dimensional topographical map.
However, V discloses wherein the first topographical map of the floor of the structure comprises a two-dimensional topographical map.
V [0034] “The present disclosure relies on having the X, Y, and Z positions of discrete locations inside of the foundation at various points of time T so that the foundation topography can be mapped over time. FIG. 6A depicts the X and Y coordinates of a generic foundation where the depth Z and time T are implied as described earlier… FIG. 4. In order to determine the X and Y coordinates of the conduit, the present disclosure proposes that this can be done after the conduit 7 and junctions 9, if any, hereafter referred to as the conduit system 37, are placed in the forms 1 by use of an aerial photograph 38.
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 4: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of K, further in view of PTI, further in view of IBC, further in view of S disclose the method of claim 3.
W does not disclose further comprising constructing a three-dimensional topographical map of the floor of the structure using the first elevation measurements.
However, V discloses further comprising constructing a three-dimensional topographical map of the floor of the structure using the first elevation measurements.
V [0034] “Further, one skilled in the art of digitizing can create a discrete relationship between the X and Y coordinates in the photograph and the payout 27 of the measuring sensor 14 and the elevation Z recorded by the measuring sensor 14. In short, it is now clear how to record the topographical data 12 related to a foundation 3 by utilizing a conduit system 37 buried within the concrete 4.”
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 5: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of K, further in view of PTI, further in view of IBC, further in view of S discloses the method of claim 1.
W does not disclose wherein the first topographical map of the floor of the structure comprises a three-dimensional topographical map.
However, V discloses wherein the first topographical map of the floor of the structure comprises a three-dimensional topographical map.
V [0034] “Further, one skilled in the art of digitizing can create a discrete relationship between the X and Y coordinates in the photograph and the payout 27 of the measuring sensor 14 and the elevation Z recorded by the measuring sensor 14. In short, it is now clear how to record the topographical data 12 related to a foundation 3 by utilizing a conduit system 37 buried within the concrete 4.”
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 6: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of K, further in view of PTI, further in view of IBC, further in view of S disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying a floor plan of the structure overlaid on the … map of the floor of the structure
W [0152] “FIG. 17 is an example embodiment of a screenshot of a graphical user interface for presenting damage estimates in the region. Map 1704 shows a more detailed view of the earthquake area, which includes some BDI 3 areas and some BDI 2 areas. In addition, the operator may click on the map 1704 and obtain a street view 1706 of the area, which may be useful when interacting with the response teams.”
W does not disclose the topographical map.
However, V discloses the topographical map.
V [0034] “Further, one skilled in the art of digitizing can create a discrete relationship between the X and Y coordinates in the photograph and the payout 27 of the measuring sensor 14 and the elevation Z recorded by the measuring sensor 14. In short, it is now clear how to record the topographical data 12 related to a foundation 3 by utilizing a conduit system 37 buried within the concrete 4.”
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 7: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of K, further in view of PTI, further in view of IBC, further in view of S disclose the method of claim 6, further comprising displaying a marker on the floor plan indicating … evidence of cracks in the structure at the time of the first visit.
W [0152] “FIG. 17 is an example embodiment of a screenshot of a graphical user interface for presenting damage estimates in the region. Map 1704 shows a more detailed view of the earthquake area, which includes some BDI 3 areas and some BDI 2 areas. In addition, the operator may click on the map 1704 and obtain a street view 1706 of the area, which may be useful when interacting with the response teams.”
W [0117] “For example, B1 is data for a particular house and may include DYFI information such as a crack on the chimney, or any other damage information for the house. Further, for the instantaneous line data 1010, archived live data is used for the training. The data may correspond to one or more earthquakes. In one example embodiment, the data for 52 different earthquakes is utilized.”
Examiner notes that the BDI represents Block Damage Index, which the degree of damage of a structure on the map.
W does not disclose the location of the evidence of cracks in the structure.
However, M discloses the location of the evidence of cracks in the structure.
M [Page 12: Section 2.1] “A pre-diagnosis show the appearance of cracks inclined at 45 ° on the exterior walls in double partitions and on the partitions in plaster tiles (Fig. 2), these cracks started appear in 1997.” Examiner notes that the site technician notes the location of the cracks during the pre-diagnosis process.
M and W are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W because M teaches an entire case study that goes through the entire process from diagnosis to reparation of the foundation of a building. The repair was carried out based on an intervention plan constructed during the diagnosis phase comprising stages spread over time, which this allowed strengthening of the infrastructure and gave the building an acceptable level of security. (See M [Page 9: Abstract])
Regarding Claim 12: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC disclose the method of claim 8.
W does not disclose wherein the custom third-party input comprises: an aerial site image; historical rainfall information; a deflection analysis; information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute; and drone-captured lidar point cloud data.
However, V discloses wherein the custom third-party input comprises:
an aerial site image;
V [0029] “FIG. 4 is an illustration of a plan view of one embodiment of this disclosure depicting the junction. It also depicts a reference grid for acquisition of three dimensional data along the conduit path from an aerial (plan view) photograph and elevation data.”
V [0034] “In order to determine the X and Y coordinates of the conduit, the present disclosure proposes that this can be done after the conduit 7 and junctions 9, if any, hereafter referred to as the conduit system 37, are placed in the forms 1 by use of an aerial photograph 38.”
a deflection analysis;
V [0040] “FIG. 7C represents a contour plot 56 created from a topographical data set 12 at a point of time (e.g. moment in time) that is still later, in this case 4.3 years after the initial data set. This topographical data set 12 can be used to create a contour plot 56 with isobar 57 lines representing the total rise of fall of the foundation relative to the initial readings taken at time=0 shown in FIG. 7A. … At this new time, the measuring sensor pressure 24 recorded a pressure of −0.0411 psi which is converted to a datum depth 19 of −1.139 inches relative to the datum 11 which corresponds to a very slight change of just +0.011 inches relative to the previous recording at 2.1 years shown in FIG. 9B and equal to the elevation in the original data set in FIG. 9A. With any two or more topographical data sets 12 taken at separate points in time a rate of change calculation can be made and predictions about future positions can be forecast.”
Examiner notes that this discloses deflection monitoring by calculating the rise, fall or tilt of a structure by taking relative elevation measurements at set intervals, data conversion to display exact physical displacement or deflection of the foundation, and predictive modeling to forecast future deflection and structural behavior.
and drone-captured
V [0034] “The present disclosure relies on having the X, Y, and Z positions of discrete locations inside of the foundation at various points of time T so that the foundation topography can be mapped over time. FIG. 6A depicts the X and Y coordinates of a generic foundation where the depth Z and time T are implied as described earlier.”
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
W and V do not disclose proximity of vegetation, or historical rainfall information.
However, K discloses proximity of vegetation and historical rainfall information.
K [0011] “When the uncertain numbers X and Y are determined, since the instability K and the surface soil displacement amount ε with respect to the future rainfall amount are uniquely obtained based on Equation 1, a program incorporating this equation is written in a memory in a web server on the Internet, and a general user activates this software through the web to input the position information of the slope to be evaluated and each data of the slope such as topography and vegetation on an existing geographic information database, and then the surface soil displacement amount ε of the slope is calculated by automatically referring to the rainfall amount information in the vicinity, and the result is displayed on a television screen through a personal computer or digital broadcasting in real time.”
K [0036] “The surface soil displacement amount of the slope is calculated by using the coefficient model, and the relation of the surface soil displacement amount ε to the rainfall amount P is graphed to correspond to the warning of the year. However, the initial estimated value is based on past data, and as a result, the calculated displacement amount has a certain degree of error.
W, V, and K are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to analysis of factors that can affect the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of K with W, V, and M because the method of calculating surface soil displacement of K is more cost-effective method for disaster prevention. (See K [0002])
W, V, and K do not disclose information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute.
However, PTI discloses information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute;
PTI [Slide 10: Figure 3.5] discloses the PTI designs for slab-on-ground. Examiner notes that V [0021] utilizes a slab-on-grade foundation.
W, V, K, and PTI are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of factors that affect the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the PTI designed slab-on-ground foundation of PTI with the slab-on-grade foundation of W, V, and K because the maximum differential soil movement will occur symmetrically on both sides of the PTI designed slab and be consistent around the entire slab perimeter, and the foundation system will dampen and mitigate some of this soil movement. (See PTI [Slide 10])
W, V, K, and PTI do not explicitly disclose using lidar.
However, S discloses the use of a lidar sensor.
S [Pages 3-4: Section 2.2.3] “LiDAR data in “.LAS” format were further processed using Terrasolid application. Two main processes here, were flight line matching and point cloud classification. LiDAR data from previous process were not yet geometrically corrected. The differences in X, Y, Z position between each flight line were causing gaps and affecting the validity of the information. In this step, we did surface-to-surface matching by correcting each point cloud and flight line and aligning them in the same X, Y, and Z references (Figure 3).”
S [Page 7: Conclusion] “This study shows the capability of UAV-based LiDAR to create topographical data and elevation map. The system is able to map the terrain of urban forest area in both densely vegetated area or less dense vegetated area.”
W, V, K, PTI, and S are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of factors that would affect the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the LiDAR sensor of S with W, V, K, and PTI because the LiDAR system can quickly and precisely map the topography of a region using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).” (See S [Introduction])
Regarding Claim 20: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC disclose the system of claim 13.
W does not disclose wherein the third-party input comprises: an aerial site image; historical rainfall information; a deflection analysis; information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute; and drone-captured lidar point cloud data.
However, V discloses wherein the custom third-party input comprises:
an aerial site image;
V [0029] “FIG. 4 is an illustration of a plan view of one embodiment of this disclosure depicting the junction. It also depicts a reference grid for acquisition of three dimensional data along the conduit path from an aerial (plan view) photograph and elevation data.”
V [0034] “In order to determine the X and Y coordinates of the conduit, the present disclosure proposes that this can be done after the conduit 7 and junctions 9, if any, hereafter referred to as the conduit system 37, are placed in the forms 1 by use of an aerial photograph 38.”
a deflection analysis;
V [0040] “FIG. 7C represents a contour plot 56 created from a topographical data set 12 at a point of time (e.g. moment in time) that is still later, in this case 4.3 years after the initial data set. This topographical data set 12 can be used to create a contour plot 56 with isobar 57 lines representing the total rise of fall of the foundation relative to the initial readings taken at time=0 shown in FIG. 7A. … At this new time, the measuring sensor pressure 24 recorded a pressure of −0.0411 psi which is converted to a datum depth 19 of −1.139 inches relative to the datum 11 which corresponds to a very slight change of just +0.011 inches relative to the previous recording at 2.1 years shown in FIG. 9B and equal to the elevation in the original data set in FIG. 9A. With any two or more topographical data sets 12 taken at separate points in time a rate of change calculation can be made and predictions about future positions can be forecast.”
Examiner notes that this discloses deflection monitoring by calculating the rise, fall or tilt of a structure by taking relative elevation measurements at set intervals, data conversion to display exact physical displacement or deflection of the foundation, and predictive modeling to forecast future deflection and structural behavior.
and drone-captured
V [0034] “The present disclosure relies on having the X, Y, and Z positions of discrete locations inside of the foundation at various points of time T so that the foundation topography can be mapped over time. FIG. 6A depicts the X and Y coordinates of a generic foundation where the depth Z and time T are implied as described earlier.”
W and V are analogous with the claimed invention because they both pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of V with W because the embedded conduits and baseline sensors of V help to prevent catastrophic structural failure, reduce costly emergency repairs, and minimizes financial losses through predictive maintenance with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation with the assistance of tracking relative change in the conduit elevation. (See V [Abstract])
W and V do not disclose historical rainfall information.
However, K discloses historical rainfall information.
K [0036] “The surface soil displacement amount of the slope is calculated by using the coefficient model, and the relation of the surface soil displacement amount ε to the rainfall amount P is graphed to correspond to the warning of the year. However, the initial estimated value is based on past data, and as a result, the calculated displacement amount has a certain degree of error.
W, V, and K are analogous to the claimed invention because they all pertain to analysis of factors that can affect the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of K with W, V, and M because the method of calculating surface soil displacement of K is more cost-effective method for disaster prevention. (See K [0002])
W, V, and K do not disclose information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute.
However, PTI discloses information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Post-Tensioning Institute;
PTI [Slide 10: Figure 3.5] discloses the PTI designs for slab-on-ground. Examiner notes that V [0021] utilizes a slab-on-grade foundation.
W, V, K, and PTI are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the PTI designed slab-on-ground foundation of PTI with the slab-on-grade foundation of W, V, and K because the maximum differential soil movement will occur symmetrically on both sides of the PTI designed slab and be consistent around the entire slab perimeter, and the foundation system will dampen and mitigate some of this soil movement. (See PTI [Slide 10])
W, V, K, and PTI do not explicitly disclose using lidar.
However, S discloses the use of a lidar sensor.
S [Pages 3-4: Section 2.2.3] “LiDAR data in “.LAS” format were further processed using Terrasolid application. Two main processes here, were flight line matching and point cloud classification. LiDAR data from previous process were not yet geometrically corrected. The differences in X, Y, Z position between each flight line were causing gaps and affecting the validity of the information. In this step, we did surface-to-surface matching by correcting each point cloud and flight line and aligning them in the same X, Y, and Z references (Figure 3).”
S [Page 7: Conclusion] “This study shows the capability of UAV-based LiDAR to create topographical data and elevation map. The system is able to map the terrain of urban forest area in both densely vegetated area or less dense vegetated area.”
W, V, K, PTI, and S are analogous with the claimed invention because they all pertain to the analysis of factors that would affect the foundation of a structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the LiDAR sensor of S with W, V, K, and PTI because the LiDAR system can quickly and precisely map the topography of a region using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).” (See S [Introduction])
Claims 2, 10 and 16 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0336652 A1, hereafter W, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0100282 A1, hereafter V, further in view of NPL: Merah, A. (2021). A case study of foundation failure of a residential building: From diagnosis to reparation. Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 2(1), 1-6, hereafter M, further in view of JP 2010112035 A, hereafter K, further in view of NPL: Post-Tensioning Institute. (2015). Evaluation guidelines for the performance of slab-on-ground foundations (1st ed.), hereafter PTI, further in view of NPL: International Code Council (ICC), 2018 International Building Code, Chapter 1, Section 107 Submittal Documents, 6th printing (November 2021), hereafter IBC, further in view of NPL: Shidiq, I. P. A., Wibowo, A., Kusratmoko, E., Indratmoko, S., Ardhianto, R., & Nugroho, B. P. (2017). Urban forest topographical mapping using UAV LIDAR. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 98(1), 012034, hereafter S, further in view of JP 2003329550 A, hereafter Kudo.
Regarding Claim 2: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of K, further in view of PTI, further in view of IBC, further in view of S disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the second visit to the structure is at least
W [0211] “In many cases, the built environment data 1008 is refreshed periodically, such as once a year, with live updates that indicate changes to the buildings in the area, such as repairs, retrofits, upgrades, etc. The natural environment data 1012 may be updated, for example, as portions of soil near the coast become more or less saturated with the changing tides, and the instantaneous line data 1010 may be updated as the sensor data is processed and refined. In general, however, the natural environment data 1012 and instantaneous line data 1010 are not fundamentally altered in real time.”
W, V, M, K, PTI, IBC, and S do not disclose at least 5 years.
However, Kudo discloses at least 5 years.
Kudo [0016] “Test Specimen 15 of Foundation 10 Made of Reinforced Concrete... is preferably a concrete thickness of at least twice the rebar cap required at the time of design. It is preferable to measure the analysis cycle of the foundation portion roughly every 10 years, and if the building lifespan is designed to be 50 years, it is preferable to prepare nine test specimens 15 to accommodate twice the equivalent period of 100 years.”
W, V, M, K, PTI, IBC, S and Kudo are analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the analysis of factors that affect the foundation of a building.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kudo with W, V, M, K, PTI, IBC, and S such that the detection method of Kubo allows detailed diagnosis and confirmation of deterioration of building components, enabling accurate prediction of the building’s residual value and lifespan. Additionally, the method of detection comprises using a removable test specimen from the structure that allows analysis with high precision in an analysis room to provide an accurate diagnosis of the specimen’s deterioration status and allows for necessary modifications to be made improving the structure’s durability. (See Kubo [0006-0007])
Regarding Claim 10: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the second visit to the structure is at least 5 years after the first visit.
W [0211] “In many cases, the built environment data 1008 is refreshed periodically, such as once a year, with live updates that indicate changes to the buildings in the area, such as repairs, retrofits, upgrades, etc. The natural environment data 1012 may be updated, for example, as portions of soil near the coast become more or less saturated with the changing tides, and the instantaneous line data 1010 may be updated as the sensor data is processed and refined. In general, however, the natural environment data 1012 and instantaneous line data 1010 are not fundamentally altered in real time.”
W, V, M, and IBC does not disclose at least 5 years.
However, Kudo discloses at least 5 years.
Kudo [0016] “Test Specimen 15 of Foundation 10 Made of Reinforced Concrete... is preferably a concrete thickness of at least twice the rebar cap required at the time of design. It is preferable to measure the analysis cycle of the foundation portion roughly every 10 years, and if the building lifespan is designed to be 50 years, it is preferable to prepare nine test specimens 15 to accommodate twice the equivalent period of 100 years.”
W, V, M, IBC and Kudo are analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the analysis of factors that affect the foundation of a building.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kudo with W, V, M, and IBC such that the detection method of Kubo allows detailed diagnosis and confirmation of deterioration of building components, enabling accurate prediction of the building’s residual value and lifespan. Additionally, the method of detection comprises using a removable test specimen from the structure that allows analysis with high precision in an analysis room to provide an accurate diagnosis of the specimen’s deterioration status and allows for necessary modifications to be made improving the structure’s durability. (See Kubo [0006-0007])
Regarding Claim 16: W in view of V, further in view of M, further in view of IBC disclose the system of claim 13, wherein the second visit to the structure is at least 5 years after the first visit.
W [0211] “In many cases, the built environment data 1008 is refreshed periodically, such as once a year, with live updates that indicate changes to the buildings in the area, such as repairs, retrofits, upgrades, etc. The natural environment data 1012 may be updated, for example, as portions of soil near the coast become more or less saturated with the changing tides, and the instantaneous line data 1010 may be updated as the sensor data is processed and refined. In general, however, the natural environment data 1012 and instantaneous line data 1010 are not fundamentally altered in real time.”
W, V, M, and IBC does not disclose at least 5 years.
However, Kudo discloses at least 5 years.
Kudo [0016] “Test Specimen 15 of Foundation 10 Made of Reinforced Concrete... is preferably a concrete thickness of at least twice the rebar cap required at the time of design. It is preferable to measure the analysis cycle of the foundation portion roughly every 10 years, and if the building lifespan is designed to be 50 years, it is preferable to prepare nine test specimens 15 to accommodate twice the equivalent period of 100 years.”
W, V, M, and IBC and Kudo are analogous to the claimed invention because they pertain to the analysis of factors that affect the foundation of a building.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kudo with W, V, M, and IBC such that the detection method of Kubo allows detailed diagnosis and confirmation of deterioration of building components, enabling accurate prediction of the building’s residual value and lifespan. Additionally, the method of detection comprises using a removable test specimen from the structure that allows analysis with high precision in an analysis room to provide an accurate diagnosis of the specimen’s deterioration status and allows for necessary modifications to be made improving the structure’s durability. (See Kubo [0006-0007])
Conclusion
All Claims are rejected.
The prior art made record of and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
US 2019/0316314 A1
This reference discloses a building foundation repair product that is a horizontally case concrete product.
US 2018/0196438 A1
This reference discloses a system including a first aerial vehicle comprising one or more sensors configured to obtain an image of a worksite, which the system also includes a controller configured to receive the image of the worksite, to generate a map of the worksite by overlaying information related to the worksite on the image, and to display the map via a display.
Matora, T., Shumba, S., Mushiri, T., Musiwa, K., Taaka, D., Mhizha, S., & Tumbare, M. J. (2017). Investigating structural cracks for infrastructure: Case study of anonymous hospital, in Zimbabwe. Faculty of Engineering, University of Zimbabwe
This references discloses a case study which investigated the structural cracks for infrastructure at the anonymous Hospital in Zimbabwe and recommend the appropriate engineering solutions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-8533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-T, 8:00-4:00.
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://uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiner’s fax phone number (571) 272-8533.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published a applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
STT
/SCOTT THANH BINH TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights