DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that, “Tournier's floor plan, updated or existing, does not disclose or suggest the recited engineering drawing because Tournier's floor plan is generated using sensor data collected by a drone.” (Applicant's remarks, p. 9). Notwithstanding a floor plan generated by a drone during its inspection of a building, the Tournier reference specifically discloses a “floor plan” or “designed floor plan” used for the construction of a building; for example, Tournier discloses using a robot or drone, “to verify that the building is being constructed accurately with respect to a set of known plans…” (¶ [0044]). And, in FIGS. 2A, 2B, Tournier discloses comparing a “designed floor plan” to the “actual floor plan.” The most reasonable inference is that “designed floor plans” used to construct a building are floor plans generated by an engineer or architect.
Applicant asserts that, “Toumier is silent about … discrepancies being corrected by generating an updated set of known plans or updated template that accurately represents a facility according to a visual image...” (Applicant's remarks, p. 8). The Tournier reference specifically discloses displaying the actual floor plan (“generated floor plan”) of FIG. 2B along with “identified issues” to an architect and allowing the architect to “re-verify” the floor plan at ¶¶ [0128]-[0135] and FIG. 2B. This disclosure occurs within the context of updating the floorplan for the building (i.e., “In some cases, the system 100 revises an existing floor plan to generate an updated floor plan for the building 110.”). If an architect is being shown a display of an actual floor plan, with changes from the original floor plan highlighted, and is given an opportunity to “submit and/or re-verify the plans”, implicitly, “the plans” used to update the floor plan would refer to the plans the architect is being shown; i.e., the actual floor plan (“generated floor plan”) of FIG. 2B along with any changes made by the architect.
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 1-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tournier et al (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0101507) in view of Carrington et al (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0098595).
With regards to claim 1, the limitations of this claim are obvious over the teachings of the prior art, as evidenced by the following references:
The Tournier reference
As a matter of claim construction, Claim 1 recites the term “engineering drawing”. Applicant provides exemplary embodiments of “engineering drawings” in the specification-as-filed such as, “In general, engineering drawings may refer to… 2D representations of a facility…” Applicant’s exemplary embodiments are consistent with the general meaning of “engineering drawing” which is, simply, a drawing made by an engineer. It is well known that floor plans are one such drawing created by engineers. Floor plans are also created by architects. The Tournier reference discloses using a robot or drone, “to verify that the building is being constructed accurately with respect to a set of known plans…” (¶ [0044]). And, in FIGS. 2A, 2B, Tournier discloses comparing a “designed floor plan” to the “actual floor plan.” One of ordinary skill in the art would infer from these passages that the “designed floor plan”, or the “floor plans” for construction, disclosed by Tournier are those prepared by the same two groups of professionals whom ordinarily design buildings; i.e., engineers and architects. In most instances, engineers and architects can both generate floor plans. One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage applying Tournier’s teachings to floor plans by both engineers and architects because these are the professionals who create floor plans. For this reason, Tournier anticipates the species of “engineering drawings” comprising “floor plans”. A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962))."
Tournier discloses obtaining a floor plan representing, at least, a portion of a facility at: ¶ [0044]; ¶ [0047]; ¶ [0050] and FIG. 1; see, also, ¶¶ [0131]-[0135] and FIGS. 2A-2B. Tournier does not specify the floor plan was obtained from a drawing management system. However, this limitation was known in the art as evidenced by the Carrington reference discussed below.
Tournier discloses dispatching an autonomous vehicle (e.g., “robotic device” or “drone”) to a location of the facility corresponding to the floor plan at: ¶ [0081]; ¶¶ [0085]-[0087]; ¶¶ [0092]-[0093]. See, also: ¶ [0044]; ¶ [0047]; ¶ [0050] and FIG. 1; ¶ [0052]
Tournier discloses collecting a visual image of the facility using the AV once it has reached the location at: ¶ [0047]; ¶¶ [0078]-[0080]; ¶ [0083].
Tournier discloses identifying discrepancies (“identified issues”) in the floor plan by comparing the floor plan and the visual image at: ¶ [0040]; ¶¶ [0046]-[0047]; ¶ [0050]; ¶ [0092]; see, also, ¶¶ [0131]-[0135](“As shown, there are various differences between the floor plan 202a and the actual floor plan 202b. These differences may indicate that the differences that exist between the building 110 as planned and as presently constructed, and/or the issues with the construction of the building 110. These various differences/issues are presented in a table 210, and, optionally, may be included in a report generated by the control unit 120”) and FIG. 2A:
PNG
media_image1.png
382
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See, also, FIG. 2B:
PNG
media_image2.png
384
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tournier discloses generating an updated floor plan (e.g., “generated floor plan”) that corrects the identified discrepancies (e.g., “identified issues”) in the floor plan and accurately represents the facility at ¶¶ [0128]-[0135]; to wit: “In some cases, the system 100 allows the client 102 (or an architect, a construction worker, a building inspector, etc.) to edit the plan and then proceed to reverify the edited plan. For example, the control unit 120 may send instructions to the client device 104 to present the client 102 an interface on the client device 104 which shows a depiction of the generated floor plan with code violations and/or other issues highlighted… The client 102 may be presented an option on the interface of the client device 104 to submit and/or re-verify the plans… FIGS. 2A-2B are diagrams showing an example floor plan 202a and an example actual floor plan 202b generated from data collected during a building inspection.” See, also, FIGS. 2A-2B.
Tournier discloses replacing the floor plan with the updated floor plan (e.g., “generated floor plan”) in the drawing management system upon review and approval by a user at ¶¶ [0128]-[0130]; to wit: “In some implementations, the system revises an existing floor plan to generate an updated floor plan for an environment… In some cases, the system 100 suggests revisions to a floor plan for the building 110… For example, the control unit 120 may send instructions to the client device 104 to present the client 102 an interface on the client device 104 which shows a depiction of the generated floor plan with code violations and/or other issues highlighted… The client 102 may be presented an option on the interface of the client device 104 to submit and/or re-verify the plans.” See, also: ¶¶ [0010]-[0012]
The Carrington reference
Carrington discloses obtaining a floor plan from a drawing management system representing, at least, a portion of a facility at ¶ [0051]; to wit: “The method 500 may begin with receiving a document depicting a sheet of a blueprint of the structure (block 502 )… As explained above, the structure 106 may include a building, vehicle, infrastructure, or other structures. The document 108 may be received from another computing device and/or a database storing blueprints for various structures.” At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a drawing from a drawing management system representing, at least, a portion of a facility, as taught by Carrington, when obtaining a drawing representing, at least, a portion of a facility, as taught by Tournier. The motivation for doing so comes from the prior, wherein as a matter of common sense, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if database they possess blueprints for various structures, it would be convenient for some users to store those blueprints in a single database. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Carrington with Tournier to obtain the invention specified in this claim.
With regards to claim 2, Tournier discloses generating an inventory of equipment items (e.g., “table 210”) of the facility based on the visual images at ¶ [0135] and FIG. 2B; in particular, Tournier generates an inventory (listing) of problematic equipment items of the facility based on the one or more visual images.
With regards to claim 3, Tournier discloses identifying an equipment item requiring a maintenance action based on the one or more visual images at: ¶ [0013]; ¶ [0048]; ¶ [0050]; ¶ [0054]; ¶ [0073]; ¶ [0092]; ¶¶ [0113]-[0114].
With regards to claim 4, Tournier discloses applying the maintenance action to the identified equipment item at: ¶ [0052]; ¶ [0071]; ¶ [0073]; ¶¶ [0084]-[0085].
With regards to claim 5, Tournier discloses physically modifying an equipment item of the facility to make the facility and the engineering drawing congruent at: ¶ [0144]; ¶¶ [0163]-[0165]; ¶¶ [0193]-[0194](e.g., “[S]chedule a work order to install the smoke detector… [S]cheduling a work order to fix the heights of these specific outlets”).
With regards to claim 6, Tournier discloses the AV is dispatched to the location automatically and navigated without human interaction (e.g., “perform SLAM”) at: ¶ [0081]; ¶¶ [0085]-[0087]; ¶ [0093]; ¶ [0095].
With regards to claim 7, Tournier discloses the discrepancies in the engineering drawing are identified using one or more machine-learned models at ¶ [0095]; to wit: “In navigating the building and collecting the sensor data 132, the drone 122 may use one or more machine learning networks to detect and/or to identify various elements of the building 110 (e.g., that are required by the plan 130). The elements of the building 110 may include, for example, architectural features and fixtures of the building… The drone 122 and/or the control unit 120 may use these identified architectural features and fixtures to compare the inspected building 110 to the plans 130...” See, also, ¶ [0108], ¶ [0135].
With regards to claim 9, Tournier discloses generating a field representation (e.g., “map 136”) of the facility from the visual image at ¶ [0153].
With regards to claim 10, Tournier discloses the AV is a drone at: ¶ [0081]; ¶¶ [0085]-[0087]; ¶¶ [0092]-[0093]. See, also: ¶ [0044]; ¶ [0047]; ¶ [0050] and FIG. 1.
With regards to claim 11, Tournier discloses an autonomous vehicle system (AVS) configured to dispatch an autonomous vehicle (AV) to a desired location, wherein the AV is navigated without human interaction and is configured to acquire a visual image upon arriving at the desired location at: ¶ [0081]; ¶¶ [0085]-[0087]; ¶¶ [0092]-[0093]. See, also: ¶ [0044]; ¶ [0047]; ¶ [0050] and FIG. 1; ¶ [0052]; ¶¶ [0078]-[0080]; ¶ [0083].
Tournier discloses transmitting a signal to the AVS to dispatch the AV to the desired location corresponding the drawing at: ¶ [0081]; ¶¶ [0085]-[0087]; ¶¶ [0092]-[0093]. See, also: ¶ [0044]; ¶ [0047]; ¶ [0050] and FIG. 1; ¶ [0052]; ¶¶ [0078]-[0080]; ¶ [0083].
The remainder of the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are obvious over the combination of Tournier and Carrington for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 1, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 12, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are obvious over the combination of Tournier and Carrington for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 2, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 13, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are obvious over the combination of Tournier and Carrington for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 5, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 14, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are obvious over the combination of Tournier and Carrington for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 7, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 16, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are obvious over the combination of Tournier and Carrington for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 9, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 17, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are obvious over the combination of Tournier and Carrington for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 10, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 18, the steps stored in the computer readable medium of this claim are obvious over the combination of Tournier and Carrington for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 1, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 19, the steps stored in the computer readable medium of this claim are obvious over the combination of Tournier and Carrington for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 7, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 20, the steps stored in the computer readable medium of this claim are obvious over the combination of Tournier and Carrington for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 2, which recites a method performing these same steps.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tournier et al (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0101507) in view of Carrington et al (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0098595), in further view of Yang et al (Chinese PG Pub. No. 115294462).
With regards to claim 8, Tournier discloses at least one of the one or more machine-learned models is a neural network at ¶ [0095]; to wit: “In navigating the building and collecting the sensor data 132, the drone 122 may use one or more machine learning networks to detect and/or to identify various elements of the building 110 (e.g., that are required by the plan 130). But, Tournier does not specify a convolutional neural network. However, this limitation was known in the art as evidenced by the Yang reference discussed below:
Yang discloses at least one of the one or more machine-learned models is a convolutional neural network in the English translation at p. 5; to wit: “The invention fully uses depth convolutional neural network to extract the semantic feature of the building in the change detection area, reduces the interference of the background area in the change detection process.” See, also, pp. 6-7. At the time of filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a convolutional neural network to detect and to identify various elements of the building, as taught by Yang, as a substitute for using a machine learning network to detect and to identify various elements of the building, as taught by Tournier. This combination is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The prior art contained a method, taught by Tournier, which differed from the claimed method by its choice of machine learning models used to implement the functions taught by Tournier. Using a convolutional neural network to detect and to identify various elements of a building was known in the art, as evidenced by the Yang reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a convolutional neural network as the machine learning method into the method taught by Tournier and the results would have been predictable; to wit, the building elements would be identified regardless.
With regards to claim 15, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are obvious over the combination of Tournier, Carrington and Yang for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 8, which recites a method performing these same steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights