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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending; claim 4 has been canceled and included into claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: The arguments apply to each of the amended independent Claims 1, 7 and 11 (as containing the limitations of original claim 1) and also independent 15. When properly analyzed, these claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality. Specifically, the claims are directed to a machine-learning driven, computer vision pipeline and 3D graphics workflow that converts a noisy 2D architectural floorplan into an accurate, navigable 3D model file through a constrained, non conventional ordered combination of trained models, geometric post processing, vectorization, and 3D extrusion.
The examiner respectfully disagrees: Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are all directed to steps which are nothing more than software instructions, for example see claim 1 that comprises the steps of uploading, inputting, executing, masking, executing, vectorizing and generating.
Claims 7 and 11 are similar in scope to claim 1 (i.e., they comprise steps that are nothing more than software instructions), for example see claim 7 that comprises all of the steps of claim 1 and additional step(s) of post-processing.
Claim 15 is directed to a system for generating 3d file based on 2d architectural floorplan comprising frontend, cloud storage service and backend with the steps of detect, identify and transform which are nothing more than software instructions; therefore, the examiner is maintaining the 101 rejection to claims 1-3 and 5-20.
Claim Interpretation
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:
frontend adapted to receive a 2D image; backend adapted to enqueue; symbol detection model trained to detect; segmentation model trained to identify and Blender software adapted to transform in claim 15.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to method for generating a three-dimensional (3D) file from a two-dimensional (2D) architectural floorplan, with the steps of uploading, inputting, executing, vectorizing, generating and extruding which are nothing more than software, software is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C..
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-10 and 12-13 depend from claim 1 and contain additional steps, for example see claim 5, with the step of masking, therefore they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 7 and 11 are similar in scope to claim 1 (i.e., they contain steps that are nothing more than software instructions), for example see claim 7 that comprises all of the steps of claim 1 and additional step(s) of post-processing, therefore they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 14 depends from claim 7 and comprises an additional step of utilizing, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 15 is directed to a system for generating a three-dimensional (3D) file based on a two-dimensional (2D) architectural floorplan comprising a frontend, cloud storage service and backend, which are nothing more than software; therefore claim 15 is directed under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 16-20 depend from claim 15 and contain additional steps, for example see claim 17 that comprises the step of receiving, therefore they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 would be allowed (except for the 101 rejection).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art doesn’t teach:
masking the detected symbols;
executing a segmentation model on the 2D file so as to identify segments in the 2D file corresponding to walls and windows;
Regarding claim 7, the prior art doesn’t teach:
post-processing of identified symbols so as to identify location and type of doors and columns present in the architectural floorplan, wherein the symbols are post-processed based on standard heuristics for architectural floorplans
Regarding claim 11, the prior art doesn’t teach:
generating a database file based on the uploaded 2D file and the inputted default structural settings;
Regarding claim 15, the prior art doesn’t teach:
a cloud storage service in communication with the frontend; and
a backend in communication with the frontend and with the cloud storage device, the backend adapted to enqueue a plurality of worker instances, the plurality of worker instances comprising:
a symbol detection model trained to detect symbols present in architectural floorplans;
a segmentation model trained to identify segments present in architectural floorplans; and
a Blender software adapted to transform 2D outputs from the symbol detection model and segmentation model into a 3D file based on structural settings contained in a database file.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE L MCDOWELL, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 2pm-10pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/MAURICE L. MCDOWELL, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612