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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Detailed Action
Claims 1, 4, 6 – 9, 12, and 14 – 27, are pending.
The effective filing date of the present application is 08/09/2021.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 06/10/2026 have been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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, 4, 6 – 9, 12, and 14 – 27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and a system. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims, as a whole, set forth a method for performing a building construction progress review. The claims describe checking a building permit file against as-constructed state to determine compliance with permitted plans. This is descriptive of work long performed by inspectors in several trades and similarly performed as claimed; that is, comparing in situ information with as filed data. The claims therefore, describe a mental process which includes observations (inspect), evaluations, (checking and conducting variance analysis), judgments, (passed a check), and opinions (output report). Conducting inspections and analyses, and generating an output report are steps that can practically be performed in the human mind. Therefore, they recite a mental process and an abstract idea. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claim 9, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method comprising:
storing, by a computing device, a first building information model (BIM) file for a building project, wherein the first BIM file comprises a building permit application file having a design for a construction of the building project;
conducting an automated fly-by to inspect hard-to-reach areas of the construction of the building project using an unmanned aerial vehicle;
obtaining, by the computing device from the unmanned aerial vehicle over a wireless communication channel, thermal infrared imaging and a LiDAR point cloud data file of the hard-to-reach areas of the construction of the building project;
inputting and storing, by the computing device, contents of the thermal infrared imaging and LiDAR point cloud data file into the first BIM file to generate a second BIM file for the building project, wherein the second BIM file comprises an integrated thermal infrared and LiDAR point cloud data file showing a progress in construction of the building project;
checking, by the computing device, the building permit application file for building code compliance with computable files defining building codes;
conducting variance analysis of permitted plans and actual onsite construction phases by comparing the second BIM file to the first BIM file;
generating, by the computing device, an output report indicating whether the building permit application file has passed a check for the building code compliance and identifying variances between the permitted plans and the actual onsite construction; and
transmitting, by the computing device, the output report to a client device of an applicant associated with the building permit application file,
wherein the computing device comprises a blockchain node, wherein the first BIM file is stored by the blockchain node in a permissioned blockchain network, wherein the building permit application file is checked for building code compliance in accordance with a smart contract of the permissioned blockchain network,
wherein a semantic structure of each building code is translated into object rules or parametric models using formal languages and stored with the smart contract.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1 and 9 recite only the following additional elements:
a computing device;
an unmanned aerial vehicle;
a wireless communication channel;
thermal infrared imaging and a LiDAR point cloud;
a client device;
a blockchain node, in a permissioned blockchain network;
a smart contract of the permissioned blockchain network; wherein a semantic structure of each building code is translated into object rules or parametric models using formal languages and stored with the smart contract;
a system comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle;
at least one processor; and
memory configured to communicate with the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions.
Certain elements describe mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). These include: a computing device; a client device; a system comprising: at least one processor. Applicant has described the system generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0035-0036], and Figure 4, as filed.
Certain other additional elements: thermal infrared and LiDAR point cloud, involves the use of, “a portable tablet or similar portable devices equipped with LiDAR, digital photography, Thermal InfraRed (TIR), or a digital laser scanner for visual inspection”. This describes insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering, and does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly because of the conventional manner and components, defined above, used to gather the data. See MPEP2106.05(g).
Further, the claims add additional elements that describe the use of use of blockchain – a permissioned blockchain network and smart contract. The steps of the BIM file being “stored by the blockchain node in permissioned blockchain network” describes the use of blockchain in its ordinary fashion - to securely receive, store, or transmit data. Noting that blockchain is a generic term for a distributed ledger, and a network meaning the ledgers are at multiple locations simultaneously, these additional elements describe merely describe the use of blockchain as noted above. This system in described in a generic way, at Specification [0024-0027] and Figure 3. This includes: “…a DLT framework for virtual permitting process includes a main blockchain that connects to other external blockchain networks.”; as well as: “[a] chaincode or smart contract is an application-level code stored on the ledger as a part of a transaction.”
Lastly, the use of newly amended claim element “an unmanned aerial vehicle” is defined as ordinary use: “drone(s) (or unmanned aerial vehicle(s)) can be used to perform drone- based virtual building inspection. Accordingly, drones can conduct automated fly-bys to inspect hard-to-reach areas/surfaces/spaces (e.g., roof fastener spacing/density, etc. and other anomalies) by a building inspector or specialist who possesses a license to fly drones”; “where drones 110 …can be utilized to inspect the building”; and, “such systems/methods utilize drones to conduct automated fly-bys to inspect hard-to- reach areas/surfaces/spaces by a building inspector..”. Thus, reciting use of an UAV or drone to perform an inspection. The claims, therefore, invoke other machinery as” a tool to perform an existing process, and are mere instructions to apply an exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not provide significantly more.
At Step 2B of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they do not amount to more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). These include: a computing device; a client device; a system comprising: at least one processor. Applicant has described the system generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0035-0036], and Figure 4, as filed.
The use of newly amended claim element “an unmanned aerial vehicle” is defined as ordinary use: “drone(s) (or unmanned aerial vehicle(s)) can be used to perform drone- based virtual building inspection. Thus, reciting use of an UAV or drone to perform an inspection. The claims, therefore, invoke other machinery as” a tool to perform an existing process, and are mere instructions to apply an exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract ideas does not provide significantly more.
Certain other additional elements: thermal infrared and LiDAR point cloud, involves the use of, “a portable tablet or similar portable devices equipped with LiDAR, digital photography, Thermal InfraRed (TIR), or a digital laser scanner for visual inspection”. This describes insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering, and does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly because of the conventional manner and components, defined above, used to gather the data. See MPEP2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 4 and 12 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 9. Recitations of transmitting the file to an authority entity for review is a further recitation to the entity who is doing the evaluation; therefore, it is directed to the abstract idea. Further, these claims rely on the computing device recited earlier and is a further reliance on computers to perform the abstract idea, per MPEP 2106.04(d). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 6, 7, 14, and 15, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 9. Recitations to digital laser scanned and digital photographs and Lidar point cloud data are refinements of the data collected that make up contents of the files. Thus, directed to the abstract idea identified. This data is further defined by ways it can be collected. Recitations to the thermal imaging, LiDAR, digital laser scanning, digital photographs, as collected by a drone, are generically defined within the disclosure. This includes, “… point cloud and image captures can be obtained via the drone or by the inspector or specialist on the premises with a portable tablet or similar portable devices equipped with LiDAR, digital photography, Thermal InfraRed (TIR), or a digital laser scanner”. The UAV is also generically defined and no specific UAV is required. See Specification [0020]. Therefore, these elements are considered to instruct one to use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data; i.e., “drones can be utilized to inspect the building”). This does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 8, and 17 – 20, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 9. Recitations to a MEP details, and architectural, and safety and hazard inspections, are refinements of the building information that is evaluated and a report filed summarizing the inspection. Therefore, these elements are directed to the mental process which includes observations (inspections), evaluations, judgments, and opinions (reports). These claims also rely on data stored on the computing device recited earlier and is a further reliance on computers to perform the abstract idea, per MPEP 2106.04(d). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 16 and 21 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 9. Recitations to a superimposing and visualizing a design model and artificial intelligence techniques are directed to the system of claim 9. Noting that 2D and 3D as well as artificial intelligence are accomplished via the processor, this is merely instructing one to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not provide for integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 22, 23, 25, and 26, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 9. Recitations to data comprised of structural steel rebar is a further definition of the building information evaluated and reported on. These claims are directed to the abstract idea, Further, these recitations employ the use of the components that provide infrared or Lidar capability. These components involve the use of “a portable tablet or similar portable devices equipped with LiDAR, digital photography, Thermal InfraRed (TIR), or a digital laser scanner for visual inspection”. This describes insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering, and does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly because of the conventional manner and component used to gather the data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 24 and 27 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 9. References to the permissioned blockchain network and a Hyperledger Sawtooth blockchain platform is employed using blockchain technology in its ordinary fashion - to securely receive, store, or transmit data. This platform and system in described in a generic way, at Specification [0024-0027] and Figure 3. This includes: “…a DLT framework for virtual permitting process includes a main blockchain that connects to other external blockchain networks.”; as well as: “[a] chaincode or smart contract is an application-level code stored on the ledger as a part of a transaction.” Therefore, the Examiner has determined that using blockchain is also the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity and does not provide for significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1, 4, 6 – 9, 12, 14 – 27, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant requests the rejection of all prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn. See page 10. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and rejects Applicant’s request.
Applicant’s first remark states that claims 1 and 9 have been amended to provide additional clarifying information with respect to the technical improvements and merits of the claimed invention. Applicant points to certain cites within the Specification as showing support for this statement. This argument is not persuasive. First, the disclosure therein describes using drones to perform building inspections. [0017]. Further, no specific drone or UAV is required. [0020]. Therefore, the Examiner concludes and has detailed above, that this technology is disclosed as other machinery used as a tool to perform an existing process. “[D]rone(s) (or unmanned aerial vehicle(s)) can be used to perform drone- based virtual building inspection. Accordingly, drones can conduct automated fly-bys to inspect hard-to-reach areas/surfaces/spaces (e.g., roof fastener spacing/density, etc. and other anomalies) by a building inspector or specialist who possesses a license to fly drones”; “where drones 110 …can be utilized to inspect the building”; and, “such systems/methods utilize drones to conduct automated fly-bys to inspect hard-to- reach areas/surfaces/spaces by a building inspector..”. Because the amendments recite use of an UAV or drone to perform an inspection, the claims recite mere instructions to apply an exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not provide for integration into a practical application.
Applicant’s reliance on thermal infrared imaging and a LiDAR point cloud is also not influential. These technologies merely describe a few possible ways to gather data. Overall, they allow an inspector to gather data by taking pictures of the building. While, an inspector cannot collect infrared images, there are a plurality of devices that can. Applicant alludes to this generic technology at [0017]: point cloud and image captures can be obtained via the drone or by the inspector or specialist on the premises with a portable tablet or similar portable devices equipped with LiDAR, digital photography, Thermal InfraRed (TIR), or a digital laser scanner…”. Accordingly, the Examiner has concluded these claim elements are broadly defined, and describe a conventional manner and components, used to gather the data. See MPEP2106.05(g). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next remarks that the system employed can be used to “inspect hard-to-reach areas”. See page 11. This argument is not persuasive. Whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is evaluated using the considerations set forth at MPEP 2106.04(d), and include: an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). A hard-to-reach space is not a computer or technical field. Nor is using a drone an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to technology. Applicant has disclosed, defined, and claimed mere use of a drone (or UAV), and has not defined a technical problem with performing LiDAR or infrared imaging. Therefore, the Examiner has concluded that the Applicant has not claimed any improvement as required by MPEP 2106.04(d) and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 12, that the amended claim (on page 11) recited additional elements that are “not well-known, routine, or conventional for the inspection of hard-to-reach areas”. This is not persuasive. A reasonable analysis of the amended claims shows that the additional elements within the claims: a computing device; an unmanned aerial vehicle; a wireless communication channel; thermal infrared imaging and a LiDAR point cloud; a client device; a blockchain node, in a permissioned blockchain network; a smart contract; and a system comprising: at least one processor; memory; and instructions, amount to more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). This conclusion does not reach into a discussion of well-understood activity in the industry. Applicant has not pointed to unknown methods for inspecting buildings, let alone accessing hard-to-reach spots. In fact, one skilled in the art of inspecting buildings, would be well versed in the height, tightness, or hidden spaces within the construction. Further, Applicant describes using the drone by one who is licensed. This would then point to a well-known aspect of drone usage – use it to fly around a building.
Further regarding Applicant’s argument, Applicant has not pointed to tight spaces as a reason to for an inventive concept. Applicant’s disclosure discusses several shortfalls of building files; and includes several limitations. See [0003]. These data deficiencies and model sharing downfalls, which are threats to data theft, interfering, and cyber – assaults, will not be solved by accessing hard-to-reach spaces. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks upon a significantly more inventive concept within n amended claim 1. See page 13. The Examiner respectfully disagree with Applicant. The Examiner has analyzed the claims for an inventive concept, at Step 2B of analysis, and has concluded the amended claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they do not amount to more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, and are mere instructions to apply an exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). See discussion above. Simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract ideas does not provide significantly more.
Certain other additional elements: thermal infrared and LiDAR point cloud, involves the use of, “a portable tablet or similar portable devices equipped with LiDAR, digital photography, Thermal InfraRed (TIR), or a digital laser scanner for visual inspection”. This describes insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering, and does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly because of the conventional manner and components, defined above, used to gather the data. See MPEP2106.05(g). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The similar arguments aimed at amended claim 9 suffer the same fate as amended claim 1 as discussed above. Accordingly, the arguments for claim 9, page 13, are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Regarding the amened claims, prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed within. Upon updated searching, the Examiner maintains the conclusion that certain prior cited art discloses building plan compliance, (Roth and Blackburn). Other cited art teaches an automated method for inspection using the instant methodologies, (Telleria). Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest the following combination of elements;
storing, by the computing device, contents of the thermal infrared imaging and LiDAR point cloud data file into the first BIM file to generate a second BIM file for the building project, wherein the second BIM file comprises an integrated thermal infrared and LiDAR point cloud data file showing a progress in construction of the building project;
conducting variance analysis of permitted plans and actual onsite construction phases by comparing the second BIM file to the first BIM file;
generating, by the computing device, an output report indicating whether the building permit application file has passed a check for the building code compliance and identifying variances between the permitted plans and the actual onsite construction.
Accordingly, the current claim set is distinguished over prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections and remarks within this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights