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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on June 11, 2024.
Claims 1-12 have been preliminarily amended.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on June 24, 2024, February 28, 2025, and October 6, 2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449s are enclosed herewith.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: this claim recites “when the first uploading date and the second uploading date are determined to be same, ….” In other words, it appears that the word “the” before “same” was inadvertently deleted in the preliminary amendments. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: (1) “an acquiring module configured to acquire an imported building information model, convert the imported building information model into an original model file of meeting a predetermined lightweight engine requirement, and display, in a webpage, a building plan corresponding to the original model file;” (2) “a receiving module configured to receive a first model log file uploaded by a first user and a second model log file uploaded by a second user, wherein the first model log file is obtained by the first user editing the building plan online, and the second model log file is obtained by the second user editing the building plan online;” (3) “a determining module configured to determine a latest effective date of a first effective date corresponding to the first model log file and a second effective date corresponding to the second model log file based on the first effective date and the second effective date;” and (4) “an updating module configured to, when the first effective date is determined to be the latest effective date, update the original model file based on the first model log file to obtain an intermediate model file, and update the intermediate model file based on the second model log file to obtain a target model file,” all in Claim 10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations (1) “an acquiring module configured to acquire an imported building information model, convert the imported building information model into an original model file of meeting a predetermined lightweight engine requirement, and display, in a webpage, a building plan corresponding to the original model file;” (2) “a receiving module configured to receive a first model log file uploaded by a first user and a second model log file uploaded by a second user, wherein the first model log file is obtained by the first user editing the building plan online, and the second model log file is obtained by the second user editing the building plan online;” (3) “a determining module configured to determine a latest effective date of a first effective date corresponding to the first model log file and a second effective date corresponding to the second model log file based on the first effective date and the second effective date;” and (4) “an updating module configured to, when the first effective date is determined to be the latest effective date, update the original model file based on the first model log file to obtain an intermediate model file, and update the intermediate model file based on the second model log file to obtain a target model file,” all in Claim 10, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “configured to” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder “configured to” is not preceded by any structural modifier in any of the four limitations. In other words, there is nothing in the language that would dictate any particular structure for performing the functions recited.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 10 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph limitations: a generic computer implementation, see at least specification page 64 and Figure 4 noting that the modules may be stored in the memory 402 and executed by the processor 401 to complete the present invention.
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, Applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office Action.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 , sixth paragraph, Applicant may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, there are multiple steps that may need to be assessed. First, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in step 2A prong 1 whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in step 2A prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in step 2B whether the claim recites “significantly more” than the abstract idea. See “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,” 84 Fed. Reg. (4): 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019).
In the instant case, Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are directed toward a method, i.e., process, and Claim 10 is directed toward a system, i.e., apparatus. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories as required by step 1. Nevertheless, the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea in step 2A prong 1. Independent Claim 1 recites as follows:
Claim 1. An online collaborative editing method, comprising:
acquiring an imported building information model, converting the imported building information model into an original model file of meeting a predetermined lightweight engine requirement, and displaying, in a webpage, a building plan corresponding to the original model file;
receiving a first model log file uploaded by a first user and a second model log file uploaded by a second user, wherein the first model log file is obtained by the first user editing the building plan online, and the second model log file is obtained by the second user editing the building plan online;
determining a latest effective date of a first effective date corresponding to the first model log file and a second effective date corresponding to the second model log file based on the first effective date and the second effective date; and
when the first effective date is determined to be the latest effective date, updating the original model file based on the first model log file to obtain an intermediate model file, and updating the intermediate model file based on the second model log file to obtain a target model file.
The bold language above corresponds to the abstract ideas recited in Claim 1 (whereas the underlined language is language that is addressed in step 2A prong 2 and step 2B). As the bold language above demonstrates, Applicant’s claims are directed toward coordinating the collaboration of different people working together on a building plan (e.g., architects, contractors, etc.). Because the instant invention is managing the collaborative process of building design and construction, such as considering dates of different edits to a building plan, the invention is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), citing BSG Tech. LLC v Buyseasons, Inc. where the Federal Circuit held that one example of managing personal behavior in a claim was “considering historical usage information while inputting data.”
Finding the claims to be directed toward an abstract idea, however, is not the end of the inquiry. Rather, the next step is to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). The revised guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the exception into a practical application: 1) an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, 2) an additional element that implements the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 3) an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 4) an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Examples where a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include: 1) use of “apply it” or the equivalent, i.e., merely using a computer to implement or perform an abstract idea, 2) an additional element that adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 3) an additional element that does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See id.
Applying these considerations to the claims in the instant application, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims fail to recite an improvement of a computer, any improvement to a technology or technical field, any particular machine, any transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or any additional element that uses the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Instead, the claims are merely reciting instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., “uploaded,” “files,” “online,” etc.), which is insufficient to provide a practical application of the claims and provide subject matter eligibility. See id. In other words, the abstract certain method of managing personal relationships or interactions between people is merely implemented in a generic computer environment. Therefore, there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
If the claims are not integrated into a judicial exception, the Examiner must consider whether there is “significantly more” recited in the claim in step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.05. There is nothing unconventional or inventive in Applicant’s claims for the purpose of analysis under step 2B, e.g., any combination of elements that provide an advance over any technological state of the art. Rather, as noted above, an abstract management of relationships or interactions between people is merely implemented by a general-purpose computer. Other than the limitations that are abstract for the reasons articulated above, Applicant has merely recited a generic computer that facilitates the steps of the invention. Thus, Applicant’s claims merely recite a computer to implement the abstract idea, which fails to provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As the MPEP states, Examiners may consider the following three factors when determining whether the claim recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: 1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; 2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and 3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applying those factors to the instant application: 1) the claims do not recite how the computer performs any of the steps other than just stating that they do it, in an online setting; 2) the claims invoke the computer to perform a process of collaborative building planning and construction that has been performed without computers and before the ubiquity of computers; and 3) the claims are generic in nature and not recited in much particularity because it can apply to any way of assisting the collaboration.
The dependent claims 2-9 and 11-12 are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Regarding the other independent claim (Claim 10) and Claims 11 and 12, the claims merely more expressly recite that a generic computer performs the abstract idea, which as stated above is mere implementation of the abstract idea on a computer and insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claims 2-9 recite further embellishments regarding what factors are used to reconcile competing file versions of the building plan or what generic computer means are used to merely implement the abstract idea in the generic computer milieu. In other words, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more” or providing any integration into a practical application. Rather, the dependent claims are merely further reciting features that are just as abstract as independent Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 1-12 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Garske et al. (US 2017/0357738 A1, hereinafter “Garske”) in view of Rohtagi et al. (US 2024/0169320 A1, hereinafter “Rohtagi”) and Sohn et al. (US 2015/0379063 A1, hereinafter “Sohn”).
Claim 1. Garske teaches: An online collaborative editing method, comprising:
acquiring an imported building information model, converting the imported building information model into an original model file of meeting a predetermined lightweight engine requirement, and displaying, in a webpage, a building plan corresponding to the original model file (see, e.g., Figure 3 step 305 teaching receiving a “local” model, i.e., an imported model, and converting it in step 310 into an original model file; see further, e.g., at least ¶s 18, 21, 30, 34, and 41 teaching converting the formats of the local model to a different, common file that meets requirements of a given application, such as JSON, noting that ¶ 18 teaches JSON and ¶ 21 teaches that the choice of a common format is dependent on the requirements; see also Figure 8 and ¶s 22 and 37 teaching display of the conversion in a graphical user interface, though Examiner notes that the display being specifically on a webpage is further addressed below);
receiving a first model log file uploaded by a first user and a second model log file uploaded by a second user, wherein the first model log file is obtained by the first user editing the building plan online, and the second model log file is obtained by the second user editing the building plan online (see, e.g., ¶ 30 teaching the receipt of a particular model log; see also, e.g., ¶s 27, 29, 40, and 43 teaching using the merge system to share files or edits among different users or ¶s 4 and 17 teaching that the invention relates to collaborations among multiple designers of a building structure);
determining a latest effective date of a first effective date corresponding to the first model log file and a second effective date corresponding to the second model log file based on the first effective date and the second effective date (see, e.g., ¶s 21-22 teaching performing a conflicts resolution process whereby different versions of the BIM file are merged, such as an “update model” and the “local model;” see also Figure 8 and ¶s 7 and 35-38 disclosing substantially the same, thus there is a comparison and conflict resolution process in Garske; regarding that the conflict process is based on different effective dates, this is further addressed below); and
when the first effective date is determined to be the latest effective date, updating the original model file based on the first model log file to obtain an intermediate model file, and updating the intermediate model file based on the second model log file to obtain a target model file (see, e.g., ¶s 21-22 teaching performing a conflicts resolution process whereby different versions of the BIM file are merged and updated to include the latest changes in the collaboration, such as an “update model” and the “local model;” see also Figure 8 and ¶s 7 and 35-38 disclosing substantially the same, thus there is a comparison and conflict resolution process in Garske; regarding that the conflict process is based on different effective dates, this is further addressed below).
As noted above, Garske fails to expressly teach that the computer GUI or browser via which the user accesses the BIM files and performs the file comparison and reconciliation process is a webpage. Rather, Garske teaches a generic GUI (see Figure 8 and ¶s 22 and 37 teaching display of the conversion in a graphical user interface). Such a browser is, however, likely a “webpage” as Garske teaches that the network that connects the different devices with the different BIM files is “the Internet” as well as conventional computer and network technology (see, e.g., ¶s 24-26 and 31). Nevertheless, for the purpose of compact prosecution, because Garske fails to expressly disclose the word “webpage,” Examiner notes that analogous prior art teaches using a webpage to display different BIM files in a collaborative setting. Rohtagi, for example, teaches such a feature (see, e.g., at least Rohtagi ¶ 57 teaching that a “web application running on a client station” are among the possibilities via which the client software may take shape to perform the accessing, collaborating, and editing; see also Rohtagi ¶ 61 teaching “web browser software” on each client station 112). Rohtagi is similar to Garske and the instant application because it relates to managing the collaboration in the design phase of construction projects (see Rohtagi ¶s 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the known technique of using a webpage (as disclosed by Rohtagi) as the specific GUI format of presenting different BIM files and reconciling and updating the differing versions (as disclosed by Garske). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using a webpage because it is one of several known means via which multiple clients can access and collaboratively edit construction designs (see Rohtagi ¶ 57).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the known technique of using a webpage (as disclosed by Rohtagi) as the specific GUI format of presenting different BIM files and reconciling and updating the differing versions (as disclosed by Garske), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of using a webpage as the specific GUI format of presenting different BIM files and reconciling and updating the differing versions, because predictably a specific web browser can perform all the same collaborations, edits, and file reconstructions that any other networked software can). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Also as noted above, Garske fails to expressly teach determining a latest effective date of a first effective date corresponding to the first model log file and a second effective date corresponding to the second model log file based on the first effective date and the second effective date. Rather, Garske teaches a method and system that compares different BIM files and resolves and updates the differences in the files, though Garske expressly fails to teach that any “effective date” is the means of comparison (see, e.g., ¶s 21-22 teaching performing a conflicts resolution process whereby different versions of the BIM file are merged, such as an “update model” and the “local model;” see also Figure 8 and ¶s 7 and 35-38 disclosing substantially the same). Nevertheless, analogous prior art teaches determining a latest effective date of a first effective date corresponding to the first model log file and a second effective date corresponding to the second model log file based on the first effective date and the second effective date. Sohn, for example, teaches such a feature (see, e.g., at least Sohn ¶ see, e.g., Figure 11 and ¶ 150 teaching using the updated date of a BIM file as a means of comparison of different files as taught, e.g., in ¶s 148-149 and 151; see also ¶s 27 and 47 teaching that the GUID comparison engine of the invention orders the files by IFC file generation date). Sohn is similar to Garske, Rohtagi, and the instant application because it relates to managing the collaboration, tracking, and reconciliation of multiple BIM files (see Sohn ¶s 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the known technique of using effective file dates (as disclosed by Sohn) as one means of ordering, comparing, and updating various BIM files in the method and system of reconciling various BIM files (as disclosed by Garske and Rohtagi). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using effective file dates because the user may want to view the changes in a time sequence (see Sohn ¶s 15, 35, and 156).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the known technique of using effective file dates (as disclosed by Sohn) as one means of ordering, comparing, and updating various BIM files in the method and system of reconciling various BIM files (as disclosed by Garske and Rohtagi), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of using effective file dates as one means of ordering, comparing, and updating various BIM files in the method and system of reconciling various BIM files, because predictably a file date is one datum among many that can form a basis through which different BIM files of the same construction plan can be compared). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 2. The combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn teach the limitations of Claim 1. Garske further teaches: The online collaborative editing method according to claim 1, wherein the step of acquiring the imported building information model, converting the imported building information model into the original model file of meeting the predetermined lightweight engine requirement, and displaying, in the webpage, the building plan corresponding to the original model file comprises:
acquiring model data of the imported building information model, and converting the model data into the original model file by using a conversion plug-in, wherein the original model file has a json suffix format (see, e.g., ¶s 18, 21, and 29 teaching using a plugin, noting that ¶ 18 teaches in particular that the original model file is JSON); and
importing the original model file into a lightweight engine, converting the original model file into the building plan by using the lightweight engine, and displaying the building plan in the webpage (see, e.g., ¶s 18-20 teaching that the original model file is imported into the cloud server system and made available in that common format for everyone else to retrieve a copy or a portion of the file for editing and viewing).
While Garske fails to expressly teach displaying the building plan in the webpage, as explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Rohtagi teaches that feature (see, e.g., at least Rohtagi ¶ 57 teaching that a “web application running on a client station” are among the possibilities via which the client software may take shape to perform the accessing, collaborating, and editing; see also Rohtagi ¶ 61 teaching “web browser software” on each client station 112). The rationale for modifying Garske to include this feature of Rohtagi is explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claim 3. The combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn teach the limitations of Claim 1. Sohn further teaches: The online collaborative editing method according to claim 1, wherein the step of determining the latest effective date of the first effective date corresponding to the first model log file and the second effective date corresponding to the second model log file on the basis of based on the first effective date and the second effective date comprises:
acquiring the first effective date of the first model log file and the second effective date of the second model log file, wherein the first effective date of the first model log file and the second effective date of the second model log file are preset (see, e.g., Figure 11 and ¶ 150 teaching using the updated date of a BIM file as a means of comparison of different files as taught, e.g., in ¶s 148-149 and 151; see also ¶s 27 and 47 teaching that the GUID comparison engine of the invention orders the files by IFC file generation date); and
determining one of the first effective date and the second effective date closest to a current date as the latest effective date (see also ¶s 27 and 47 teaching that the GUID comparison engine of the invention orders the files by IFC file generation date).
The rationale for modifying Garske and Rohtagi to include the date-based determination of Sohn is provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claim 4. The combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn teach the limitations of Claim 1. Sohn further teaches: The online collaborative editing method according to claim 1, wherein the step of when the first effective date is determined to be the latest effective date, updating the original model file based on the first model log file to obtain the intermediate model file, and updating the intermediate model file based on the second model log file to obtain the target model file comprises:
when the first effective date is determined to be the latest effective date, acquiring first object data and first resource data in the first model log file, wherein the first object data comprises a first floor identity of a floor and a first operation type, and the first resource data comprises a first resource identity and first resource attribute data corresponding to the first operation type (see, e.g., Figure 14, ¶s 144 and 151-154, and Table 7 teaching performing an analysis on multiple objects in multiple files of the BIM such as windows, doors, walls, and floor numbers to determine any differences between the different files);
executing a first operation corresponding to the first operation type on the original model file, and combining the first model log file with the original model file based on the first resource identity and the first resource attribute data to generate the intermediate model file, wherein the intermediate model file comprises a plurality of intermediate resource identities of a plurality of intermediate resources (see, e.g., Figure 14, ¶s 144 and 151-154, and Table 7 teaching performing an analysis on multiple objects in multiple files of the BIM such as windows, doors, walls, and floor numbers to determine any differences between the different files);
acquiring second object data and second resource data in the second model log file, wherein the second object data comprises a second floor identity of the floor and a second operation type, and the second resource data comprises a second resource identity and second resource attribute data corresponding to the second operation type (see, e.g., ¶s 131-132 and Table 5 as well as Figure 4 teaching comparing and combining different files); and
executing a second operation corresponding to the second operation type on the intermediate model file, and combining the second model log file and the intermediate model file based on the second resource identity and the second resource attribute data to generate the target model file (see, e.g., ¶s 131-132 and Table 5 as well as Figure 4 teaching comparing and combining different files),
wherein the first operation type and the second operation type comprise an adding operation, a modifying operation, or a deleting operation (see, e.g., at least ¶ 154 teaching that the information processed in the merging of the files can include adding, deleting, or modifying the different objects, or any combination thereof; see also ¶ 131 teaching viewing the different versions including what objects are deleted as well as Table 5).
The rationale for modifying Garske and Rohtagi to include the date-based determination of Sohn is provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claim 5. The combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn teach the limitations of Claim 4. Garske further teaches: The online collaborative editing method according to claim 4, further comprising:
when a conflict between the first operation on the original model file and the second operation on the intermediate model file is determined, traversing the plurality of intermediate resource identities in the intermediate model file, to determine whether an intermediate resource identity matched with the second resource identity exists in the plurality of intermediate resource identities (see, e.g., Figure 8 and ¶s 7, 21-22, and 35-38 teaching performing a conflicts resolution process whereby different versions of the BIM file are merged, noting in particular the table between paragraphs 36 and 37 that provides various exemplary resource identity matching conflicts and the prompted solution proposed to the user in the dialog box shown in Figure 8); and
if the plurality of intermediate resource identities do not have the intermediate resource identity matched with the second resource identity, stopping an updating of the intermediate model file, and sending conflict prompt information (see, e.g., Figure 8 and ¶s 7, 21-22, and 35-38 teaching performing a conflicts resolution process whereby different versions of the BIM file are merged, noting in particular the table between paragraphs 36 and 37 that provides various exemplary resource identity matching conflicts and the prompted solution proposed to the user in the dialog box shown in Figure 8).
Claim 6. The combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn teach the limitations of Claim 5. Garske further teaches: The online collaborative editing method according to claim 5, further comprising:
if the plurality of intermediate resource identities have the intermediate resource identity matched with the second resource identity, comparing the second resource attribute data with intermediate resource attribute data corresponding to the intermediate resource identity, and when the second resource attribute data is not completely consistent with the intermediate resource attribute data, stopping the updating of the intermediate model file and sending the conflict prompt information (see, e.g., Figure 8 and ¶s 7, 21-22, and 35-38 teaching performing a conflicts resolution process whereby different versions of the BIM file are merged, noting in particular the table between paragraphs 36 and 37 that provides various exemplary resource identity matching conflicts and the prompted solution proposed to the user in the dialog box shown in Figure 8);
wherein the second resource attribute data comprises the second resource identity, a second resource type, a second resource name, a second resource area and a second resource contour of a second resource, and the intermediate resource attribute data comprises the intermediate resource identity, an intermediate resource type, an intermediate resource name, an intermediate resource area and an intermediate resource contour of each of the plurality of intermediate resources (see, e.g., Figure 8 and ¶s 7, 21-22, and 35-38 teaching performing a conflicts resolution process whereby different versions of the BIM file are merged, noting in particular the table between paragraphs 36 and 37 that provides various exemplary resource identity matching conflicts and the prompted solution proposed to the user in the dialog box shown in Figure 8).
Claim 7. The combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn teach the limitations of Claim 1. Sohn further teaches: The online collaborative editing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
when it is determined that the first effective date and the second effective date are both determined to be the latest effective date, acquiring a first uploading date of the first model log file and a second uploading date of the second model log file, and updating the original model file according to a sequence of the first uploading date and the second uploading date (see, e.g., ¶s 15, 35, and 156 teaching the comparison target obtaining equivalents of the IFC files and presenting them in a time sequence).
The rationale for modifying Garske and Rohtagi to include the date-based determination of Sohn is provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claim 8. The combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn teach the limitations of Claim 1. Garske further teaches: The online collaborative editing method according to claim 7, further comprising:
when the first uploading date and the second uploading date are determined to be same, displaying a first building plan corresponding to the first model log file and a second building plan corresponding to the second model log file in the webpage, and updating the original model file based on a manually selected first building plan or second building plan (see, e.g., Figure 20 and ¶s 153-154 teaching a comparison of different versions of the BIM file where the user can select an “add, delete, or modify” box for each noted element that is different among the different versions).
While Garske fails to expressly teach that the model log files are in the webpage, as explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Rohtagi teaches that feature (see, e.g., at least Rohtagi ¶ 57 teaching that a “web application running on a client station” are among the possibilities via which the client software may take shape to perform the accessing, collaborating, and editing; see also Rohtagi ¶ 61 teaching “web browser software” on each client station 112). The rationale for modifying Garske to include this feature of Rohtagi is explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claim 9. The combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn teach the limitations of Claim 1. Garske further teaches: The online collaborative editing method according to claim 1, wherein the imported building information model is a Revit model (see, e.g., ¶s 17-18 and 28 teaching that the imported/uploaded local file can be from, among many other programs, Revit).
Regarding Claim 10, this claim is coextensive with Claim 1 other than that it recites the statutory category of an apparatus with various modules configured to perform the same steps as in Claim 1. The rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated herein, relying on the combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn. Because Garske additionally teaches that the invention is performed by a computer-based apparatus (see, e.g., Figure 2 and ¶ 26), the combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn renders Claim 10 obvious.
Claim 11. The combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn teach the limitations of Claim 1. Garske further teaches: An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and runnable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, implements steps of the online collaborative editing method according to claim 1 (see, e.g., Figure 2 and ¶ 26).
Claim 12. The combination of Garske, Rohtagi, and Sohn teach the limitations of Claim 1. Garske further teaches: A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements steps of the online collaborative editing method according to claim 1 (see, e.g., Figure 2 and ¶ 26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Sridharan et al., US 2021/0200171 A1; Reghetti et al., US 2010/0250615 A1; and Martinez-Ablanedo, US 2015/0262124 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAN P MINCARELLI whose telephone number is (571)270-5909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Nathan C. Uber, can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
/JAN P MINCARELLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights