DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Applicant’s submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 6 were amended. Claims 19 and 20 were added. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7 and 8 do not have clear antecedent basis for “the proposed redevelopment.” (For examination, this limitation is interpreted to refer to “a re-developed location” recited in the parent claims.) Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paz Erez et al. (US 2022/0270192) in view of Schmitt (US 2004/0260573) and Persing (US 2013/0202157).
Regarding claim 1, Paz Erez teaches/suggests: A process for creating a graphical representation of a re-development location (Paz Erez [0108] “the cost-benefit analysis may include at least one of: … (iii) plan economic feasibility analysis urban renewal project”) comprising:
creating an initial boundary outline of a development location based upon GPS coordinates (Paz Erez [0055] “The urban planning model is presented with geographic coordinates” [The initial boundary outline is an inherent and/or implicit feature of the urban planning model.]);
storing said initial boundary outline in a database as a region for review (Paz Erez [0073] “an urban planning model, such as urban planning model 110 may be received by an economic viability module” [The storing is an inherent and/or implicit feature of the receiving.] [0094] “Each urban planning model may be reviewed and compared”);
evaluating using the microprocessor the region in its current state based upon social criteria (Paz Erez [0072] “the processor may be configured to operate an economic viability module” [0094] “the economic viability module 115 may evaluate benchmarks and forecast the economical differences between multiple urban planning model alternatives” [0085] “The plurality of model-parameters may include at least one indicator of: … (iv) mobility indicators”);
evaluating using the microprocessor the region in its future re-developed state based upon future social criteria (Paz Erez [0094] “the economic viability module 115 may evaluate benchmarks and forecast the economical differences between multiple urban planning model alternatives” [0115] “when the economic feasibility analysis is in future value it may be in a preconfigured period time in the future” [0085] “The plurality of model-parameters may include at least one indicator of: … (iv) mobility indicators”);
evaluating using the microprocessor the region in its current state based upon environmental criteria (Paz Erez [0094] “the economic viability module 115 may evaluate benchmarks and forecast the economical differences between multiple urban planning model alternatives” [0085] “The plurality of model-parameters may include at least one indicator of: … (ii) environmental indicators”);
evaluating the region in its future re-developed state based upon future environmental criteria (Paz Erez [0094] “the economic viability module 115 may evaluate benchmarks and forecast the economical differences between multiple urban planning model alternatives” [0115] “when the economic feasibility analysis is in future value it may be in a preconfigured period time in the future” [0085] “The plurality of model-parameters may include at least one indicator of: … (ii) environmental indicators”);
evaluating the region in its current state based upon economic criteria (Paz Erez [0094] “the economic viability module 115 may evaluate benchmarks and forecast the economical differences between multiple urban planning model alternatives” [0085] “The plurality of model-parameters may include at least one indicator of: (i) economic indicators”);
evaluating the region in its future re-developed state based upon future economic criteria (Paz Erez [0094] “the economic viability module 115 may evaluate benchmarks and forecast the economical differences between multiple urban planning model alternatives” [0115] “when the economic feasibility analysis is in future value it may be in a preconfigured period time in the future” [0085] “The plurality of model-parameters may include at least one indicator of: (i) economic indicators”);
presenting the re-developed location graphically via a three-dimensional representation of the re-developed location including data associated with the social criteria, the environmental criteria, and the economic criteria (Paz Erez [0155] “The representation of the urban planning model may include a display of both two-dimensional view, such as two-dimensional representation 620 and three-dimensional view, such as three-dimensional view 610 of the urban plan model” [0157] “a dashboard at-a-glance data visualization of key indicators, parameters, and analysis that may be relevant to an urban planning model”) and at least one building (Paz Erez [0153] “two alternatives 510 and 520 of an urban planning model, such as urban planning model 110 in FIG. 1 and urban planning model 310 in FIG. 3 are provided. Both alternatives 510 and 520 have building area 20,000”);
Paz Erez does not teach/suggest:
locating said region for review based upon a primary criteria wherein the process includes evaluating with a microprocessor a list of said criteria to weigh in a selection and then applying a weight of this primary criteria in selecting the region;
Schmitt, however, teaches/suggests:
locating said region for review based upon a primary criteria wherein the process includes evaluating with a microprocessor a list of said criteria to weigh in a selection and then applying a weight of this primary criteria in selecting the region (Schmitt [0052] “the computation unit 422 receives the criteria factors (402-410) and weight factors (412-420) … the economic evaluation module 400 may produce an ordered list of sites from most suitable to least in terms of economic potential. The ordered list can be used by the system to select the site to develop”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the urban planning model of Paz Erez to be selected as taught/suggested by Schmitt for review.
Nor does Paz Erez teach/suggest:
graphically adjusting said at least one building to create a new three-dimensional representation of a re-developed location.
Pershing, however, teaches/suggests graphically adjusting said at least one building (Pershing [0053] “if the user places a graphical user interface element representing a window on one of the walls of the three dimensional model of the building 224, then that window will be visible from the different corresponding view of each respective panel”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the urban planning model of Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt to be graphically adjusted as taught/suggested by Pershing for editing. As such, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing teaches/suggests:
graphically adjusting said at least one building to create a new three-dimensional representation of a re-developed location (Paz Erez [0155] “The representation of the urban planning model may include a display of both two-dimensional view, such as two-dimensional representation 620 and three-dimensional view, such as three-dimensional view 610 of the urban plan model” Pershing [0053] “if the user places a graphical user interface element representing a window on one of the walls of the three dimensional model of the building 224, then that window will be visible from the different corresponding view of each respective panel”).
Regarding claim 2, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing teaches/suggests: The process as in claim 1, wherein the primary criteria comprises determining whether the region is adjacent to a transportation hub (Paz Erez [0090] “a plurality of model-parameters … transportation center area” Schmitt [0051] “the criteria factors comprise existing facilities 402”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 3, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing teaches/suggests: The process as in claim 1, wherein the social criteria is determined based upon one or more of the following factors: community outreach, social engagement, accessibility, access to parks, neighborhood quality, education scores, age diversity, diversity index, internet access, walk or walkability score, bike score, bus score, rail score, housing options, healthcare quality, and healthcare access (Paz Erez [0113] “the mobility indicators include at least one of: space syntax grid network; analysis of walking distance to points of interest and attraction points; index-integrated planning public transport; street sections with street users; and transportation demand management distribution forecasts”).
Regarding claim 4, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing teaches/suggests: The process as in claim 1, wherein the environmental criteria is determined based upon one or more of the following factors: solar energy, roadway pollution, carbon footprint, LEED score, shade coverage, congestion, vegetation, urban garden access, green roof access, traffic, energy savings, water savings (Paz Erez [0111] “the environmental indicators may include at least one of: access to solar radiation rights; radiation; walkability; urban density; wind simulation of wind direction; street noise and pollution corridors; open spaces and parks access and ratio to population and density; and viewshed analysis”).
Regarding claim 5, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing teaches/suggests: The process as in claim 1, wherein the economic criteria is determined based upon one or more of the following factors: tax change, sales tax revenue, non construction economic activity, total construction materials, labor construction activity, community benefit agreements, total constructions jobs, new non construction jobs created, new retail space created, new office space created, new hospitality space created, new healthcare space created, new restaurants created, new education spending, and new housing typologies (Paz Erez [0110] “the economic indicators may include at least one of: costs of construction; cost of parking solutions; value of tradeable areas; economic analysis; a program for public needs; and municipal balance indices” [0160] “element 670 may represent a change in four key economic indicators construction costs, infrastructure costs, levies and municipal tax change, and value, the built area by usage”).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paz Erez et al. (US 2022/0270192) in view of Schmitt (US 2004/0260573) and Persing (US 2013/0202157) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2012/0053976).
Regarding claim 6, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing does not teach/suggest: The process as in claim 3, wherein the process includes evaluating at least one social criteria before a proposed redevelopment and then evaluating the same social criteria after the proposed redevelopment. Hu, however, teaches/suggests evaluating at least one criteria before and then evaluating the same criteria after (Hu [0068]: “the total labor cost after analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 9,254) is less than the total labor cost from pooling service personnel (i.e., 9,640) and the total labor cost before pooling and analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 10,040)”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobility indicators (the social criteria) of Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing to be evaluated before and after the urban renewal project (the proposed redevelopment) as taught/suggested by Hu for comparison.
As such, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Hu teaches/suggests evaluating at least one social criteria before a proposed redevelopment and then evaluating the same social criteria after the proposed redevelopment (Paz Erez [0108] “the cost-benefit analysis may include at least one of: … (iii) plan economic feasibility analysis urban renewal project” [0085] “The plurality of model-parameters may include at least one indicator of: … (iv) mobility indicators” Hu [0068]: “the total labor cost after analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 9,254) is less than the total labor cost from pooling service personnel (i.e., 9,640) and the total labor cost before pooling and analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 10,040)”).
Regarding claim 7, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing does not teach/suggest: The process as in claim 4, wherein the process includes evaluating at least one environmental criteria before the proposed redevelopment and then evaluating the same environmental criteria after the proposed redevelopment. Hu, however, teaches/suggests evaluating at least one criteria before and then evaluating the same criteria after (Hu [0068]: “the total labor cost after analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 9,254) is less than the total labor cost from pooling service personnel (i.e., 9,640) and the total labor cost before pooling and analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 10,040)”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the environmental indicators (the environmental criteria) of Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing to be evaluated before and after the urban renewal project (the proposed redevelopment) as taught/suggested by Hu for comparison.
As such, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Hu teaches/suggests evaluating at least one environmental criteria before the proposed redevelopment and then evaluating the same environmental criteria after the proposed redevelopment (Paz Erez [0108] “the cost-benefit analysis may include at least one of: … (iii) plan economic feasibility analysis urban renewal project” [0085] “The plurality of model-parameters may include at least one indicator of: … (ii) environmental indicators” Hu [0068]: “the total labor cost after analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 9,254) is less than the total labor cost from pooling service personnel (i.e., 9,640) and the total labor cost before pooling and analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 10,040)”).
Regarding claim 8, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing does not teach/suggest: The process as in claim 5, wherein the process includes evaluating at least one economic criteria before the proposed redevelopment and the evaluating the same economic criteria after the proposed redevelopment. Hu, however, teaches/suggests evaluating at least one criteria before and then evaluating the same criteria after (Hu [0068]: “the total labor cost after analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 9,254) is less than the total labor cost from pooling service personnel (i.e., 9,640) and the total labor cost before pooling and analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 10,040)”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the economic indicators (the economic criteria) of Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing to be evaluated before and after the urban renewal project (the proposed redevelopment) as taught/suggested by Hu for comparison.
As such, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Hu teaches/suggests evaluating at least one economic criteria before the proposed redevelopment and the evaluating the same economic criteria after the proposed redevelopment (Paz Erez [0108] “the cost-benefit analysis may include at least one of: … (iii) plan economic feasibility analysis urban renewal project” [0085] “The plurality of model-parameters may include at least one indicator of: (i) economic indicators” Hu [0068]: “the total labor cost after analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 9,254) is less than the total labor cost from pooling service personnel (i.e., 9,640) and the total labor cost before pooling and analyzing part-time employee usage (i.e., 10,040)”).
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paz Erez et al. (US 2022/0270192) in view of Schmitt (US 2004/0260573) and Persing (US 2013/0202157) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fox et al. (US 11074447).
Regarding claim 9, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing does not teach/suggest: The process as in claim 1 further comprising the step of sending out drones to map said initial boundary of a region. Fox, however, teaches/suggests sending out drones to map said initial boundary of a region (Fox col. col. 30 ll. 40-67 “the aerial vehicle 130 can begin a flight and capture images and altimeter data … The AI-based image processor 122 can also optionally generate a shape file for the site, including the indication of the identified geographic coordinates”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the urban planning model of Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing to be mapped by the aerial vehicle of Fox for automation.
Regarding claim 10, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Fox teaches/suggests: The process as in claim 9, further comprising the step of photographing a region using the drones (Fox col. col. 30 ll. 40-46 “the aerial vehicle 130 can begin a flight and capture images and altimeter data”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Fox teaches/suggests: The process as in claim 10, further comprising the step of laying out a plot plan for the region for redevelopment (Paz Erez [0077] “An entity, such as a parcel may be represented by its associated layers and parameters which may define coordinates of a lot polygon in the parcel, building line and building”).
Regarding claim 12, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Fox teaches/suggests: The process as in claim 11, wherein said plot plan includes buildings, locations, streets, and places of interest (Paz Erez [0077] “An entity, such as a parcel may be represented by its associated layers and parameters which may define coordinates of a lot polygon in the parcel, building line and building”).
Regarding claim 13, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Fox does not teach/suggest: The process as in claim 12, further comprising the step of geotagging locations on the map. Fox further teaches/suggests geotagging locations on the map (Fox col. 2 ll. 5-64 “where each pixel in the first set of images is geo-tagged with a specific geographic coordinate”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the urban planning model of Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Fox to be geo-tagged as taught/suggested Fox for identification.
Regarding claim 14, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Fox teaches/suggests: The process as in claim 13, wherein said step of geotagging the locations comprises attaching GPS coordinates to building locations, areas of interests (Paz Erez [0077] “The structures may be arranged in annotated layers … An entity, such as a parcel may be represented by its associated layers and parameters which may define coordinates of a lot polygon in the parcel, building line and building” Fox col. 2 ll. 5-64 “where each pixel in the first set of images is geo-tagged with a specific geographic coordinate”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated herein.
Paz Erez, Schmitt, and Fox are silent regarding applying labels to each geotag. However, the concept and advantages of applying labels to each geotag are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious to apply labels to each geotag in Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Fox for identification.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paz Erez et al. (US 2022/0270192) in view of Schmitt (US 2004/0260573) and Persing (US 2013/0202157) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lichana (US 2004/0117777).
Regarding claim 15, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing does not teach/suggest: The process as in claim 1, further comprising the step of receiving comments from a community regarding requests for redevelopment. Lichana, however teaches/suggests receiving comments from a community (Lichana [0053] “a feedback loop that allows user input or consumer feedback to be used in order to optimize one of consumer satisfaction and quality of life”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the urban planning model of Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt and Pershing to include the feedback loop of Lichana for optimization.
As such, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Lichana teaches/suggests receiving comments from a community regarding requests for redevelopment (Paz Erez [0108] “the cost-benefit analysis may include at least one of: … (iii) plan economic feasibility analysis urban renewal project” Lichana [0053] “a feedback loop that allows user input or consumer feedback to be used in order to optimize one of consumer satisfaction and quality of life”).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paz Erez et al. (US 2022/0270192) in view of Schmitt (US 2004/0260573), Persing (US 2013/0202157), and Lichana (US 2004/0117777) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Duggin et al. (US 2018/0082313).
Regarding claim 16, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Lichana does not teach/suggest: The process as in claim 15, further comprising the step of applying preferences to each of said comments from the community based upon a set of internal metrics. Duggin, however, teaches/suggests applying preferences based upon a set of internal metrics (Duggin [0036] “assign sentiment metrics or sentiment categories to reactions (e.g., negative sentiment, neutral sentiment, positive sentiment), and assign weights to reactions (i.e., 'weight reactions') according to predefined rules (e.g., weighting preferences 228) and the sentiment metrics and/or categories assigned to the reactions”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedback of Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, and Lichana to be weighted as taught/suggested by Duggin to prioritize them.
As such, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, Lichana, and Duggin teaches/suggests applying preferences to each of said comments from the community based upon a set of internal metrics (Lichana [0053] “a feedback loop that allows user input or consumer feedback to be used in order to optimize one of consumer satisfaction and quality of life” Duggin [0036] “assign sentiment metrics or sentiment categories to reactions (e.g., negative sentiment, neutral sentiment, positive sentiment), and assign weights to reactions (i.e., 'weight reactions') according to predefined rules (e.g., weighting preferences 228) and the sentiment metrics and/or categories assigned to the reactions”).
Regarding claim 17, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, Lichana, and Duggin teaches/suggests: The process as in claim 16, further comprising the step of using the microprocessor for generating models of buildings to occupy existing undeveloped spaces or to be placed in the location of existing buildings (Paz Erez [0101] “Grasshopper 3D, a visual programming language and environment that runs within a Rhinoceros 3D computer-aided design (CAD) application, CityEngine 3D modeling software for urban environments, Dynamo Studio, a programming environment for computational BIM design and the like” [0077] “An entity, such as a parcel may be represented by its associated layers and parameters which may define coordinates of a lot polygon in the parcel, building line and building”).
Regarding claim 18, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, Pershing, Lichana, and Duggin teaches/suggests: The process as in claim 17, wherein these buildings are presented in a form of a graphical representation of a plot of the region on a video screen (Paz Erez [0103] “the urban planning model may be presented on a display unit 135” [0077] “An entity, such as a parcel may be represented by its associated layers and parameters which may define coordinates of a lot polygon in the parcel, building line and building”). The video screen is an inherent and/or implicit feature of the display unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0191364 – square footage of building layout
US 2022/0114296 – building constraint information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights