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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective claims (see table below) of U.S. Patent No. 12,051,153 in view of Paz Erez et al. (US 2022/0270192).
Instant Claims
1-2
3-5
6-8
9-18
12051153 Claims
1-2
3, 5, 7
4, 6, 8
9-18
For example:
Instant Claim 1
12051153 Claim 1
A process for creating a graphical representation of a
A process for creating a graphical representation of a location comprising:
creating an initial boundary outline of a development location based upon GPS coordinates;
creating an initial boundary outline of a location based upon GPS coordinates;
storing said initial boundary outline in a database as a region for review;
storing said initial boundary outline in a database as a location for review;
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;
locating said location 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 location;
evaluating using the microprocessor the region in its current state based upon social criteria;
evaluating using the microprocessor the location in its current state based upon social criteria;
evaluating using the microprocessor the region in its future re-developed state based upon future social criteria;
evaluating using the microprocessor the region in its current state based upon environmental criteria;
evaluating using the microprocessor the location in its current state based upon environmental criteria;
evaluating the region in its future re-developed state based upon future environmental criteria;
evaluating the region in its current state based upon economic criteria;
evaluating the location in its current state based upon economic criteria;
evaluating the region in its future re-developed state based upon future economic criteria; and
presenting the the social criteria, the environmental criteria, and the economic criteria.
inputting an initial set of data associated with a development plan of the area resulting in a three-dimensional representation of the plan including presenting buildings;
automatically presenting at least one table of data associated with the social, environmental, and or economic criteria;
altering the initial set of data such that the microprocessor alters the three-dimensional representation of the redevelopment plan including altering buildings and automatically re-calculates data associated with at least one table of said social, environmental and or economic criteria to render at least one new table of data associated with the social, environmental and or economic criteria.
Claim 1 of 12051153 does not recites a re-development location. Nor does it recite the limitations in italics above. However, these limitations are met by Paz Erez as set forth in the art rejection below. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of 12051153 to include the re-development location of Paz Erez for an urban renewal project.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 6-8 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).
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”); and
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”).
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.
Regarding claim 2, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt 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 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 3, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt 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 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 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) 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 does not teach/suggest: The process as in claim 3, wherein the process includes evaluating at least one social criteria before the 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 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 and Hu teaches/suggests evaluating at least one social criteria before the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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 to be mapped by the aerial vehicle of Fox for automation.
Regarding claim 10, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt 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 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt 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 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 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 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 above 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lichana (US 2004/0117777).
Regarding claim 15, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt 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 to include the feedback loop of Lichana for optimization.
As such, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt 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) 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 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 and Lichana to be weighted as taught/suggested by Duggin to prioritize them.
As such, Paz Erez as modified by Schmitt, 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, 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, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2009/0185741 – 3D modeling from LiDAR data
US 2010/0138353 – land use plan
US 2014/0100815 – building/asset management
US 2016/0048935 – model for real estate development
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