DETAILED ACTION
*Note in the following document:
1. Texts in italic bold format are limitations quoted either directly or conceptually from claims/descriptions disclosed in the instant application.
2. Texts in regular italic format are quoted directly from cited reference or Applicant’s arguments.
3. Texts with underlining are added by the Examiner for emphasis.
4. Texts with
5. Acronym “PHOSITA” stands for “Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art”.
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 .
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US-10748311-B1, US-10733775-B1, US-11574086-B2, US-11182513-B2 and US-12079548-B2 and US-12020394-B1 in view of Choi et al. (Development of Application for Generation of Automatic 2D Drawings based on openBIM, 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018)). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the instant application is either anticipated by, or the obvious variation of, the claim of copending application/ U.S. Patent No. US-12020394-B1, US-10748311-B1, US-10733775-B1, US-11574086-B2, US-11182513-B2 and US-12079548-B2.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are further provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/820,567 and 18/365/186 in view of Choi et al. (Development of Application for Generation of Automatic 2D Drawings based on openBIM, 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018)). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The reason for Double patent rejection is because at least the independent Claim 1/8/14 recite(s) the limitation of rendering a view of at least a portion of a construction project and generating a 2D drawing based on a 3D view of at least a portion of a construction project. The 2D drawing is generated based on input designating a 2D plane that intersects with at least two elements of the construction project. Those limitations are either directly or indirectly disclosed by above cited US patents and applications. Note US 12,020,394 B and US 18/365,186 do not explicitly recite rendering a 3D view of a portion of a construction project. However generating a 3D view of a portion of a construction project had been a known method in the field of BIM before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Choi discloses rendering a view of at least a protion of a construction project (p.3 left column Section 3.1.1 and Fig.1). The limitation of rendering a view of ate least a portion of a construction project does not meet the condition to overcome above double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (Development of Application for Generation of Automatic 2D Drawings based on openBIM, 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018)).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses a computing system comprising:
at least one processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the computing system to (p.2 left col lines 3-4: enabling application of many advantages of computers. A computer inherently comprises at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium):
render a view of at least a portion of a construction project, wherein the view comprises a three-dimensional display of at least (i) a first element of the construction project and (ii) a second element of the construction project (p.3 left column Section 3.1.1 and Fig.1: notice 3D view of a building rendered based on IFC model. The 3D building comprises more than two elements, e.g. multiple walls, windows etc. as shown in Fig.1);
PNG
media_image1.png
763
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receive an input designating a two-dimensional plane that intersects with at least the first element and the second element (p.3 right col 2rd paragraph and p.4 left column Section 3.2.2 lines 1-4); and
PNG
media_image2.png
89
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
based on the input, generate a drawing that depicts portions of the first element and portions of the second element that intersect with the two-dimensional plane (Fig.1: notice at least more than two elements in blue, light blue, or gray colors).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi further discloses determine dimensioning information relating the portions of the first element and the portions of the second element that intersect with the two-dimensional plane, and wherein the program instructions executable to cause the computing system to generate the drawing that depicts portions of the first element and portions of the second element that intersect with the two-dimensional plane comprises program instruction executable to cause the computing system to supplement the drawing with the determined dimensioning information (p.3 left col Section 3.1.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
288
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8-9, Claim 8-9 is/are similar to Claim 1-2 except in the format of method. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 1-2 is/are also applied to Claim 8-9.
Regarding Claim 14-15, Claim 14-15 is/are similar to Claim 1-2 except in the format of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 1-2 is/are also applied to Claim 14-15.
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (Development of Application for Generation of Automatic 2D Drawings based on openBIM, 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018)) as applied to Claim(s) 1, 8, 14 above, and further in view of Mangon et al. (US 2007/0174026 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Choi fails to disclose based on the input, overlay on the three-dimensional display a depiction of the two-dimensional plane.
However Mangon discloses displaying both 2D plane and 3D view of an object (Fig.2 and [0031]: The user interface 100 illustrated in FIG. 1 can present one or more views of one or more models. A three dimensional (3D) view 102 presents a physical representation of a CAD model of a building. The view 102 can be used to create and modify the physical representation 104. The physical representation 104 depicts physical elements of the building represented by the CAD model including, without limitation, beams, braces, floors, slabs, columns, walls, and isolated and continuous footings. In one implementation and by way of illustration, the user interface 100 includes a view panel 108, which allows a user to select views and display one or multiple views in the user interface 100. The view panel 108 includes, but is not limited to, two dimensional (2D) and 3D views, plans, elevations, sectional views, analytical views, and combinations of these. View 102 shows a CAD model of a building section 106 having beams 114 and 118, and footings 110 and 112. Also see [0038]: Referring again to FIG. 2, the analytical view 204 includes analytical elements representing columns (114', 118') and a beam 206' connecting the columns (114', 118'). A 2D elevation view 202 of the physical representation of the section 106 shows the corresponding physical elements 114, 118 and 206. Notice Fig.2 notice view 202 and 204 are displayed side by side).
PNG
media_image4.png
508
652
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Mangon discloses displaying a 2D plane and a 3D representation of a building side by side instead of overlaying the 2D plane on the 3D representation. However modifying the side by side displaying two images to overlaying one image on another only need routine skill for a skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The benefit of overlaying one image on another is it creates more display space for the image with higher priority. Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Mangon into that of Choi and to include the limitation of based on the input, overlay on the three-dimensional display a depiction of the two-dimensional plane in order to allow a user to manipulate the analytical representation as suggested by Mangon.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is/are similar to Claim 3 except in the format of method. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 3 is/are also applied to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is/are similar to Claim 3 except in the format of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 3 is/are also applied to Claim 16.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (Development of Application for Generation of Automatic 2D Drawings based on openBIM, 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018)) and Mangon et al. (US 2007/0174026 A1) as applied to Claim(s) 3, 10, 16 above, and further in view of StetchUp Skill Builder: Section Planes (downloaded @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk9KGYBPZg4&t=148s, posted Nov. 15, 2017).
Regarding Claim 4, Choi modified by Mangon fails to explicitly disclose wherein the computing system further comprises program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the computing system to: receive a second input requesting that the two-dimensional plane be adjusted; based on the second input, modify the depiction of the two-dimensional plane, wherein the modifying of the depiction of the two-dimensional plane involves one of (a) changing a size of the two-dimensional plane, (b) repositioning the two-dimensional plane along one or more axes, or (c) rotating the two-dimensional plane about an axis.
However SketchUp discloses SketchUp, a 3D modeling software for creating and manipulating 3D models, aimed at architecture, interior design, set design, product design, and manufacturing, supports receive a second input requesting that the two-dimensional plane be adjusted; based on the second input, modify the depiction of the two-dimensional plane, wherein the modifying of the depiction of the two-dimensional plane involves one of (a) changing a size of the two-dimensional plane, (b) repositioning the two-dimensional plane along one or more axes, or (c) rotating the two-dimensional plane about an axis (see video 0:50-1:35, SketchUp video teaches the software allows a user to adjust the plane position and rotate the section plane).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of SketchUp into that of Choi as modified and to include above missing limitation in order allow users to add information to components and manage commplex projects with expert use.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is/are similar to Claim 4 except in the format of method. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 4 is/are also applied to Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is/are similar to Claim 4 except in the format of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 4 is/are also applied to Claim 17.
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (Development of Application for Generation of Automatic 2D Drawings based on openBIM, 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018)).
Regarding Claim 5, Choi discloses wherein the program instructions executable to cause the computing system to render a view of at least a portion of a construction project, wherein the view comprises a three-dimensional display of at least (i) a first element of the construction project and (ii) a second element of the construction project comprises program instructions that are executable to cause the computing system to: render the view of at least a portion of the construction project using a three-dimensional model file that defines a set of meshes
PNG
media_image5.png
1016
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Choi does not explicitly recite identify, from among the set of meshes defined by the three-dimensional model file, a subset of meshes that intersect with the two-dimensional plane; and for each respective mesh in the identified subset of meshes, generate a respective dataset that defines a particular portion of the respective mesh that intersects with the two-dimensional plane. However Choi discloses
PNG
media_image6.png
237
594
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(p.3 right column second paragraph). Choi further shown in Fig.1 after the 2D plane is drawn, each object is identified and assigned in a specific color. Since is necessary for the software to know the identification of a mesh before assigning one of colors to each subset of mesh, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Choi and to include the limitation of identify, from among the set of meshes defined by the three-dimensional model file, a subset of meshes that intersect with the two-dimensional plane; and for each respective mesh in the identified subset of meshes, generate a respective dataset that defines a particular portion of the respective mesh that intersects with the two-dimensional plane (See Fig.1 IFC file is to generate 3D view and to generate 2D plane view where each object is identified and assigned related color) in order to analyze the architectural elements required to generate 2D drawings with the aim of developing an openBIM application capable of generating 2D drawings automatically as suggested by Choi (p.1 right col third paragraph).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi further teaches or suggests based at least on the respective dataset for each respective mesh in the identified subset of meshes, generate a compiled dataset that defines the drawing depicting portions of the first element and portions of the second element that intersect with the two-dimensional plane; and render the drawing using the compiled dataset (Fig.1 blue 2D drawing).
Regarding Claim 7, Choi further teaches or suggests wherein each respective mesh in the identified subset of meshes comprises a plurality of triangles (p.3 right column second paragraph), and
PNG
media_image7.png
376
586
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the respective dataset for each respective mesh in the identified subset of meshes comprises data defining a plurality of line segments that each represent an intersection between a respective triangle of the respective mesh and the two-dimensional plane (Fig.1 notice line segments shown in the blue 2D drawing).
Regarding Claim 12-13, Claim 12-13 is/are similar to Claim 5-6 except in the format of method. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 5-6 is/are also applied to Claim 12-13.
Regarding Claim 18-20, Claim 18-20 is/are similar to Claim 5-7 except in the format of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 5-7 is/are also applied to Claim 18-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUN HE whose telephone number is (571)270-7218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
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, Xiao M Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/YINGCHUN HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights