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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/864, 844, filed on 05/13/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 10 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims recite an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 10 recites “digital assets representing one or more physical properties, segmenting the data into a plurality of level-specific subsets based on a spatial subdivision of the physical building into corresponding sub-portions, determining the one or more respective physical properties associated with the user by identifying sub-portions of the physical building associated with the user via a lease relationship, retrieving the one or more digital assets representing the one or more respective physical properties by accessing a file representing the digital assets and retrieving metadata identifying a location of the digital assets in a storage system, and presenting the one or more digital asserts representing the one or more physical properties comprising selectively retrieving only a subset of digital assets corresponding to the identified sub-portions of the buildings, rendering the subset of digital assets without a complete set, dynamically control access to the subset of digital assets based on the association between the user and the physical properties, and wherein the tenant is restricted from transferring files associated with the building.” Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims are directed at “commercial interactions, business relations.” Presenting a user with various assets associated with a building in response to a user request in order for the user to consider them for lease is considered a commercial or business interaction. Therefore, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements include “ “one or more processors of a platform coordination system,” “a user device,” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements of claim 10 also include “receiving from a user a request to access a portal,” “transmitting to a user device,” and “displaying at the user portal.” Absent further detail, these additional elements are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “receiving or transmittal of data over a network,” citing TLI Communications, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, and buySAFE v Google. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 10 also include “lease relationships stored in platform data,” and “a storage system.” Absent further detail, these additional elements are considered “receiving and storage of data,” listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (iii-iv) as an example of conventional computer functioning. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements also include the accessing of blockchain-based NFT’s. However, the accessing and use of NFT’s is considered a generic recitation of a technical element, the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea. The NFT’s are used in place of other paper or digital files or assets to manage representations of ownership or lease rights, and are only accessed and then mentioned as being prevented from being transferred. There is no technical improvement to blockchain technology, NFTs, or digital asset management, only their used by being “accessed.” Therefore, these additional elements are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements also include “collecting point cloud data via a Light Detection Ranging device, of a physical building.” However, this additional element is considered a generic recitation of a technical element recited at a high level of generality. This element is considered conventional and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to use LiDAR scanning to analyze interiors and exteriors of buildings for various purposes. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements include “ “one or more processors of a platform coordination system,” “a user device,” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements of claim 10 also include “receiving from a user a request to access a portal,” “transmitting to a user device,” and “displaying at the user portal.” Absent further detail, these additional elements are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “receiving or transmittal of data over a network,” citing TLI Communications, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, and buySAFE v Google. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more. The additional elements of claim 10 also include “lease relationships stored in platform data,” and “a storage system.” Absent further detail, these additional elements are considered “receiving and storage of data,” listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (iii-iv) as an example of conventional computer functioning. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more. The additional elements also include the accessing of blockchain-based NFT’s. However, the accessing and use of NFT’s is considered a generic recitation of a technical element, the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea. The NFT’s are used in place of other paper or digital files or assets to manage representations of ownership or lease rights, and are only accessed and then mentioned as being prevented from being transferred. There is no technical improvement to blockchain technology, NFTs, or digital asset management, only their used by being “accessed.” Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements also include “collecting point cloud data via a Light Detection Ranging device, of a physical building.” However, this additional element is considered a generic recitation of a technical element recited at a high level of generality. This element is considered conventional and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to use LiDAR scanning to analyze interiors and exteriors of buildings for various purposes. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claim steps in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for providing digital assets in response to a user request. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claims 11 and 12 are considered part of the abstract idea, as which assets are displayed does not change the analysis. Claim 13 recites the digital assets including such as a BIM of the physical building. However, absent further detail, this additional element is considered conventional and well-understood, and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known that to use BIM models of physical buildings for electronic interaction.
Therefore, claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
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.
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 1-6, 8-9, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulin, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0237601 A1 in view of Dedhia, et al. WIPO Publication WO 2015/148835 A1 and in further view of Kanza, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0116568 A1 and in further view of Williams, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0133700 A1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Paulin teaches:
A method (media) comprising:
creating… a primary non-fungible token (NFT), wherein the primary NFT represents digital assets associated with a physical building (see [0037], [0039], [0042]-[0043], [0056], and [0064] in which a user first purchases a full piece of real estate such as a building using a smart contract and an associated NFT that represents the purchased asset)
segmenting…the digital assets into a plurality of level-specific subsets based on spatial subdivision of the physical building into corresponding sub-portions (see at least [0056] and [0064]-[0065])
creating a plurality of parcel NFTs from the digital assets associated with the physical building, wherein each of the parcel NFTs represent one of the parcel-specific subsets of the digital assets associated with a respective sub-portion of the physical building (see [0042]-[0043], [0054], [0056]-[0057], [0060], [0065], and [0073] in which a plurality of fractional NFT’s are created that represent divided portions of a building, and specifically [0056] which teaches that the building could be divided into 10x10 parcels and “into parcels of other sizes and arrangements”)
maintaining the primary NFT and the plurality of level NFT’s in a storage system accessible via the platform coordination system (see [0042], [0057], [0069], and [0106])
providing use of a parcel NFT of the plurality of parcel NFTs to a tenant in conjunction with lease of the sub-portion of the physical building represented by the parcel NFT (see [0057]-[0061] in which a parcel NFT is rented or purchased and transferred to the renter)
maintaining ownership of the level NFT (see at least [0042], [0057], [0069], and especially [0065] in which the owner maintains ownership of the fractional/parcel NFT’s while still renting/leasing out the fractional property to a tenant for a specific period of time; see also [0020]-[0021], [0042]-[0043], [0054]-[0057], and [0073] which describe the owner establishing and maintaining ownership of a building or property and its parcels by NFT ownership)
providing, via a user portal…controlled access to the parcel-specific subset of digital assets without transferring the digital assets to the tenant (see [0064]-[0065, [0077], and [0093] in which a user portal for prospective purchasers or tenants is provided in which controlled access to parcel specific subsets of digital assets is provided so tenants can rent/lease a parcel through such as smart contracts with or without transfer of the actual NFT as taught in [0065])
wherein the tenant is restricted from transferring the parcel NFT to storage controlled by the tenant (see at least [0065] in which the owner maintains ownership of the fractional/parcel NFT’s while still renting/leasing out the fractional property to a tenant for a specific period of time and the tenant still has access to the information associated with the parcel but is not able to transfer or take ownership of the parcel NFT itself)
Paulin, however, does not appear to specify:
level NFT’s
Paulin does however teach various fractional configurations of parcel NFT’s in [0056] such as 10x10 parcels and “into parcels of other sizes and arrangements.” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to combine level NFT’s with Paulin because Paulin already teaches other configurations of parcel NFT’s that are fractional portions of buildings, and level NFT’s would allow for modifying the teachings of Paulin to be even better applied when a building has individual units that span an entire level, such as penthouse type buildings.
Paulin, however, does not appear to specify:
retrieving and rendering…the level-specific subset of digital assets at the user portal based on an association between the tenant and the sub-portion of the physical building, and wherein the tenant is restricted from transferring the level NFT to storage controlled by the tenant
Dedhia teaches:
retrieving and rendering…the level-specific subset of digital assets at the user portal based on an association between the tenant and the sub-portion of the physical building, and wherein the tenant is restricted from transferring the level NFT to storage controlled by the tenant (see Figure 1 and [0025]-[0030] in which users can register with and log into a portal that displays digital assets representing physical properties)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Dedhia with Paulin because Paulin already teaches prospective renters/tenants accessing digital assets such as parcel NFT’s online, and teaches at [0064] a virtual map through a software application as well as a portal, but does not specify the user portal facilitating the display of the subset of digital assets, and using a portal would allow for a dedicated and more secure way to access the digital asset display.
Paulin and Dedhia, however, does not appear to specify:
collecting point cloud data, via a Light Detection and Ranging device, of a physical building
the primary NFT includes point cloud data
Kanza teaches:
collecting point cloud data, via a Light Detection and Ranging device, of a physical building, the primary NFT includes point cloud data (see [0018], [0025]-[0026], and [0041])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Kanza with Paulin and Dedhia because Paulin already teaches digital information regarding a digital building and its parcels, including physical dimensions, and using LiDAR data would allow for a quick and accurate way to scan buildings, including from the outside, and determine fractional portions for rent or sale, and including point cloud data in the NFT would allow for accurate physical values for any necessary verification of the digital asset being sold or leased.
**The examiner notes that while Kanza does not teach an NFT with point cloud data, the other references have already been shown to teach an NFT with other physical asset data, so Kanza is being used just to show point cloud data being collected for a building.**
Paulin, Dedhia, and Kanza, however, does not appear to specify:
maintaining ownership of the level NFT at an owner- controlled digital wallet
Williams teaches:
maintaining ownership of the level NFT at an owner- controlled digital wallet (see [0039] in which ownership of fractional NFT’s are stored in the owner’s digital wallet)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Williams with Paulin, Dedhia, and Kanza because Paulin already teaches prospective renters/tenants accessing digital assets such as parcel NFT’s online, and owners either maintaining ownership of the NFT’s or transferring fractional NFT’s to the tenants, and using digital wallets for storage would facilitate ease of access and if needed transfers.
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams teaches:
the method of claim 1…
Paulin further teaches:
wherein providing use of the level NFT comprises providing access to the digital assets associated with the sub-portion of the physical building represented by the level NFT for a period of time of a lease of the sub-portion of the physical building by the tenant (see [0057]-[0061] in which a parcel NFT is rented or purchased and transferred to the renter; see also [0060]-[0065] and [0073] in which the rental NFT for the parcel is for a specific period of time)
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams teaches:
the method of claim 1…
Paulin further teaches:
wherein creating the primary NFT comprises utilizing an NFT marketplace to record the primary NFT on a blockchain and conferring ownership of the primary NFT to an owner of the physical building (see [0030]-[0034]; see also [0037], [0039], [0042]-[0043], [0056], and [0064] in which a user first purchases a full piece of real estate such as a building using a smart contract and an associated NFT that represents the purchased asset)
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams teaches:
the method of claim 1…
Paulin further teaches:
wherein creating the plurality of level NFTs comprises dividing the digital assets associated with the physical building into a plurality of level digital assets, wherein each of the plurality of level digital assets are associated with a respective sub- portion of the physical building (see [0042]-[0043], [0054], [0056]-[0057], [0060], [0065], and [0073] in which a plurality of fractional NFT’s are created that represent divided portions of a building, and specifically [0056] which teaches that the building could be divided into 10x10 parcels and “into parcels of other sizes and arrangements”)
Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams, however, does not appear to specify:
level NFT’s
Paulin does however teach various fractional configurations of parcel NFT’s in [0056] such as 10x10 parcels and “into parcels of other sizes and arrangements.” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to combine level NFT’s with Paulin because Paulin already teaches other configurations of parcel NFT’s that are fractional portions of buildings, and level NFT’s would allow for modifying the teachings of Paulin to be even better applied when a building has individual units that span an entire level, such as penthouse type buildings.
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams teaches:
the method of claim 4…
Paulin further teaches:
wherein creating the plurality of level NFTs further comprises utilizing an NFT marketplace to record each of the plurality of level NFTs on a blockchain and conferring ownership of each of the plurality of level NFTs to an owner of the building (see [0020]-[0021], [0042]-[0043], [0054]-[0057], and [0073])
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams teaches:
the method of claim 5
Paulin further teaches:
wherein providing use of the level NFT of the plurality of level NFTs to the tenant comprises maintaining, by the owner of the building, ownership of the level NFT (see [0056]-[0057], [0060]-[0061], [0065] and [0073] in which the parcel NFT’s are provided for use of the parcel by the tenant but the owner still maintains ownership)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams teaches:
the method of claim 1
Paulin further teaches:
viewing the digital assets associated with the physical building using a software application associated with an owner of the physical building (see [0050], [0052], [0061], and [0082])
Dedhia further teaches:
viewing the digital assets associated with the physical building at a user portal associated with an owner of the physical building (see Figure 1 and [0025]-[0030] which teaches a user portal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Dedhia with Paulin because Paulin already teaches building owners and prospective renters/tenants accessing digital assets such as parcel NFT’s online, but teaches at [0064] a virtual map through a software application, and does not specify a portal, and using a portal would allow for a dedicated and more secure way to access the digital assets.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams teaches:
the method of claim 1
Dedhia further teaches:
viewing digital assets associated with the sub-portion of the physical building at a user portal associated with the tenant (see Figure 1 and [0025]-[0030] in which users can register with and log into a portal that displays digital assets representing physical properties)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Dedhia with Paulin because Paulin already teaches prospective renters/tenants accessing digital assets such as parcel NFT’s online, but teaches at [0064] a virtual map through a software application, and does not specify a portal, and using a portal would allow for a dedicated and more secure way to access the digital assets.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams teaches:
the… media of claim 14
Paulin further teaches:
provide a first software application associated with the owner of the physical building, wherein the first software application allows the owner of the physical building to view the digital assets associated with the physical building (see [0050], [0052], [0061], and [0082])
Dedhia further teaches:
provide a first user portal associated with the owner of the physical building, wherein the first user portal allows the owner of the physical building to view the digital assets associated with the physical building (see Figure 1 and [0025]-[0030] which teaches a user portal)
provide a second user portal associated with the tenant, wherein the second user portal allows the tenant to view the digital assets associated with the sub-portion of the physical building (see Figure 1 and [0025]-[0030] in which users can register with and log into a portal that displays digital assets representing physical properties)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Dedhia with Paulin because Paulin already teaches building owners and prospective renters/tenants accessing digital assets such as parcel NFT’s online, but teaches at [0064] a virtual map through a software application, and does not specify a portal, and using a portal would allow for a dedicated and more secure way to access the digital assets.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Paulin, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0237601 A1 in view of Dedhia, et al. WIPO Publication WO 2015/148835 A1 and in further view of Kanza, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0116568 A1 and in further view of Williams, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0133700 A1 and in further view of Soflin, Patent No. 11,263,361 B1.
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams teaches:
the method of claim 1…
Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the digital assets associated with the physical building include one or more of a building information model (BIM) of the physical building, a digital twin of the physical building, an engineering report for the physical building, and verified dimensions of the physical building
Soflin teaches:
wherein the digital assets associated with the physical building include one or more of a building information model (BIM) of the physical building, a digital twin of the physical building, an engineering report for the physical building, and verified dimensions of the physical building (see Figures 1-2B, Column 1, lines 17-30, and Column 2, line 64-Column 3, line 62 which clearly teach the digital assets associated with the physical building including a BIM Model or a digital twin)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Soflin with Paulin, Dedhia, Kanza, and Williams because in order to provide architects, designers, engineers, and other entities the ability to envision and generate 3-D models of a building or structure and its components and allow for non-graphical information to be accessed.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulin, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0237601 A1 in view of Dedhia, et al. WIPO Publication WO 2015/148835 A1 and in further view of Soflin, Patent No. 11,263,361 B1 and in further view of Kanza, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0116568 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Paulin teaches:
A method comprising:
segmenting…the data into a plurality of level-specific subsets based on spatial subdivision of the physical building into corresponding sub-portions (see at least [0056] and [0064]-[0065])
receiving, from a user, a request to access a user portal, wherein the user portal displays one or more digital assets representing one or more respective physical properties (see at least [0064]-[0065] in which a user interface is provided for accessing digital assets representing respective physical properties)
determining the one or more respective physical properties associated with the user (see at least [0077] in which the API interface allows sellers and buyers/tenants to access information regarding their associated physical properties)
retrieving the one or more digital assets representing the one or more respective physical properties by accessing a blockchain-based NFT representing the digital assets, and retrieving metadata identifying a location of the digital assets in the storage system (see [0057]-[0065] and [0077])
displaying… the one or more digital assets representing the one or more respective physical properties (see [0064]-[0065] and [0077])
selectively retrieving only a subset of digital assets corresponding to the identified sub-portions of the buildings (see [0064]-[0065, [0077], and [0093])
rendering the subset of digital assets without transmitting a complete set of building digital assets to a user device, wherein the platform coordination system dynamically controls access to the subset of digital assets based on the association between the user and the physical properties, and wherein the tenant is restricted from transferring the blockchain-based NFT to storage controlled by the tenant (see [0064]-[0065, [0077], and [0093] in which a user portal for prospective purchasers or tenants is provided in which controlled access to parcel specific subsets of digital assets is provided so tenants can rent/lease a parcel through such as smart contracts with or without transfer of the actual NFT as taught in [0065]; see also in [0065] in which the owner maintains ownership of the fractional/parcel NFT’s while still renting/leasing out the fractional property to a tenant for a specific period of time and the tenant still has access to the information associated with the parcel but is not able to transfer or take ownership of the parcel NFT itself)
Paulin, however, does not appear to specify:
displaying, at the user portal, the one or more digital assets representing the one or more respective physical properties
Dedhia teaches:
displaying, at the user portal, the one or more digital assets representing the one or more respective physical properties (see Figures 1-4, [0031]-[0034], and [0090]-[0093] in which the digital assets representing physical properties are displayed to the user via the portal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Dedhia with Paulin because Paulin already teaches prospective renters/tenants accessing digital assets such as parcel NFT’s online, and teaches at [0064] a virtual map through a software application as well as a portal, but does not specify the user portal facilitating the display of the subset of digital assets, and using a portal would allow for a dedicated and more secure way to access the digital asset display.
Paulin and Dedhia, however, does not appear to specify:
determining the one or more respective physical properties associated with the user by identifying sub-portions of the physical building associated with the user via lease relationships stored in platform data
Soflin teaches:
determining the one or more respective physical properties associated with the user by identifying sub-portions of the physical building associated with the user via lease relationships stored in platform data (see Figure 2A, Column 4, line 31-Column 5, line 9 in which show sub-portions of the leased properties; see also Column 5, lines 11-24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Soflin with Paulin and Dedhia because in order to provide a means of inventory assessment for the invention of Paulin or Dedhia for such as a building wide, floor-wide, or suite-wide level to assist in maintenance and repurposing of a structure or portion or for leasing and rental purposes.
Paulin, Dedhia, and Soflin, however, does not appear to specify:
collecting point cloud data, via a Light Detection and Ranging device, of a physical building
segmenting the point cloud data
Kanza teaches:
collecting point cloud data, via a Light Detection and Ranging device, of a physical building, segmenting the point cloud data (see [0018], [0025]-[0026], and [0041])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Kanza with Paulin, Dedhia, and Soflin because Paulin already teaches digital information regarding a digital building and its parcels, including physical dimensions, and using LiDAR data would allow for a quick and accurate way to scan buildings, including from the outside, and determine fractional portions for rent or sale, and including point cloud data in the NFT would allow for accurate physical values for any necessary verification of the digital asset being sold or leased.
**The examiner notes that while Kanza does not teach segmenting of the point cloud data, the other references have already been shown to teach segmenting of other data into a plurality of subsets of a physical asset, so Kanza is being used just to show point cloud data being collected for a building.**
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Soflin, and Kanza teaches:
the method of claim 10
Paulin further teaches:
wherein displaying the one or more digital assets corresponding to the one or more physical properties comprises displaying digital assets associated with a plurality of physical buildings owned by the user (see [0050], [0052], [0061], and [0082])
Dedhia further teaches:
viewing the digital assets associated with the physical building at a user portal (see Figure 1 and [0025]-[0030] which teaches a user portal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Dedhia with Paulin because Paulin already teaches building owners and prospective renters/tenants accessing digital assets such as parcel NFT’s online, but teaches at [0064] a virtual map through a software application, and does not specify a portal, and using a portal would allow for a dedicated and more secure way to access the digital assets.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Soflin, and Kanza teaches:
the method of claim 10
Soflin further teaches:
wherein displaying, at the user portal, the one or more digital assets corresponding to the one or more physical properties comprises displaying digital assets associated with a plurality of sub-portions of physical buildings leased by the user (see Figure 2A, Column 4, line 31-Column 5, line 9 in which show sub-portions of the leased properties; see also Column 5, lines 11-24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Soflin with Paulin and Dedhia because in order to provide a means of inventory assessment for the invention of Dedhia for such as a building wide, floor-wide, or suite-wide level to assist in maintenance and repurposing of a structure or portion or for leasing and rental purposes.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Paulin, Dedhia, Soflin, and Kanza teaches:
the method of claim 10
Soflin further teaches:
wherein the one or more digital assets comprise one or more of building information models (BIMs) of the one or more physical properties, digital twins of the one or more physical properties, engineering reports for the one or more physical properties, and verified dimensions of the one or more physical properties (see Figures 1-2B, Column 1, lines 17-30, and Column 2, line 64-Column 3, line 62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Soflin with Paulin, Dedhia, Soflin, and Kanza because in order to provide architects, designers, engineers, and other entities the ability to envision and generate 3-D models of a building or structure and its components and allow for non-graphical information to be accessed.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Claim Objection
The applicant’s amendment to claim 20 has overcome the objection and the objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection of claims 1-9 and 14-20 and the rejection has been withdrawn. There is now significant technology integrated into the claims and technical steps that are written in such a way that the claims are focused on leveraging the technology to practically apply the abstract idea. The use of LiDAR, NFT’s, digital wallets and portals facilitate an improved manner of using technology to facilitate rentals of building levels or portions. The technology does not just automate a conventional way of facilitating rentals. Therefore, the claims are determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis.
The rejection of claims 10-13 has been sustained. New grounds of rejection have been laid out above in the 101 section in response to the extensive amendments of the claims.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 102
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103
The applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the amendments to the claims, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights