DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16-23, 25-26, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, Examiner suggests correction of “comprising” to “comprises”;
In claim 18, Examiner suggests correction of “the polygon(s)” to “the at least one or the plurality of polygon(s)” consistent with language of claim 17;
In claim 20, Examiner suggests correction of “wherein the change in feature comprises absence of…addition of at least one coordinate…” to read as “wherein the change in feature comprises absence of…or addition of at least one coordinate…”;
In claim 23, Examiner suggests correction of “based on the stage” to read as “based on the at least one stage”;
In claims 16, 21-23 and 25-26, Examiner suggests correction of the word “analysing” to “analyzing”;
In claims 17-19 and 33, Examiner suggests correction of each instance of “the input orthophoto map” to read as “the at least one input orthophoto map” for purposes of claim language consistency; and
In claim 33, Examiner suggests correction of “feature data taken at least two different times” to read as “feature data taken at least at two different times”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one data processing component configured to”, “at least one feature determining component configured to” and “at least one analysing component configured to” in claim 16. Claims 16-30 and 32-33 are therefore being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19, 21-27 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 19, 21, 25-26 recite the broad recitation “the system”, and the claims also recite “particularly…” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 19, 21, and 25-26 are therefore rejected. Claims 22-27 are additionally rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 21.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “determine at least one stage” without further specifying as to what exactly a “stage” means and how it relates to the remainder of the system, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Similar rationale applies to claim 26, which recites “wherein the predetermined condition comprises a pre-determined stage”. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding of Applicant’s specification, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of available prior art. Claims 22-27 are additionally rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claims 21 and/or claim 25.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the analysing component comprises at least one schedule data based on the at least one stage”. It is unclear from this limitation how the component comprises schedule data. Examiner believes the claim intends to recite “wherein the analysing component provides at least one schedule data based on the at least one stage”. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding of Applicant’s specification, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of available prior art. Claims 23-27 are additionally rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 24-27 are additionally rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 23.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "based on schedule data". It is unclear from this limitation whether the claim is referring to the “at least one schedule data” recited in claim 22, or to another different schedule data. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding of Applicant’s specification, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of available prior art. Claims 25-27 are additionally rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 24.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “enabling communication between at least two nodes” but does not specify what the nodes are or what they belong to, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding of Applicant’s specification, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of available prior art. Claims 26 is additionally rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 25.
Claims 32-33 recite “The method according to claim 16”, but claim 16 is directed to a system. The dependency of the claims is therefore unclear. Examiner believes claims 32-33 should be dependent from method claim 31. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
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 16 and 20-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 16, 31 and 34 respectively recite a system, method, and computer program product comprising instructions for analyzing progress on at least one construction site.
Taking claim 16 as exemplary of the independent claims, the limitations of “process at least one input orthophoto map of an area” and “determine feature data of the at least one input orthophoto map”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processing component configured to” and “at least one feature determining component configured to” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing component” and “feature determining component” language, “process” and “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses a trained construction site manager manually analyzing an orthophoto image to determine progress at a construction site. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 16 only recites two additional elements – using a processing component and a feature determining component to perform the processing and determining steps. Claim 34 only recites one additional element – using a computer to perform the processing and determining steps. The processing component, feature determining component, and computer are each recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processing component, feature determining component, and computer to perform the processing and determining steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims recite the additional element of “initiating at least one communication based on at least the determined feature data” (by “at least one analysing component” in claim 16, recited at a high level of generality), which amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, independent claims 16, 31 and 34 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 20-30, 32-33 and 35 are additionally rejected under 35 USC 101 because they recite additional elements which amount to further mental processes without significantly more, or to mere data gathering, pre-processing, and result outputting steps, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 34-35 recite a "computer program product" which may be interpreted as a program per se, as evidenced by the recitation "A computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed…" A program does not fall into the four statutory categories of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Further, if the claim were corrected to recite "a tangible computer-readable medium storing instructions" in place of a "computer program product", the claimed invention would still be directed to non-statutory subject matter (In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Examiner suggests correction to include language to the effect of non-transitory computer-readable media as recommended in the Kappos memo on Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, February 23, 2010, 1351 OG 212, and commensurate with Applicant’s published Specification at paragraphs [0252]-[0253].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 16-19, 28-31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG PUB. 2017/0206648 A1 (hereinafter “Marra”; applicant-submitted prior art).
Regarding claim 16, Marra discloses a system for analysing progress on at least one construction site (Marra, Fig. 1a), wherein the system comprising:
at least one data processing component configured to process at least one input orthophoto map of an area (Marra, Fig. 1a, mobile computing device 101, servers 106, Structure Model Generator 109, ¶0047, 0083; “a three-dimensional reconstruction processing of the image data set may be performed by a Structure Model Generator 109”),
at least one feature determining component configured to determine feature data of the at least one input orthophoto map (Marra, Fig. 5a, ¶0083-0088; “FIG. 5a shows polygonal facets of an intermediate building model 502 viewed from the same orthographic overhead perspectives as shown previously in FIGS. 4a and 4b . This example representation begins to approximate overall facet dimensions.”),
at least one analysing component configured to initiate at least one communication based on at least the determined feature data (Marra, Fig. 5c, ¶0092; “The end product of an embodiment is shown in FIG. 5c , it is a schematic structural report for roof repair 520. The report 520 is principally composed of a schematic dimensioned design plan diagram 522 and a list of components or construction takeoff list 524 attributed with construction relevant parameters including type, overall area or length, pitch (or facet slope). ”)
Regarding claim 17, claim 16 is incorporated, and Marra further discloses wherein the data processing component is further configured to generate at least one or a plurality of polygon(s) based on the input orthophoto map, each polygon approximating a part of the input orthophoto map (Marra, Fig. 5a, ¶0083-0088; “FIG. 5a shows polygonal facets of an intermediate building model 502 viewed from the same orthographic overhead perspectives as shown previously in FIGS. 4a and 4b . This example representation begins to approximate overall facet dimensions.”).
Regarding claim 18, claim 17 is incorporated, and Marra further discloses wherein the system is configured to determine the feature data by projecting the polygon(s) on the input orthophoto map (Marra, Fig. 5a, ¶0083-0088; “FIG. 5a shows polygonal facets of an intermediate building model 502 viewed from the same orthographic overhead perspectives as shown previously in FIGS. 4a and 4b . This example representation begins to approximate overall facet dimensions.”).
Regarding claim 19, claim 16 is incorporated, and Marra further discloses wherein the system particularly the feature determining component is configured for determining the feature data of the input orthophoto map by means of at least one convolutional neural network, wherein the feature data comprises at least one coordinate-based representation of at least one surface (Marra, ¶0099; “machine learning techniques such as Convolutional Neural Networks can be combined with segmentation techniques such as Conditional Random Fields in order to detect and segment features that need to be either included or removed from vector models such as roof vents, chimneys, windows, trees, or power lines”).
Regarding claim 28, claim 16 is incorporated, and Marra further discloses wherein the system is a system configured for analysis of aerial images (Marra, ¶0002, 0026; “a system and method for capturing and processing images and more particularly to an automated system and method for structural inspection and construction estimation using images from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)”).
Regarding claim 29, claim 28 is incorporated, and Marra further discloses wherein the data-processing component is configured for receiving at least one of image data and elevation data from an aerial vehicle and/or a satellite (Marra, Fig. 1a, ¶0046; “At the end of or during the flight, images and data comprising UAV output data 146 can be transferred from the UAV's on board storage via Wi-Fi 111, SD card, or other method, to the mobile computing device 101 so that the application running on device 101 can compress, manipulate and securely upload images”).
Regarding claim 30, claim 16 is incorporated, and Marra further discloses wherein the area comprises a construction site (Marra, ¶0002, 0026; “an automated system and method for structural inspection and construction estimation using images from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)”).
Claim 31 recites a method having features corresponding to the elements recited in system claim 16, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Claim 34 recites a computer program product having features corresponding to the elements recited in system claim 16, the rejection of which is applicable here.
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 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 20-22, 32-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marra, as applied to claims 16, 31 and 34 above, in view of US Patent No. 9,389,084 B1 (hereinafter “Chen”; applicant-submitted prior art).
Regarding claim 20, claim 16 is incorporated, and Marra does not expressly teach the limitations as further claimed, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Vacanas does as follows.
Vacanas teaches wherein the feature determining component is further configured to determine a change in a feature over a pre-determined time interval in at least two input orthophoto maps, wherein the change in feature comprises absence of a coordinate and/or pixel and/or polygon, addition of at least one coordinate and/or pixel and/or polygon (Chen, col. 4, l.30-45, col.7, l.10 – col.8, l.36; “the differences between the three-dimensional representations illustrate how the target site has changed over time. For example, if the target site is a building under construction, the first three-dimensional representation of the building may be a point cloud representing the building with only one floor completed. The second three-dimensional representation of the building may be a point cloud representing the building with two floors completed. Thus, by overlaying the second point cloud onto the first point cloud, the change detector 214 can identify that the difference between the two point clouds is the second floor that has been added.”).
Chen is considered analogous art because it pertains to a system for monitoring progress at a construction site. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Marra to include determining a change in image features over a predetermined time interval by collecting a plurality of UAV images and comparing the 3D representations of the images to identify differences, as taught by Chen, in order to more accurately and easily enable users to visualize and remain up-to-date on construction progress (Chen, col.2, l.55-65).
Regarding claim 21, claim 20 is incorporated, and Chen in the combination further discloses wherein the system, particularly the analysing component is configured to determine at least one stage based on the determined change in feature (Chen, col.11, l.35-55; “the change report generator 216 might identify a particular change and a location of the change and then compare the location and/or any other features associated with the change to detailed plans for the target site in order to predict what has occurred to result in the change. Using this information, the change report generator 216 can identify…a project or sub-project associated with the change, completion of one or more tasks, and/or a advancements in progress based on the change.”).
As established above with respect to claim 20, Chen is considered analogous art because it pertains to a system for monitoring progress at a construction site. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Marra to include determining completion of one or more tasks with respect to detailed plans for a target site based on identified changes in the images of the target site, as taught by Chen, in order to more accurately and easily enable users to visualize and remain up-to-date on construction progress (Chen, col.2, l.55-65).
Regarding claim 22, claim 21 is incorporated, and Chen in the combination further teaches wherein the analysing component comprises at least one schedule data based on the at least one stage (Chen, col.2, l.60-67, col.11, l.35-33; “To illustrate, using the methods and systems disclosed herein, a user may be able to quickly identify if a project (e.g., a construction project) is behind schedule, how and where the project is behind schedule, and then make course-correcting decisions in order to put the project back on schedule or otherwise compensate for the delay” wherein “the change report generator 216 might identify a particular change and a location of the change and then compare the location and/or any other features associated with the change to detailed plans for the target site…Using this information, the change report generator 216 can identify…a project or sub-project associated with the change, completion of one or more tasks, and/or a advancements in progress based on the change.”).
Claim 32 recites a method having features corresponding to the elements recited in system claim 20, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Regarding claim 33, claim 16 is incorporated, and Marra does not expressly teach the limitations as further claimed, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Chen does as follows.
Chen teaches determining at least one feature difference between at least two assigned classes of the orthophoto map and/or feature data taken at least two different times (Chen, col. 4, l.30-45, col.7, l.10 – col.8, l.36; “the differences between the three-dimensional representations illustrate how the target site has changed over time. For example, if the target site is a building under construction, the first three-dimensional representation of the building may be a point cloud representing the building with only one floor completed. The second three-dimensional representation of the building may be a point cloud representing the building with two floors completed. Thus, by overlaying the second point cloud onto the first point cloud, the change detector 214 can identify that the difference between the two point clouds is the second floor that has been added.”).
Chen is considered analogous art because it pertains to a system for monitoring progress at a construction site. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Marra to include determining a change in image features over a predetermined time period by collecting a plurality of UAV images and comparing the 3D representations of the images to identify differences, as taught by Chen, in order to more accurately and easily enable users to visualize and remain up-to-date on construction progress (Chen, col.2, l.55-65).
Claim 35 recites a computer program product having features corresponding to the elements recited in system claim 20, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Claims 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Marra in view of Chen, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of US PG PUB. 2014/0316837 A1 (hereinafter “Fosburgh”).
Regarding claim 23, claim 22 is incorporated, and the combination of Marra in view of Chen does not expressly teach the limitations as further claimed, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Fosburgh does as follows.
Fosburgh wherein the analysing component is configured to deploy at least one transaction protocol, such as a smart contract, based on at least one parameter based on the stage (Fosburgh, ¶0022; “This information can be used to update time, task, cost, manpower, or equipment estimates of the construction project as well. This is a useful metric during the construction process not only for the contractor performing the construction project, but also for reporting out to private or public oversight as to the progress of the construction project. As an example, in some instances the contractor is paid based upon work already performed. Thus, by using construction management computing system 101, the contractor can accurately report the amount of progress made in the construction project to secure more funding.”).
Fosburgh is considered analogous art because it pertains to monitoring construction site progress. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by the combination of Marra and Chen to include determining and reporting task completion so that contractors receive payment for work already performed, as taught by Fosburgh, in order to more accurately enable users remain up-to-date on construction progress and secure appropriate funding (Fosburgh, ¶0022).
Regarding claim 24, claim 23 is incorporated, and Fosburgh in the combination further teaches wherein the transaction protocol is configured to be executed based on a schedule model, wherein the schedule model is configured to be generated based on schedule data (Fosburgh, ¶0022; “a comparison of one of the construction parameters of construction project design 105 with a second value indicating how much of that parameter has been performed by construction management computing system 101 to determine how much of that construction project parameter has been completed, or remains to be done…This information can be used to update time, task, cost, manpower, or equipment estimates of the construction project as well. This is a useful metric during the construction process not only for the contractor performing the construction project, but also for reporting out to private or public oversight as to the progress of the construction project. As an example, in some instances the contractor is paid based upon work already performed. Thus, by using construction management computing system 101, the contractor can accurately report the amount of progress made in the construction project to secure more funding.”).
As established above with respect to claim 23, Fosburgh is considered analogous art because it pertains to monitoring construction site progress. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by the combination of Marra and Chen to include determining and reporting percentage of task completion so that contractors receive payment for work performed, as taught by Fosburgh, in order to more accurately enable contractors and other users to remain up-to-date on construction progress and secure appropriate funding (Fosburgh, ¶0022).
Regarding claim 25, claim 24 is incorporated, and Fosburgh in the combination further teaches wherein the system, particularly the analysing component is configured for enabling the communication between at least two nodes based on the schedule model (Fosburgh, ¶0022; “in some instances the contractor is paid based upon work already performed. Thus, by using construction management computing system 101, the contractor can accurately report the amount of progress made in the construction project to secure more funding.” Payment based on work already performed is read here as the claimed “communication between at least two nodes based on the schedule model”).
Regarding claim 26, claim 25 is incorporated, and Fosburgh in the combination further teaches wherein the system, particularly the analysing component is configured for enabling the communication between the two nodes when a pre-determined condition is met, wherein the pre-determined condition comprises a pre-determined stage (Fosburgh, ¶0022; “a comparison of one of the construction parameters of construction project design 105 with a second value indicating how much of that parameter has been performed by construction management computing system 101 to determine how much of that construction project parameter has been completed, or remains to be done…in some instances the contractor is paid based upon work already performed. Thus, by using construction management computing system 101, the contractor can accurately report the amount of progress made in the construction project to secure more funding.”).
Regarding claim 27, claim 24 is incorporated, and Fosburgh in the combination further teaches wherein the schedule model is configured to be generated based on the feature data (Fosburgh, ¶0022; “construction management computing system 101 can make a comparison of these figures to determine that that particular task is 60% completed, or that 40% of that task remains to be done. This information can be used to update time, task, cost, manpower, or equipment estimates of the construction project as well. This is a useful metric during the construction process not only for the contractor performing the construction project, but also for reporting out to private or public oversight as to the progress of the construction project. As an example, in some instances the contractor is paid based upon work already performed.”).
As established above with respect to claim 24, Fosburgh is considered analogous art because it pertains to monitoring construction site progress. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by the combination of Marra and Chen to include determining and reporting percentage of task completion based on changes in the construction site so that contractors receive payment for work completed, as taught by Fosburgh, in order to more accurately enable contractors and other users to remain up-to-date on construction progress and secure appropriate funding (Fosburgh, ¶0022).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references pertain generally to construction site progress monitoring using UAV-acquired images.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMAH A BEG whose telephone number is (571)270-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/SAMAH A BEG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights