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 .
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.
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 11-18 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.
Claims 11-18 are method claims but they are depending on claim 1 which is not a method claim. So the scope of these claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staub-French et al. (“3D AND 4D MODELING FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION: ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED”, ITcon Vol. 12 (2007), Staub-French and Khanzode, pg. 381-407, PUBLISHED: July 2007 at http://itcon.org/2007/26/) in view of Jacobi et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0310602, “Jacobi”) and Imamura (US Pat. Pub. No. 20060232605 “Imamura”).
Regarding claim 1 Staub-French teaches A computing system (3D modeling tool, page 381 last line -382 first line: “3D / 4D tools specifically to the coordination of Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and Fire Protection (MEP/FP) systems”) cause the computing system to: render, via a graphical user interface (GUI): a three-dimensional view of a construction project using a three-dimensional model file (Page 383: “FIG. 1: 3D rendering of the three-storey medical office building for the Camino Medical Group Project in Mountain View, California.”
Page 392 “3.2.7 Step 7: Integrate Discipline-specific 3D Models
The responsible party downloads and integrates the 3D models in preparation for the coordination meeting. On the Camino project, the project team used Navisworks to coordinate the building systems in 3D. The 3D models created using Quick Pen and CADDuct were combined into a single model in Navisworks and then the Navisworks Clash Detective module was used to define clash tests and identify clashes.”);
However, Staub-French doesn’t expressly teach the computing system comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to: use a three-dimensional model file that defines a set of meshes;
Jacobi teaches computing system comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor ([0010] “According to another embodiment, a computer program product includes a non-transitory computer readable medium having code to retrieve from a first data source data representing an environment in a building and at least one component in the environment”), cause the computing system to:
rendering, via a graphical user interface (GUI): a three-dimensional view of a construction project using a three-dimensional model file that defines a set of meshes (Fig. 2 mentions that the type of the model is mesh model.
PNG
media_image1.png
554
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“[0032] FIG. 2 is a drawing illustrating an exemplary facilities management information display of a high-rise tower according to one embodiment of the disclosure. A building information display 200 may include a building view 204, an information view 202, and a toolbar 206. The building view 204 may be a three-dimensional computer assisted design (3D CAD) drawing. The 3D CAD drawing may be stored locally, accessed remotely, or rendered remotely and displayed on the display 200. The building view 204 may display a high-rise tower or other building structure”);
Jacobi and Staub-French are analogous as they are from the field of design management of buildings.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straub-French to have included, 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 rendering, via a graphical user interface (GUI): a three-dimensional view of a construction project using a three-dimensional model file that defines a set of meshes as taught by Jacobi and thereby use this with Straub-French’s software.
The motivation for the above is to develop an alternative implementation and also to provide a well-known format of 3d view.
Straub-French modified by Jacobi is silent about wherein the GUI includes first, second, and third navigational controls and the three-dimensional view of the construction project has a perspective from which the three-dimensional view is presented; based on respective user inputs received via the first, second, and third navigational controls, receive respective indications, each including at least a respective direction component; responsive to receiving a given respective indication, reposition the perspective from which the three-dimensional view of the construction project is generated based on the respective direction component included in the given respective indication;
Imamura teaches GUI includes first, second, and third navigational controls and the three-dimensional view of the construction project has a perspective from which the three-dimensional view is presented; based on respective user inputs received via the first, second, and third navigational controls, receive respective indications, each including at least a respective direction component; responsive to receiving a given respective indication, reposition the perspective from which the three-dimensional view of the construction project is generated based on the respective direction component included in the given respective indication (Fig. 8 shows multiple navigation controls that takes user input for 3d view “[0048] FIGS. 8 through 10 are diagrams respectively showing exemplary images displayed on the screen according to an object display system of this invention. In the respective drawings, reference numeral 1 denotes a two-dimensional image display button, 2 denotes a three-dimensional image display button, 3 denotes an automatic viewpoint shifting button, 4 denotes a shifting speed setting/displaying section, 5 denotes a manual viewpoint shifting button, 6 denotes a viewpoint up & down button, 7 denotes a furniture display on/off button, 8 denotes a 2D/3D image rendering area, 9 denotes an object display area, and 10 denotes a scroll bar”);
Imamura and Staub-French modified by Jacobi are analogous as they are from the field of 3d image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straub-French modified by Jacobi by having GUI that includes first, second, and third navigational controls and the three-dimensional view of the construction project has a perspective from which the three-dimensional view is presented; based on respective user inputs received via the first, second, and third navigational controls, receive respective indications, each including at least a respective direction component; responsive to receiving a given respective indication, reposition the perspective from which the three-dimensional view of the construction project is generated based on the respective direction component included in the given respective indication as taught by Imamura.
The motivation for the above is to enhance the applicability of Straub-French by providing user option to interactively control 3d view.
Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura teaches a two-dimensional inset within the three-dimensional view that depicts a two-dimensional view of the construction project; receive, via the two-dimensional inset, a particular user input that includes (i) a location component, and (ii) a direction component; responsive to receiving the particular user input, reposition the perspective from which the three-dimensional view of the construction project is generated based on the location component and the direction component (Jacobi “[0035] A user may also navigate through the building view 204 by clicking on a location in a two-dimensional (2D) view 220 displayed in the building view 204. The 2D view 220 may be displayed on or hidden from the building view 204 by selecting an icon in the toolbar 206 or pressing a hotkey or hotkey combination. Selecting a location on the 2D view 220 may update the building view 204 to display an environment near the selected region of the 2D view 220. According to one embodiment, the 2D view 220 responds to the user by highlighting a region 222 of the 2D view 220 when a user selects the region 222 or places a mouse cursor over the region 222”.
Imamura “[0053]……In FIG. 10, the viewpoint location in terms of a three-dimensional display is shown by the butterfly mark flying in the virtual space, and the direction of line of sight in terms of a three-dimensional display is shown by the arrow C. The angle of field of view is defined by straight lines L and R. Straight line L denotes the leftmost end of field of view in a three-dimensional display, and straight line R denotes the rightmost end of field of view in a three-dimensional display”.
Jacobi fig. 3 controls 3d view by clicking a location in 2d inset 222.
Imamura Fig. 10 shows a 2d view that has a butterfly indicator with position and direction for 3d viewpoint. [0053] discloses user’s input with butterfly indicator by drag and drop operation);
Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura teaches receive an indication requesting creation of a coordination issue that relates to a portion of the rendered three-dimensional view of the construction project; in response to the receipt of the indication, create a data set defining the coordination issue, the data set including (i) a representation of the portion of the rendered three-dimensional view, and (ii) data indicating an assignee of the coordination issue (Staub-French, Page 391: Fig. 7 shows a snapshot of the Navisworks model for the Camino Project and the nine clash tests that were created to facilitate conflict detection between the systems.
“3.2.10 Step 10: Document Conflicts and Solutions
It is important to document the conflicts addressed in the coordination meetings including, the design conflict (a snapshot or clash report from Navisworks), the proposed solution, the responsible party, the systems that were coordinated, the drawing files used (for version control), the meeting date, and the organizations/people involved in the coordination process. On the Camino project we used the Navisworks software to create a conflict identification and resolution report that listed a particular conflict and how it was to be resolved by the next iteration (Fig. 11). This document was used to identify and resolve the clashes. The report was generated directly out of Navisworks.”
PNG
media_image2.png
703
1238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jacobi [0047] “A user may interact with the model information through forms on the displays illustrated in FIG. 2, FIG. 3, FIG. 4 and FIG. 5. According to one embodiment, the displays are shown on the mobile device 500 of FIG. 5. The forms may allow a user, such as a maintenance technician, to enter a work order request through a form illustrated in FIG. 7 or to receive notification of a maintenance assignment through a form illustrated in FIG. 8. FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary display for scheduling maintenance of a component in a building management information system according to one embodiment”); and
cause an indication of the coordination issue to be presented to a client station associated with the assignee (Staub-French, Page 384 2nd to last paragraph: “Publishing reports that identified the specific clashes and documented the action items for each clash that needed to be resolved. These reports were distributed to the project team to communicate the changes needed in each discipline’s 3D models to resolve the issues identified”).
Claim 10 is directed to a method and its elements are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 1 and therefore claim 10 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Jacobi [0010] “According to another embodiment, a computer program product includes a non-transitory computer readable medium having code to retrieve from a first data source data representing an environment in a building and at least one component in the environment”) and its elements are similar in scope and functions of the element of the device claim 1 and therefore claim 19 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20 Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura teaches wherein the perspective is repositioned in at least one of the following ways: (a) along two lateral axes simultaneously based on the respective direction component, (b) along a vertical axis based on the respective direction component, and (c) such that an orientation of the perspective is repositioned based on the respective direction component (Imamura “[0048] FIGS. 8 through 10 are diagrams respectively showing exemplary images displayed on the screen according to an object display system of this invention. In the respective drawings, reference numeral 1 denotes a two-dimensional image display button, 2 denotes a three-dimensional image display button, 3 denotes an automatic viewpoint shifting button, 4 denotes a shifting speed setting/displaying section, 5 denotes a manual viewpoint shifting button, 6 denotes a viewpoint up & down button, 7 denotes a furniture display on/off button, 8 denotes a 2D/3D image rendering area, 9 denotes an object display area, and 10 denotes a scroll bar”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12 Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura teaches wherein the two-dimensional inset within the three-dimensional view depicts the two-dimensional view of the construction project at an elevation of the three-dimensional view (Jacobi Fig. 3 shows 2d inset.
In Imamura elevation of 3d view is adjusted with change height control. When users provides input for 2d view, the corresponding 2d view of adjusted elevated 3d view is displayed,
“[0054] Thus, providing the manipulating section for changing over two-dimensional display and three-dimensional display enables to implement the following operation. Pressing the 2D display button after shifting the image in a three-dimensional virtual space enables to present a virtual space represented in a bird's eye view”).
Regarding claims 4 and 13 Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura teaches wherein the two-dimensional inset within the three-dimensional view further depicts an indicator representing a position and orientation of the perspective from which the three-dimensional view is presented.
Regarding claims 6 and 15 Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura teaches wherein the perspective from which the three-dimensional view of the construction project is generated is repositioned responsive to receiving first and second respective indications based on respective user inputs received via two navigational controls, the perspective being repositioned in at least two of the following ways: (a) along two lateral axes simultaneously based on a respective direction component of either the first or second respective indication, (b) along a vertical axis based on a respective direction component of either the first or second respective indication, and (c) such that an orientation of the perspective is repositioned based on a respective direction component of either the first or second respective indication (Imamura “[0048] FIGS. 8 through 10 are diagrams respectively showing exemplary images displayed on the screen according to an object display system of this invention. In the respective drawings, reference numeral 1 denotes a two-dimensional image display button, 2 denotes a three-dimensional image display button, 3 denotes an automatic viewpoint shifting button, 4 denotes a shifting speed setting/displaying section, 5 denotes a manual viewpoint shifting button, 6 denotes a viewpoint up & down button, 7 denotes a furniture display on/off button, 8 denotes a 2D/3D image rendering area, 9 denotes an object display area, and 10 denotes a scroll bar”).
Regarding claims 7 and 16 Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura teaches cause the computing system to: generate the two-dimensional view of the construction project from the three-dimensional model file (Imamura “[0054] Thus, providing the manipulating section for changing over two-dimensional display and three-dimensional display enables to implement the following operation. Pressing the 2D display button after shifting the image in a three-dimensional virtual space enables to present a virtual space represented in a bird's eye view”).
Regarding claims 8 and 17 Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura teaches cause the computing system to create the data set defining the coordination issue comprise program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to: capture a screenshot of at least the portion of the rendered three-dimensional view of the construction project; and include the screenshot within the data set defining the coordination issue (Staub-French, Page 391: Fig. 7 shows a snapshot of the Navisworks model for the Camino Project and the nine clash tests that were created to facilitate conflict detection between the systems.
“3.2.10 Step 10: Document Conflicts and Solutions
It is important to document the conflicts addressed in the coordination meetings including, the design conflict (a snapshot or clash report from Navisworks), the proposed solution, the responsible party, the systems that were coordinated, the drawing files used (for version control), the meeting date, and the organizations/people involved in the coordination process. On the Camino project we used the Navisworks software to create a conflict identification and resolution report that listed a particular conflict and how it was to be resolved by the next iteration (Fig. 11). This document was used to identify and resolve the clashes. The report was generated directly out of Navisworks.”
PNG
media_image2.png
703
1238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jacobi [0047] “A user may interact with the model information through forms on the displays illustrated in FIG. 2, FIG. 3, FIG. 4 and FIG. 5. According to one embodiment, the displays are shown on the mobile device 500 of FIG. 5. The forms may allow a user, such as a maintenance technician, to enter a work order request through a form illustrated in FIG. 7 or to receive notification of a maintenance assignment through a form illustrated in FIG. 8. FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary display for scheduling maintenance of a component in a building management information system according to one embodiment”).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Fitzmaurice et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20090079731 “Fitzmaurice”).
Regarding claims 5 and 14 Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura is silent about wherein the GUI includes a fourth navigational control comprising indications of levels of the construction project, and wherein the computing system further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to: based on a particular user input received via the fourth navigational control, receive a particular indication that comprises a selection of a particular level of the construction project; and responsive to receiving the particular indication, reposition the perspective from which the three-dimensional view of the construction project is generated such that an orientation of the perspective is repositioned along a vertical axis so as to provide a three-dimensional view of the construction project at the particular level.
Fitzmaurice teaches GUI includes a fourth navigational control comprising indications of levels of construction project; based on a particular user input received via the fourth navigational control, receive a particular indication that comprises a selection of a particular level of the construction project; and responsive to receiving particular indication, reposition the perspective from which three-dimensional view of the construction project is generated such that an orientation of the perspective is repositioned along a vertical axis so as to provide a three-dimensional view of the construction project at the particular level (“[0113] The up/down tool 126 (see FIG. 1) is located in the bottom center wedge of the tour wheel and in the bottom right quadrant of the full navigation tool (130). The up/down tool gives users a way to move their view vertically between floors or levels of a building using an up vector in the model. Note that this is different than what is possible with the pan tool. Panning is dependent on the camera orientation. For example, if you are looking down at your feet (mostly looking at the floor) and then try to pan up to get to the next floor above you, this would take a long time and significantly displace you since you are sliding along the camera plane (screen space) which, when looking down, is at an angle with respect to the floor planes. The up/down tool slides along a Y-up axis of the scene without displacing the user along the horizontal plane of the view”);
Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura and Fitzmaurice are analogous as they are from the field of building construction management.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura to have GUI that includes a fourth navigational control comprising indications of levels of construction project; based on a particular user input received via the fourth navigational control, receive a particular indication that comprises a selection of a particular level of the construction project; and responsive to receiving particular indication, reposition the perspective from which three-dimensional view of the construction project is generated such that an orientation of the perspective is repositioned along a vertical axis so as to provide a three-dimensional view of the construction project at the particular level as taught by Fitzmaurice.
The motivation for the above is to enhance the applicability of Straub-French by providing option to provide a particular view of 3d building.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view Berlo et al. ("Using the BIM Collaboration Format in a server based workflow, "Procedia Environmental Sciences 22 ( 2014 ) 325 - 332, "Berlo").
Regarding claims 9 and 18 Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura teaches, setting up a server to share the different models (Staub-French Page 384 2nd paragraph "Helping the team define and setup the technical logistics on the project. The technical logistics involved defining how the servers would be setup to share the models, the file naming conventions for the model files, and how the model files would be integrated in 3D in Navisworks") but doesn't expressly teach send to a back-end platform the data set defining the coordination issue; and cause the back-end platform to send to a client station associated with the assignee a notification of the coordination issue.
However Berlo teaches, send to a back-end platform a data set defining the coordination issue; and cause the back-end platform to send to the client station associated with an assignee a notification of the coordination issue. (Page 328, section
5 "An important part that constituted this development effort, has been to develop a client-side BCF implementation that communicates with the server in order to create and list issues and their comments. Because of the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) API which is offered by the server, this has been a minimal effort. Therefore the main accomplishment, development wise, has been the integration of the various components in order to provide a cohesive communication platform to the stakeholders." Berlo, Page 328, section 4: "Lastly, the web based 3D viewing component, called BIM Surfer is used, that presents to the user an interactive view of their 3D BIM model. By re-using modular open source components, the total development time for the BCF dashboard has been reduced significantly.");
Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura and Berlo are analogous as they are from the field of building construction management.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straub-French modified by Jacobi and Imamura to send to a back-end platform the data set defining the coordination issue; and cause the back-end platform to send to the client station associated with the assignee a notification of the coordination issue as taught by Berlo.
The motivation to include Berlo is to avoid file based transmission approach providing new issues to the responsible party easily.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lynch (US Pat. 9256983) describes superimposing 2d inset with 3d scene with orientation.
Shakib et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20180144547) describes multiple navigational controls with 3d view.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights