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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 8, and 15 of Application No. 18429741. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S Patent No. 12229480 B1 (App. No. 18429741). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the setting conditions, processing result, and axes being generated and display, are not patentably distinct.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 (and similarly for Claims 8 and 15):
This Application
US Patent No. 12229480 B1 (claim 1 and similarly for Claims 8 and 15)
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
training, using at least one hardware processor, an artificial intelligence algorithm on a collection of 2D civil and architectural blueprint designs to enable the artificial intelligence algorithm to efficiently extract elements from the blueprint designs and map them into 3D data model objects;
training, using at least one hardware processor, an artificial intelligence algorithm on a collection of 2D civil and architectural blueprint designs to enable the artificial intelligence algorithm to efficiently extract elements from the blueprint designs and map them into 3D data model objects;
creating, using the at least one hardware processor, a 3D data model using the trained artificial intelligence algorithm, from an input collection of 2D blueprint designs, wherein the input collection of 2D blueprint designs includes at least two of an architectural plan, a land development site plan, or a re-zoning approval document;
creating, using the at least one hardware processor, a 3D data model using the trained artificial intelligence algorithm, from an input collection of 2D blueprint designs, wherein the input collection of 2D blueprint designs include an architectural plan, a land development site plan, and a re-zoning approval document;
creating, using the at least one hardware processor, a project database by adding metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs;
creating, using the at least one hardware processor, a project database by adding metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs that includes the architectural plan, the land development site plan, and the re-zoning approval document;
linking, using the at least one hardware processor, metadata stored in the project database to the model objects in the 3D data model;
generating a database of code rules and regulations;
performing, using the project database a compliance check to determine if the 3D data model complies with a database of code rules and regulations;
performing, using the project database and the database of code rules and regulations, a compliance check to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations;
and presenting, using the at least one hardware processor, results of the compliance check.
and presenting, using the at least one hardware processor, results of the compliance check.
Claims 2-4 (and similarly claims 9-11 and 16-18) of this Application map to Claims 2-4 (and similarly claims 9-11 and 16-18) of US Patent No. 12229480 B1
Claim 6:
This Application
US Patent No. 12229480 B1 (claim 1 and Claim 5)
The method of claim 1, further comprising linking, using the at least one hardware processor, metadata stored in the project database to the model objects in the 3D data model,
(from claim 1)
linking, using the at least one hardware processor, metadata stored in the project database to the model objects in the 3D data model;
wherein the metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs is compared against the database of code rules and regulations to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations.
(from claim 6)
The method of claim 1, wherein the metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs is compared against the database of code rules and regulations to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations.
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, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al., US PGPUB No. 20240111914 A1, hereinafter Fink, in view of Alves et al., US PGPUB No. 2020387788 A1, hereinafter Alves, and further in view of Murphy et al., US PGPUB No. 20220292240 A1, hereinafter Murphy.
Regarding claim 8, Fink discloses a system (Fink; apparatus/system [¶ 0156]; moreover, a computer device employed by the apparatuses and/or methods [¶ 0147, ¶ 0151, and ¶ 0153-0154], as illustrated within Fig. 13) comprising:
at least one hardware processor (Fink; apparatus/system [as addressed above] comprises at least one hardware processor [¶ 0156]); and
one or more software modules that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (Fink; apparatus/system [as addressed above] comprises one or more software modules that are configured to implement functions/acts when executed by the at least one hardware processor [¶ 0156-0158]):
using an artificial intelligence algorithm on a collection of 2D civil and architectural blueprint designs to enable the artificial intelligence algorithm to efficiently extract elements from the blueprint designs and map them into 3D data model objects (Fink; software modules [as addressed above] configured to using an AI algorithm on a collection of 2D civil and architectural blueprint designs [¶ 0033-0035 and ¶ 0044-0045] to enable the AI algorithm [¶ 0038-0039 and ¶ 0050] to efficiently extract elements from the blueprint designs [¶ 0046-0048] and map them into 3D data model objects [¶ 0051, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0059]; wherein, blueprints and/or information includes internal and external features corresponding to civil and architectural blueprints [¶ 0041]; moreover, operations for extraction of spatial information from construction plans (e.g. blueprints) [¶ 0071-0072]);
create a 3D data model using the trained artificial intelligence algorithm, from an input collection of 2D blueprint designs (Fink; software modules [as addressed above] configured to create a 3D data model using the trained artificial intelligence algorithm [¶ 0050-0051, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0059], from an input collection of 2D blueprint designs [¶ 0035 and ¶ 0045]; moreover, the blueprints and information are provided to a machine learning system, which then generates a digital model that integrates the specifications and information with the blueprints [¶ 0033-0034]; moreover, generating/converting blueprints and information into a digital model [¶ 0039-0041]);
create a project model by adding metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs (Fink; software modules [as addressed above] configured to create a project model by adding metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs [¶ 0093-0095 and ¶ 0103]).
Fink fails to disclose to: train an artificial intelligence algorithm;
create a project database;
generate a database of code rules and regulations;
perform, using the project database and the database of code rules and regulations, a compliance check to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations; and
present results of the compliance check.
However, Alves teaches training an artificial intelligence algorithm on a collection of blueprint designs to enable the artificial intelligence algorithm to efficiently extract elements from the blueprint designs (Alves; training an artificial intelligence algorithm on a collection of blueprint designs to enable the artificial intelligence algorithm to efficiently extract elements from the blueprint designs [¶ 0039-0041 and ¶ 0072-0073]).
Fink and Alves are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing data to a user through a graphical user interface, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a modeling effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Fink, to incorporate training an artificial intelligence algorithm on a collection of blueprint designs to enable the artificial intelligence algorithm to efficiently extract elements from the blueprint designs (as taught by Alves), in order to provide the processing of a large amount of data within a short period of time that allows a user identify desired information easily (Alves; [¶ 0003-0004 and ¶ 0027-0029]).
Fink as modified by Alves fails to disclose create a project database by adding metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs;
generate a database of code rules and regulations;
perform, using the project database and the database of code rules and regulations, a compliance check to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations; and
present results of the compliance check.
However, Murphy teaches to: create a project database by adding metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs (Murphy; create a project database by adding metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs [¶ 0045-0046 and ¶ 0059-0060]; moreover, controller running an AI engine corresponding to a project database [¶ 0084 and ¶ 0165-0167]);
generate a database of code rules and regulations (Murphy; generate a database of code rules and regulations [¶ 0075-0078]; moreover, controller running an AI engine corresponding to a database of code rules and regulations [¶ 0084 and ¶ 0165-0167]);
perform, using the project database and the database of code rules and regulations, a compliance check to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations (Murphy; perform a compliance check to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations using the project database and the database of code rules and regulations [¶ 0075-0079]; moreover, programmable apparatus operative to execute method steps useful in determining compliance with a design plan or other architectural description [¶ 0082-0084]); and
present results of the compliance check (Murphy; present results of the compliance check [¶ 0080-0081]).
Fink in view of Alves and Murphy are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing data to a user through a graphical user interface, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a modeling effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Fink as modified by Alves, to incorporate to: create a project database by adding metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs; generate a database of code rules and regulations; perform, using the project database and the database of code rules and regulations, a compliance check to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations; and present results of the compliance check (as taught by Murphy), in order to provide an improved process of analyzing building designs in a less time intensive manner and with a lower need for highly skilled personnel (Murphy; [¶ 0002-0005 and ¶ 0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Fink in view of Alves and Murphy further discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the 3D data model comprises a Building Information Modeling 3D data model (Alves; the 3D data model comprises a Building Information Modeling 3D data model [¶ 0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Fink as modified by Alves and Murphy, to incorporate the 3D data model comprises a Building Information Modeling 3D data model (as taught by Alves), in order to processes a large amount of data within a short period of time that allows a user identify desired information easily (Alves; [¶ 0003-0004 and ¶ 0027-0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Fink in view of Alves and Murphy further discloses the system of claim 8, the 3D data model (Fink; the 3D data [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Murphy further teaches wherein the results of the compliance check are presented in a graphical report showing which object of the data model is in compliance or non-compliance by referencing a location of the object and a relevant provision in the code or regulations (Murphy; the results of the compliance check [¶ 0075-0078] are presented in a graphical report showing which object of the data model is in compliance or non-compliance by referencing a location of the object and a relevant provision in the code or regulations [¶ 0079-0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Fink as modified by Alves and Murphy, to incorporate the results of the compliance check are presented in a graphical report showing which object of the data model is in compliance or non-compliance by referencing a location of the object and a relevant provision in the code or regulations (as taught by Murphy), in order to provide an improved process of analyzing building designs in a less time intensive manner and with a lower need for highly skilled personnel (Murphy; [¶ 0002-0005 and ¶ 0010]).
Regarding claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 is addressed within the rejection of claim 8, due to the similarities claim 1 and claim 8 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 8 regarding the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 2 is addressed within the rejection of claim 9, due to the similarities claim 2 and claim 9 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 9 regarding the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 5 is addressed within the rejection of claim 12, due to the similarities claim 5 and claim 12 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 12 regarding the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 15 is addressed within the rejection of claim 8, due to the similarities claim 15 and claim 8 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 8 regarding the rejection of claim 15; however, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 8 is/are addressed below.
Fink discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: preform (Fink; a non-transitory CRM having instructions stored therein when executed by a processor wherein the instructions cause the processor to: preform [¶ 0149 and ¶ 0152-0154]; moreover, computer program code [¶ 0155-0158]).
(further refer the rejection of claim 8)
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 16 is addressed within the rejection of claim 9, due to the similarities claim 16 and claim 9 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 9 regarding the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 19 is addressed within the rejection of claim 12, due to the similarities claim 19 and claim 12 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 12 regarding the rejection of claim 19.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of Alves and Murphy as applied to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Huebner, US PGPUB No. 20190354640 A1, hereinafter Huebner.
Regarding claim 10, Fink in view of Alves and Murphy further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the 3D data model comprises a Computer-Aided Design 3D data model (Fink; the 3D data model [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] comprises an implicit CAD 3D data model (given the that the model is a digital model that is generated using a computer algorithm) [¶ 0039-0040, ¶ 0050-0051, and ¶ 0147]; additionally, blueprints (that in-part makeup a 3D model) are formatted as a CAD file [¶ 0034 and ¶ 0036]).
Fink as modified by Alves and Murphy fails to explicitly disclose a Computer-Aided Design 3D data model.
However, Huebner teaches the 3D data model comprises a Computer-Aided Design 3D data model (Huebner; the 3D data model comprises a Computer-Aided Design 3D data model [¶ 0048], as illustrated within Fig. 3).
Fink in view of Alves and Murphy and Huebner are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing data to a user through a graphical user interface, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a modeling effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Fink as modified by Alves and Murphy, to incorporate the 3D data model comprises a Computer-Aided Design 3D data model (as taught by Huebner), in order to provide improved efficiency and accuracy of layout designs within a simulated environment (Huebner; [¶ 0032 and 0034-0036]).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 3 is addressed within the rejection of claim 10, due to the similarities claim 3 and claim 10 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 10 regarding the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 17 is addressed within the rejection of claim 10, due to the similarities claim 17 and claim 10 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 10 regarding the rejection of claim 17.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of Alves, Murphy as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Powles et al., US PGPUB No. 20220391627 A1, hereinafter Powles.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 4 is addressed within the rejection of claim 11, due to the similarities claim 4 and claim 11 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 11 regarding the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of Alves, Murphy, and Huebner as applied to claim(s) 10 and 17 above, and further in view of Powles.
Regarding claim 11, Fink in view of Alves, Murphy, and Huebner further discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the artificial intelligence algorithm (Fink; [¶ 0050 and ¶ 0070]).
Fink as modified by Alves, Murphy, and Huebner fails to disclose performs Mask R-CNN framework, Fully Convolutional Network (FCN), and/or Region of Interest Align (RolAlign) using Feature Pyramid Network (FPN) operations.
However, Powles teaches the artificial intelligence algorithm performs Mask R-CNN framework, Fully Convolutional Network (FCN), and/or Region of Interest Align (RolAlign) using Feature Pyramid Network (FPN) operations (Powles; the artificial intelligence algorithm [¶ 0046-0049] performs Mask R-CNN framework [¶ 0064]).
Fink in view of Alves, Murphy, and Huebner and Powles are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing data to a user through a graphical user interface, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a modeling effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Fink as modified by Alves, Murphy, and Huebner, to incorporate the 3D data model comprises a Computer-Aided Design 3D data model (as taught by Powles), in order to provide building estimates accurately within a timely manner (Powles; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 18 is addressed within the rejection of claim 11, due to the similarities claim 18 and claim 11 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 11 regarding the rejection of claim 18.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of Alves, Murphy, and Huebner as applied to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Connaughton et al., US PGPUB No. 20250005531 A1, hereinafter Connaughton.
Regarding claim 13, Fink in view of Alves and Murphy further discloses the system of claim 8, the metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs (Fink; the metadata (i.e. data, features) from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs [¶ 0033-0035]).
Fink as modified by Alves and Murphy fails to disclose the metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs is compared against the database of code rules and regulations to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations.
However, Connaughton teaches wherein the metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs is compared against the database of code rules and regulations to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations (Connaughton; the metadata/information from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs is compared against the database of code rules and regulations to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations [¶ 0031-0032 and ¶ 0041]; moreover, compliance analyzer [¶ 0006]).
Fink in view of Alves, and Murphy and Connaughton are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing data to a user through a graphical user interface, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a modeling effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Fink as modified by Alves, Murphy, to incorporate wherein the metadata from the input collection of 2D blueprint designs is compared against the database of code rules and regulations to determine if the 3D data model complies with the database of code rules and regulations (as taught by Connaughton), in order to improve project cost and timelines when providing building planning (Connaughton; [¶ 0015-0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Fink in view of Alves and Murphy and Connaughton further discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the database of code rules and regulations include objective, subjective, and dependent rules (Connaughton; the database of code rules and regulations [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] include objective, subjective, and dependent rules corresponding to various constraint types [¶ 0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Fink as modified by Alves, Murphy, and Connaughton, to incorporate the database of code rules and regulations include objective, subjective, and dependent rules (as taught by Connaughton), in order to improve project cost and timelines when providing building planning (Connaughton; [¶ 0015-0018]).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 6 is addressed within the rejection of claim 13, due to the similarities claim 6 and claim 13 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 13 regarding the rejection of claim 6; however, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 13 is/are addressed below.
Fink discloses the model objects in the 3D data model (Fink; the model objects [¶ 0046-0048] in the 3D data model [¶ 0051, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0059]).
Murphy further teaches the project database to the model objects in the 3D data model (Murphy; the project database to the model objects in the 3D data model [¶ 0075-0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Fink as modified by Alves and Murphy, to incorporate the project database to the model objects in the 3D data model (as taught by Murphy), in order to provide an improved process of analyzing building designs in a less time intensive manner and with a lower need for highly skilled personnel (Murphy; [¶ 0002-0005 and ¶ 0010]).
However, Connaughton teaches further comprising linking, using the at least one hardware processor, metadata stored in the project database to the model objects (Connaughton; linking metadata stored in the project database to the model objects [¶ 0031-0032] using the at least one hardware processor [¶ 0066-0067 and ¶ 0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Fink as modified by Alves, Murphy, and Connaughton, to incorporate linking, using the at least one hardware processor, metadata stored in the project database to the model objects (as taught by Connaughton), in order to improve project cost and timelines when providing building planning (Connaughton; [¶ 0015-0018]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 13)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 7 is addressed within the rejection of claim 14, due to the similarities claim 7 and claim 14 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 14 regarding the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 is addressed within the rejection of claim 13, due to the similarities claim 20 and claim 13 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 13 regarding the rejection of claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5: 00 PM, alternate Fridays EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights