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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment/response filed on 15 January 2026, which has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowksi, alone and in combination, fail to teach or suggest the claimed functionality in which a user annotates the perimeters of roof structures ‘on top of’ imagery … in Robichaud, the user may be creating the extrusion based on his or her memory and interpretation of the street-view image that was previously viewed, but the user is not making the annotations directly on top of the imagery at the place where the second roof structure actually abuts the side wall of the first building section” (Remarks, pg. 13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims recite annotating “on top of where the second roof structure abuts the side wall of the first building section as depicted in the first, second, or another image of the multi view imagery” (Claim 1). While Figs. 3D-3E of the current invention illustrate annotating the second roof structure directly on top of a second image, different from the first image, the claim allows for annotating the second roof structure directly on top of any of the first, second, or another image. In Robichaud, all of the annotations to the first and second portions of the building are made on top of one satellite view image of the multiview imagery; in Figs. 5-1 to 9-5, the same “first” image is used as a base visual reference for making all of the annotations. This teaches making the annotations on top of the first, second, or another image. As for the claimed “on top of where the second roof structure abuts the side wall of the first building section as depicted,” the satellite view image of Robichaud on top of which the annotations are made does depict where the second roof portion abuts the first building wall, and therefore the full limitation is taught by Robichaud.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that even a narrower claim that overcomes Robichaud may still be taught by the current combination of references. For example, if the claim is amended to require the second roof structure to be annotated on top of only a second image of the multiview imagery, different from the first image, this would overcome Robichaud’s use of the same satellite image for all annotations. However, Gontowski discloses making roof annotations in both first and second images of multiview imagery in order to benefit from the different perspectives for properly determining height (see citations below). Thus, merely narrowing the current claim to require “annotating, on top of … the
Any remaining arguments are considered moot based on the foregoing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
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.
Claims 18, 21, 24-27, and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the YouTube video by Dan Robichaud titled “Using Sketchup to make 3D buildings in Google Earth” (URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbHjIfgthYc; hereinafter referred to as “Robichaud”) in view of Ege (US 2014/0320488), and further in view of Gontowski et al. (US 2015/0199104; hereinafter “Gontowski”). Regarding the Robichaud reference, the Examiner previously referred to this video as “Sketchup” and relied on Applicant-submitted screenshots (dated 11 April 2025 in the application document list). In this Office Action, the Examiner cites a document (dated 16 October 2025 in the application document list) containing additional screenshots from the video; any screenshots cited below are contained in the newer document.
Regarding claim 18, Robichaud discloses A method for generating a geometric model of a building (“Using Sketchup to make 3D buildings,” title) based on multiview imagery (Image 3-1 shows a first viewpoint and Image 4-1 shows a second viewpoint), wherein the building comprises at least a first section covered by a first roof structure that is to be modeled as a substantially horizontal roof structure situated at a first height (Image 8-1 illustrates a first building section having a horizontal roof structure before a peaked roof is added; this demonstrates that the roof shape is user configurable, and a user can freely choose a horizontal, slanted, or peaked roof based on the real-world structure or based on user preferences), and a second section adjacent to the first section and covered by a second roof structure that abuts a side wall of the first building section and is to be modeled as a substantially horizontal roof structure situated at a second height lower than the first height (Image 9-5 illustrates a second building section adjacent to the first building section having a horizontal roof structure before a slanted roof is added; this demonstrates that the roof shape is user configurable, and a user can freely choose a horizontal, slanted, or peaked roof based on the real-world structure or based on user preferences), wherein the method comprises: establishing a three-dimensional coordinate space for the multi view imagery (Image 5-1 illustrates x, y, and z axes); displaying, through an annotation platform, the multiview imagery depicting the building from different points of view (see Images 3-1 to 4-1); and providing, through the annotation platform, functionality for a user to provide user input comprising instructions to: annotate, on top of a first image of the multi view imagery, a first perimeter that represents an outline of the first roof structure that is horizontal with respect to the established three-dimensional coordinate space (Images 5-1 to 5-3 illustrate a user designating corners of a rectangular outline matching the substantially horizontal roof structure of Image 8-1 prior to a peaked roof being added); define a volume of the first section of the building by extruding the first perimeter [from] a ground level (Images 7-1 to 7-2 illustrate extruding the first perimeter to form side walls); and annotate a second perimeter that represents an outline of the second roof structure that is horizontal with respect to the established three-dimensional coordinate space (Image 9-5 illustrates a second perimeter representing the second roof structure), wherein annotating the second perimeter comprises: annotating, on top of where the second roof structure abuts the side wall of the first building section as depicted in the first, second, or another image of the multi view imagery, a point on the side wall at a height that matches the height of the second roof structure (Images 9-1 to 9-3 illustrate a user selecting first and second vertices on a side face of the volume of the first section of the building at a height of the second roof structure, and the annotation is illustrated as occurring on top of the first image); and annotating, on top of the first, second, or another image of the multi view imagery, a remainder of the second perimeter (Image 9-5 illustrates an annotated second perimeter corresponding to the second roof structure including four horizontal corner vertices, and the annotation is illustrated as occurring on top of the first image).
Robichaud does not disclose extruding the first polygon to the ground level. This is because Robichaud illustrates annotating the perimeter at a ground level for the first building section and extruding upwards, and annotating vertices at the second height for the second building section and extruding outwards.
In the same art of 3D building modeling, Ege teaches extruding the first perimeter from the first height to the ground level (“the rooftop of a building has been determined then the walls are determined by dropping edges from each corner of the building to the base elevation of the terrain … the user refines this selection by dragging the points of the outline. This immediately affects the extracted building,” para. 69). Ege additionally teaches the claimed adjacent horizontal roof sections situated at different heights (see Fig. 9, image 903A, the small building has adjacent horizontal roof sections situated at different heights) and a common 3D coordinate space between different images of the multiview imagery (“correlation of image data to world coordinate data,” para. 25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Ege to Robichaud. The motivation would have been to “enable accurate recreation of real world settings in three-dimensional space using two-dimensional imagery” (Ege, para. 90). When the teachings of Ege are applied to Robichaud, the combination would render obvious first determining roof outlines in Robichaud then extruding the roof outlines to the ground, as taught by Ege. Note that while such functionality is not directly illustrated by Robichaud, the cited video does show a user drawing multiple polygons in various locations and extruding them in various directions, which shows that it would have been straightforward to generate a perimeter at a roof height, then extrude in a downward direction to the ground, subject to user preferences.
The combination of Robichaud and Ege does not disclose adjust, on top of a second image of the multi view imagery, a height of the first perimeter to match the height of the first roof structure.
In the same art of 3D building modeling, Gontowski teaches adjust, on top of a second image of the multi view imagery, a height of the first perimeter to match the height of the first roof structure (“trace the sections of their roof on the first view,” para. 76; “Dragging the points to the correct position in the second view provides the value for the points for that third dimension,” para. 78).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Gontowski to the combination of Robichaud and Ege. The motivation would have been that it “increases the accuracy of the three dimensional model” (Gontowski, para. 81).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski renders obvious automatically define a volume of the second section of the building by extruding the second perimeter down to the same ground level to which the first perimeter was extruded (“if the rooftop of a building has been determined then the walls are determined by dropping edges from each corner of the building to the base elevation of the terrain,” Ege, para. 69; see claim 18 for motivation to combine; Image 9-5 of Robichaud and Fig. 9 of Ege illustrate a common ground level for multiple building sections).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski renders obvious wherein each section of the building is covered by a roof structure that is substantially horizontal (Images 8-1 and 9-5 of Robichaud illustrate horizontal roof structures for each section of the building before a user chooses to add a pitched roof, meaning the shape of the roof is user configurable; Fig. 9 of Ege, in image 903A, illustrates a small building with substantially horizontal roof geometry for multiple sections having different heights; see claim 18 for motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski renders obvious wherein at least one of the sections of the building is covered by a roof structure that has pitched roof geometry (Image 4-1 of Robichaud illustrates a real-world building having pitched roof geometry), and wherein said roof structure is to be modeled as a substantially horizontal roof structure that is situated at a height that matches a base of the pitched roof geometry (Images 8-1 and 9-5 of Robichaud illustrate horizontal roof geometry for sections of the real-world building, prior to a user choosing to add pitched roof geometry; as discussed earlier, a user could easily choose to simply stop there and not add the pitched roof geometry).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski renders obvious wherein the first and second images comprise a stereoscopic pair (“identifies the aspect in each of the correlated images by applying a stereo algorithm to cross-correlate the rooftop,” Ege, para. 64; see claim 18 for motivation to combine)
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski renders obvious wherein the first image is captured from an overhead point of view, and the second image is captured from an oblique point of view (see Images 3-1 and 4-1 of Robichaud).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claims 32-35, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 24-27, respectively.
Regarding claim 36, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 21.
Claims 22, 23, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski, and further in view of Milbert et al. (US 2019/0088032; hereinafter “Milbert”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski does not disclose define, during annotation one of the perimeters, a reference edge belonging to one of the perimeters; and impose a constraint that a subsequent edge of the perimeter must be parallel or perpendicular to the reference edge, with respect to the three-dimensional coordinate space.
In the same art of building/roof modeling, Milbert teaches define, during annotation one of the perimeters, a reference edge belonging to one of the perimeters; and impose a constraint that a subsequent edge of the perimeter must be parallel or perpendicular to the reference edge, with respect to the three-dimensional coordinate space (“By default, guides are horizontal or vertical, but an analyst may adjust the angle of the guides to reflect the dominant angles of the structure. Guides are useful for drawing parallel lines and square corners,” para. 85).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Milbert to the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski. The motivation would have been to “facilitate generating accurate and aesthetically pleasing roof reports” (Milbert, para. 85).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski does not disclose impose a constraint, during annotation of one of the perimeters, that the orientation of each edge of the perimeter must be parallel or perpendicular to each other edge of the perimeter, with respect to the three-dimensional coordinate space.
In the same art of building/roof modeling, Milbert teaches impose a constraint, during annotation of one of the perimeters, that the orientation of each edge of the perimeter must be parallel or perpendicular to each other edge of the perimeter, with respect to the three-dimensional coordinate space (“By default, guides are horizontal or vertical, but an analyst may adjust the angle of the guides to reflect the dominant angles of the structure. Guides are useful for drawing parallel lines and square corners,” para. 85).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Milbert to the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski. The motivation would have been to “facilitate generating accurate and aesthetically pleasing roof reports” (Milbert, para. 85).
Regarding claim 37, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 22.
Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski, and further in view of Pershing et al. (US 2020/0355496; hereinafter “Pershing”).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski does not disclose displaying, through the annotation platform, a two-dimensional building footprint that represents the building projected into the three-dimensional coordinate space, to assist the user to identify the building among a group of buildings.
In the same art of 3D building modeling, Pershing teaches displaying, through the annotation platform, a two-dimensional building footprint that represents the building projected into the three-dimensional coordinate space, to assist the user to identify the building among a group of buildings (“in FIG. 2C, an example model planar ground surface 217 in the shape of the footprint of a different example building is overlaid on the different example building shown in image 207,” para. 86; “The shape of the building footprint may be determined initially by the system as the shape of the outside perimeter of a top down view,” para. 99).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Pershing to the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski. The motivation would have been that the building model “can be more accurately assessed” (Pershing, para. 112).
Regarding claim 38, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 28.
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski, and further in view of Copley et al. (US 2022/0318936; hereinafter “Copley”).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski does not disclose accessing legal land parcel data for the building; determining that the first section of the building and the second section of the building occupy distinct legal land parcels; and attributing the first and second sections of the building as belonging to separate legal land parcels.
In the same art of building modeling, Copley teaches accessing legal land parcel data for the building (“parcel identifiers pertaining to parcels suitable for inclusion with a corresponding reference parcel for a project/site,” para. 42); determining that the first section of the building and the second section of the building occupy distinct legal land parcels; and attributing the first and second sections of the building as belonging to separate legal land parcels (“multi-parcel development,” para. 82; numeral 297D of Fig. 9 and numeral 122B of Fig. 14 illustrate buildings having different height sections corresponding to distinct land parcels).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Copley to the combination of Robichaud, Ege, and Gontowski. The motivation would have been for “efficient machine-assisted development” (Copley, para. 127).
Regarding claim 39, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 29.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611