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 .
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 07/11/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,553 B2 and unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,841,832 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters claimed in the instant application can also found in patent ‘553 and ‘832.
In claim 1 of instant application, Applicant claims “A computer implemented method comprising: extracting first data from a first version of a computer design model, the first data comprising a first space element corresponding to real-world items, and the computer design model includes a plurality of space elements; extracting second data from a second version of the computer design model, the second data comprising a second space element; performing a comparison between the first data with the second data by comparing a first space code of the first space element, the first space code that includes an identifier of the first space element to a second space code of the second space element that includes an identifier of the second space element and by comparing the first space element to the second space element using layer mapping, the layer mapping including grouping layer types; and updating at least one of the first data using at least a portion of the second data to generate updated first data or the second data using at least a portion of the first data to generate updated second data”.
Similar limitations can also find in ‘553 and ‘832. Certain limitation found in claim 1 of ‘553 and ‘832 but not in claim 1 of instant application such as “first graphic”, “receiving an indication to start a data synchronization between a first version of a computer design model stored on a device or extracted from a file stored on the device and a second version of the computer design model stored on a database of a management platform, the database being remote with respect to the device…generating a geospatial representation using at least one of the updated second data or the updated first data”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to broaden the claims at no additional cost in development.
The following is the comparison table of claim 1 in instant application and ‘553 and ‘832.
Instant application ‘301 Patent ‘553 Patent ‘832
A computer implemented method comprising:
A computer implemented method comprising:
A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving an indication to start a data synchronization between a first version of a computer design model stored on a device or extracted from a file stored on the device and a second version of the computer design model stored on a database of a management platform, the database being remote with respect to the device;
extracting first data from a first version of a computer design model, the first data comprising a first space element corresponding to real-world items, and the computer design model includes a plurality of space elements;
extracting first data from a first version of a computer design model, the first data
comprising first graphics and one or more first space elements corresponding to real-world items;
extracting first data from the first version of the computer design model, the first data comprising first graphics and one or more first space elements corresponding to real-world items;
extracting second data from a second version of the computer design model, the second data comprising a second space element;
extracting second data from a second version of the computer design model, the second data comprising second graphics and one or more second space elements;
extracting second data from the second version of the computer design model, the second data comprising second graphics and one or more second space elements;
performing a comparison between the first data with the second data by comparing a first space code of the first space element, the first space code that includes an identifier of the first space element to a second space code of the second space element that includes an identifier of the second space element and by comparing the first space element to the second space element using layer mapping, the layer mapping including grouping layer types;
performing a comparison between the first data with the second data by comparing first space codes of the first graphics comprising identifiers of the first graphics to second space codes of the second graphics comprising identifiers of the second graphics and by comparing the one or more first space elements to the one or more second space elements using layer mapping, the layer mapping including grouping layer types; and
performing a comparison between the first data with the second data by comparing first space codes of the first graphics comprising identifiers of the first graphics to second space codes of the second graphics comprising identifiers of the second graphics and by comparing the one or more
first space elements to the one or more second space elements using layer mapping, the layer mapping grouping layer types for extracting components from the one or more first space elements corresponding to the one or more second space elements of a respective layer;
and updating at least one of the first data using at least a portion of the second data to generate updated first data or the second data using at least a portion of the first data to generate updated second data.
updating at least one of the first data using at least a portion of the second data to
generate updated first data or the second data using at least a portion of the first data to generate updated second data.
based on the comparison, updating at least one of the first data using at least a portion of the second data to generate updated first data or the second data using at least a portion of the first data to generate updated second data; and
generating a geospatial representation using at least one of the updated second data or the updated first data.
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 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1 - 20 are directed to a "method, system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium", and therefore, directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The independent claims 1, 8, 15 includes the following limitations that directed to an abstract idea:
“extracting first data from a first version of a computer design model, the first data comprising a first space element corresponding to real-world items, and the computer design model includes a plurality of space elements”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or observation. A user can mentally observation/evaluation the first version of a CAD and identify the codes/name/identifiers. This is also consistent with the specification as in Para. 0037 of the Disclosure, where one can mentally perform examine the item presentation to the user and identify the graphics and data elements. See Federal Circuit case law (such as Dialect, LLC v. Amazon) establishes that "understanding language using context" or "comprehending meaning and indicating results" falls into the Mental Processes category of abstract ideas.
“extracting second data from a second version of the computer design model, the second data comprising a second space element”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or observation. A user can mentally judge/evaluation the first version of a CAD and identify the codes/name/identifiers. This is also consistent with the specification as in Para. 0037 of the Disclosure, where one can mentally perform examine the item presentation to the user and identify the graphics and data elements. See Federal Circuit case law (such as Dialect, LLC v. Amazon) establishes that "understanding language using context" or "comprehending meaning and indicating results" falls into the Mental Processes category of abstract ideas.
“performing a comparison between the first data with the second data by comparing a first space code of the first space element, the first space code that includes an identifier of the first space element to a second space code of the second space element that includes an identifier of the second space element and by comparing the first space element to the second space element using layer mapping, the layer mapping including grouping layer types”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. The limitations are directed to the observation and analysis (comparing) of already collected data (a first space code of the first space element and a second space code of the second space element) to determine the different. One can mentally observe and evaluate two data to identify the different. This is also consistent with the specification as in paragraphs 0014 describing this purely as operations that identify the different between two data.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“updating at least one of the first data using at least a portion of the second data to generate updated first data or the second data using at least a portion of the first data to generate updated second data” which are insignificant extra solution activities as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as obtain information (the different between two data) for "updating”, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Receiving information, analyzing it to determine the different, and updating its version is fundamentally a mental process, even when done on a computer. Generating, processing, and outputting data using standard computer architecture falls under abstract data manipulation.
The system includes one or more processor, memory having instruction, which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The additional limitations, individually or in combination, do not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In this case, the "updating …" are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II),' "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); "computer-implemented", and performed by "one or more processors", a system includes memory storing instruction coupled to a processor, are considered insignificant extra- solution activity, and do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. See MPEP - 2106.05(g) ("whether the limitation is significant").
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not providing significantly more than the
judicial exception. Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and
therefore, the claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims 2 includes “receiving an indication …wherein the modification is one or more of a modification to an attribute corresponding to the computer design model, an addition of an attribute corresponding to the computer design model, a removal of an attribute corresponding to the computer design model, an addition of a geospatial area to the computer design model, or the removal of an existing geospatial area from the computer design model, wherein updating the first data using at least the portion of the second data comprises updating the first data to reflect the modification to the second version of the computer design model”, as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Merely instructing a computer to "extract intent utilizing an LLM" or applying it broadly to a specific business field (such as "genealogy online systems") is insufficient. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality, can be performed by human mind, which is a form of metal activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The dependent claims 3 includes “wherein the attribute comprises one or more of: an identification of a geospatial area; a location of a geospatial area; one or more shapes that describe bounds of a geospatial area; a type of geospatial area; a size of a geospatial area; a size or size range of a type of geospatial area; a capacity of a geospatial area; or a capacity or capacity range of a type of geospatial area.” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Merely instructing a computer to "extract intent utilizing an LLM" or applying it broadly to a specific business field (such as "genealogy online systems") is insufficient. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality, can be performed by human mind, which is a form of metal activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The dependent claims 4 - 5 includes “generating a geospatial representation using at least one of the updated second data or the updated first data; identifying one or more other computer design models associated with the computer design model; extracting data from the one or more other computer design models; based on the data from the one or more other computer design models and the second data, determining that the second version of the computer design model and the one or more other computer design models share at least one attribute corresponding to the modification to the second version of the computer design model; and based on the modification to the second version of the computer design model, updating the at least one attribute and the one or more other computer design models.”, which are insignificant extra solution activities as they are known computer functions. Merely automating known mental processes or business practices (like keeping genealogical records) on a computer does not make it patentable. Using generic "function engines" and "databases" to execute processes is considered routine, conventional computer activity.
The dependent claims 6 - 8 includes “wherein comparing the first data with the second data comprises: identifying a conflict between the first data and the second data; and determining that the conflict should be resolved in favor of the second data, wherein updating the first data using at least the portion of the second data comprises updating the first data using a portion of the second data corresponding to the conflict”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. Merely automating known mental processes or business practices (like keeping genealogical records) on a computer does not make it patentable. Using generic "function engines" and "databases" to execute processes is considered routine, conventional computer activity.
The dependent claims 9 - 12 includes “wherein generating the response comprises automatically executing the genealogy online system function utilizing the function engine”, as drafted, recites a mentally process as an evaluation or judgement. Merely automating known mental processes or business practices (like keeping genealogical records) on a computer does not make it patentable. Using generic "function engines" and "databases" to execute processes is considered routine, conventional computer activity.
The dependent claims 13 - 15 includes
The dependent claims 16 - 18 includes
Claims 8 - 20, Applicant claims the abstract idea on a system, a non-transitory computer readable medium, with processors and instructions to carry-out the method as in claim 1, without adding further limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to “receiving …extracting… determining… and generating response" do not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are not patent eligible.
The Following are some closest arts:
Ho et al (US 20220171892 A1) discloses a teaching of “the processor determines whether the region has a missing or extra space code, space name, or space type. If there is a missing or extra space code, space name, or space type, then at 425 the processor modifies the version of the CAD document to 1) supply a missing space code, space name, or space type, 2) remove an extra missing information, supply a missing space code, space name, or space type, or 3) both” (Para. 0060, 0063 – 0064, 0066).
Parker et al (US 20220092225 A1) discloses “the audit module 114 can generate a signal for a detected deficiency in response to determining that a data type for a space name linked to a layer, e.g., among CAD layers 112, is missing a value for the space code. The audit module 114 can determine that the layer corresponds to a room of a floorplan and generate a recommendation for updating the value of the space code” (Para. 0042).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM LINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571- 272- 4024. 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.
/CAM LINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights