Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-19 are directed to a machine; and claim 20 is directed to a process.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the at least one processor programmed to:
generate a 3D electronic model of at least part of a city, wherein the 3D electronic model comprises virtual electronic representations of a plurality of buildings including planned future construction of one or more buildings;
execute a virtual simulation on the 3D electronic model, the virtual simulation comprising at least one virtual weather event occurring within the city;
determine, based upon the virtual simulation, at least one potential risk associated with at least one building of the plurality of buildings; and
cause the 3D electronic model to be updated to include a representation of the at least one potential risk at a location associated with the at least one building.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass a mental process. That is, these limitations encompass evaluating a building, and judging and opining on risks to the building due to weather. Claims that encompass evaluation, judgment, and opinion fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the at least one processor programmed to:
generate a 3D electronic model of at least part of a city, wherein the 3D electronic model comprises virtual electronic representations of a plurality of buildings including planned future construction of one or more buildings;
execute a virtual simulation on the 3D electronic model, the virtual simulation comprising at least one virtual weather event occurring within the city;
determine, based upon the virtual simulation, at least one potential risk associated with at least one building of the plurality of buildings; and
cause the 3D electronic model to be updated to include a representation of the at least one potential risk at a location associated with the at least one building.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the processor, the memory, and the various claim elements being “virtual”, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers, see MPEP 2106.05(f)1.
Second, the additional elements of generating and updating a 3D electronic model, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., 3D modeling software) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claims 2 and 12 recite the additional elements of receiving the city and building data. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving data (e.g. receiving user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 recite the additional elements of training and using a machine learning model to perform the evaluation using historical data. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the training and use of machine learning is recited too broadly and generally to be more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Claims 5, 8, and 15 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because recommending risk mitigations and precautionary measures is a part of judging and evaluating building risks.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the additional elements of updating the 3D model. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., 3D modeling software) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 7 and 17 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because generating an alert is a part of judging and evaluating building risks (e.g., generate warnings of dangers).
Claims 7 and 17 further recite the additional elements of transmitting the alert. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 9, 10, 18 and 19 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because determining a weather event, as claimed, is a part of judging and evaluating building risks (e.g., selecting likely dangerous events).
Claims 9, 10, 18 and 19 further recite the additional elements of receiving the historical weather data from a sensor. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9-12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pearson et al, US Pub. No. 2022/0076490, herein referred to as “Pearson”.
Regarding claim 1, Pearson teaches:
at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the at least one processor programmed to (processor and memory, e.g., ¶¶[0007], [0011], [0099], [0100] and Fig. 18):
generate a 3D electronic model of at least part of a city, wherein the 3D electronic model comprises virtual electronic representations of a plurality of buildings including planned future construction of one or more buildings (generates 3D buildings models, e.g., ¶¶[0024], [0034], including the surrounding neighborhood, ¶¶[0033]-[0034], [0040]. Please note, Examiner finds the limitation of the buildings including planned future construction does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the model, see MPEP 2103.I.C. That is, the model being used as a blueprint for future construction does not limit the scope of the claim because it is only the model’s intended use. Additionally and alternatively, Examiner finds that the limitations specifying the buildings include planned future construction does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the buildings themselves do not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling the information in the model (e.g., as built or to be built) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05);
execute a virtual simulation on the 3D electronic model, the virtual simulation comprising at least one virtual weather event occurring within the city (modelling system simulates environmental risks including weather conditions, ¶¶[0051]-[0052] and Fig. 3);
determine, based upon the virtual simulation, at least one potential risk associated with at least one building of the plurality of buildings (indicated parts of the property that will be highly impacted by simulated risk, ¶¶[0053]-[0054] and Fig. 3);
and cause the 3D electronic model to be updated to include a representation of the at least one potential risk at a location associated with the at least one building (generates visualizations for the simulated risk that is show alongside the 3D model of the property, ¶¶[0054]-[0056] and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Pearson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive city data comprising building data associated with the plurality of buildings (receives building data, e.g., ¶¶[0031]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Pearson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: generate a risk alert associated with the at least one potential risk (generates visualizations for the simulated risk that is shown with the 3D model of the property, ¶¶[0041], [0053]-[0056] and Fig. 3);
and transmit the risk alert to a computing device associated with the city (display 3D model, e.g., ¶¶[0042], [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Pearson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
receive historical weather data associated with the city (receives historical data including weather, e.g., ¶[0037] and Fig. 1);
and determine the at least one virtual weather event for the virtual simulation based upon the historical weather data (determines risk based on historical data, ¶¶0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Pearson teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and further teaches:
wherein the historical weather data is generated at least in part by at least one sensor positioned within the city (obtains weather data from live feeds offered by various services (e.g., mapping services, natural disaster monitoring services, weather services), ¶[0037]).
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 17-20, claims 11, 12, and 17-20 recite similar limitations as claims 1, 2, 7, 9 and 10 and accordingly rejected for similar reasons.
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) 3, 4, 8, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Pourmohammad et al, US Pub. No. 2019/0138512, herein referred to as “Pourmohammad”.
Regarding claim 3, Pearson teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and does not teach but Pourmohammad does teach:
execute the virtual simulation by inputting the building data into a trained machine learning model; and determine the at least one potential risk based upon an output received from the trained machine learning model (RAP (risk analytics pipeline) uses machine learning to predict threats, e.g., ¶¶[0330], [0349], and analyze weather patterns in the area, ¶¶[0220]-[0221] and weather data, e.g., ¶¶[0331]-[0333]; see also ¶[0212] noting threats include damage).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the 3D modeling of buildings of Pearson with the machine learning of Pourmohammad because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the damage assessments of Pearson would likely be improved by incorporating machine learning, and modified Pearson to do so, e.g., as taught by Pourmohammad.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pearson and Pourmohammad teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and Pourmohammad further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to train an untrained model (trains machine learning model, ¶¶[0274]-[0276])
with at least historical weather data (analyzes weather patterns in the area, ¶¶[0220]-[0221] and weather data, e.g., ¶¶[0331]-[0333]),
and historical damage data associated with damage caused by historical weather events included in the historical weather data to generate the trained machine learning model (uses historical threat data, e.g., ¶¶[0007], [0230] and threats include damage, ¶[0212]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the 3D modeling of buildings of Pearson with the machine learning of Pourmohammad because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the damage assessments of Pearson would likely be improved by incorporating machine learning, and modified Pearson to do so, e.g., as taught by Pourmohammad.
Regarding claim 8, Pearson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Pourmohammad does teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate recommended precautionary measures for individuals in the city based upon the at least one potential risk (system issues warning or alerts to people (e.g., evacuate a building, take cover, move to a basement area, etc.), ¶[0359], in the building, ¶[0356]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the 3D modeling of buildings of Pearson with the warnings of Pourmohammad because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the damage assessments of Pearson would likely also be useful to provide warnings to people, and modified Pearson to do so, e.g., as taught by Pourmohammad.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, claims 13 and 14 recite similar limitations as claims 3 and 4 and accordingly rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Tohidi et al, US Pub. No. 2020/0155882, herein referred to as “Tohidi”.
Regarding claim 5, Pearson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Tohidi does teach:
generate a risk mitigation output comprising a recommended modification to one or more of the one or more buildings (suggests changing materials to defend against dangers, ¶[0213]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the 3D modeling of buildings of Pearson with the modifications of Tohidi because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Pearson would likely not only be interested in identifying risks but also interested in mitigating the risks and accordingly would have modified Pearson to do so, e.g., as in Tohidi.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pearson and Tohidi teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Pearson further teaches:
generate an updated 3D electronic model comprising a new virtual electronic representation of the one or more of the one or more buildings as including the recommended modification (updates display, e.g., ¶¶[0024], [0027], and display includes building materials, ¶¶[0049], [0070]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, claims 15 and 16 recite similar limitations as claims 5 and 6 and accordingly rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Amirebrahimi, Sam, et al. "A framework for a microscale flood damage assessment and visualization for a building using BIM–GIS integration." International Journal of Digital Earth 9.4 (2016): 363-386 teaches a similar 3D model of building risk assessment
Wani et al., US Pub. No. 2017/0169534 teaches a similar risk assessment but for earthquakes
Eldering et al., US Pat. No. 8,280,633 teaches a similar weather risk model
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Examiner notes the language of claims 1, 11 and 20 varies but does not find these differences significantly alter the eligibility analysis and so concurrently analyzes the claims here for the sake of brevity.
Prosecution Insights