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
The Amendment filed on 11/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-10 are directed to a method, claims 11-19 are directed to media and claim 20 is directed to a system. Therefore, the claims are eligible under Step 1 for being directed to a process, a manufacture and a machine respectively.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recite:
automatically generating designs for floor spaces - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and generating designs for floor spaces based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper;
generating a first logic formula based on a first statement of a first design intent and at least one fuzzy geometric predicate - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses a mathematical concept of a mathematical relationship of a first logic formula based on a first statement of a first design intent and at least one fuzzy geometric predicate by organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations to generate a logic formula.
computing, for a first spatial object, a first plurality of desirability values for a first plurality of candidate placements within a first design based on the first logic formula - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses a mathematical concept of a mathematical calculation of calculating using mathematical methods to determine desirability values for candidate placements;
selecting a first candidate placement from the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first plurality of desirability values - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper; and
generating a second design based on the first design, wherein the first spatial object has the first candidate placement within the second design - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and generating design based on a different design based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claims 2 and 12 recite:
generating an arithmetic expression based on the first logic formula and the first design - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses a mathematical concept of a mathematical relationship of the first logic formula and the first design by organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations to generate an arithmetic expression; and
evaluating the arithmetic expression for the first candidate placement to compute a first desirability value included in the first plurality of desirability values - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses a mathematical concept of a mathematical calculation of computing a desirability value by evaluating the arithmetic expression.
Dependent claim 3 recites:
performing one or more comparison operations on the first plurality of desirability values to determine a greatest desirability value included in the first plurality of desirability values - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses a mathematical concept of a mathematical relationship by comparing values to determine a greatest desirability value; and
determining that the greatest desirability value corresponds to the first candidate placement - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claims 4 and 14:
further comprising generating the first plurality of candidate placements such that the first spatial object does not overlap any spatial object already included in the first design - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and generating the first plurality of candidate placements such that the first spatial object does not overlap any spatial object already included in the first design based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claims 5 and 15:
generating the first statement of the first design intent based on the first user event - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and generating the first statement based on the first user event based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 6:
generating a third design based on the first design, wherein the third design reflects the second statement of the second design intent - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and generating a design based on another design based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 7:
further comprising generating the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first design and one or more design constraints - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and generating plurality of candidate placements based on the first design and one or more design constraints based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claims 8 and 18:
generating a third design based on the first design and a placement sequence for a plurality of unplaced spatial objects, wherein the placement sequence for the plurality of unplaced spatial objects differs from another placement sequence for the plurality of unplaced spatial objects that is associated with the second design - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and generating data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 10:
computing, for a second spatial object, a second plurality of desirability values for a second plurality of candidate placements within the second design based on the first logic formula - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses a mathematical concept of a mathematical calculation of calculating using mathematical methods to determine desirability values for candidate placements;
selecting a second candidate placement from the second plurality of candidate placements based on the second plurality of desirability values - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper; and
generating a third design based on the second design, wherein the second spatial object has the second candidate placement within the third design - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and generating design based on a different design based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 16:
generating the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first design and at least one of a requirement that spatial objects cannot overlap, a required clearance, or an alignment requirement - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and generating candidate placements based on a design and a requirement based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 17:
wherein the at least one fuzzy geometric predicate comprises a function that maps a set of placements of spatial objects to a truth value that correlates to an associated degree of satisfaction - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses a mathematical concept of a mathematical relationship of a function, a set of placements of spatial objects and a truth value by organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations to generate a fuzzy geometric predicate.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20:
one or more non-transitory computer readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to automatically generate designs for floor spaces - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
A system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories that, when executing the instructions, perform - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
wherein the first candidate placement specifies at least one of a position or an orientation of a center of a bounding box associated with the first spatial object within the first design - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 5 and 15:
displaying an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) element within a GUI - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to insignificant application, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
receiving, via the GUI, a first user event corresponding to a first interaction between a user and the interactive GUI element - the steps recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, receiving interaction between a user and the interactive GUI element is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and
Dependent claim 6:
receiving, via the GUI, a second user event corresponding to a second interaction between the user and the interactive GUI element - the steps recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, receiving interaction between a user and the interactive GUI element is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
modifying the first statement of the first design intent based on the second user event to generate a second statement of a second design intent - the steps recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data modifying which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 9:
storing design intent data in a memory, wherein the design intent data comprises at least one of the first statement of the first design intent or the first logic formula - the steps recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data storing which is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 13:
wherein the first statement of the first design intent comprises a natural language statement about one or more spatial relations between spatial objects having one or more types - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 19:
transmitting design intent data to at least one software application, wherein the design intent data comprises at least one of the first statement of the first design intent or the first logic formula - the steps recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transittion which is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements:
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20:
one or more non-transitory computer readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to automatically generate designs for floor spaces - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
A system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories that, when executing the instructions, perform - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
wherein the first candidate placement specifies at least one of a position or an orientation of a center of a bounding box associated with the first spatial object within the first design - viewed individually or in combination, describes selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated similar to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display described in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 5 and 15:
displaying an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) element within a GUI - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to presenting offers and gathering statistics described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
receiving, via the GUI, a first user event corresponding to a first interaction between a user and the interactive GUI element - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claim 6:
receiving, via the GUI, a second user event corresponding to a second interaction between the user and the interactive GUI element - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II);
modifying the first statement of the first design intent based on the second user event to generate a second statement of a second design intent - viewed individually or in combination, describes mere data gathering similar to Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 described in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 9:
storing design intent data in a memory, wherein the design intent data comprises at least one of the first statement of the first design intent or the first logic formula - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to Storing and retrieving information in memory described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II);
Dependent claim 13:
wherein the first statement of the first design intent comprises a natural language statement about one or more spatial relations between spatial objects having one or more types - viewed individually or in combination, describes selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated similar to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display described in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 19:
transmitting design intent data to at least one software application, wherein the design intent data comprises at least one of the first statement of the first design intent or the first logic formula - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claims are ineligible.
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 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (hereinafter Wen and this reference is included on the IDS filed 08/18/2023), "Optimization of a user-involved floor layout recommendation system at the operation stage", in view of Gadelkarim et al. (hereinafter Gadelkarim), US 5768479 A, further in view of Badar et al. (hereinafter Badar), US 20140298278 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Wen teaches a computer-implemented method for automatically generating designs for floor spaces (Abstract, page 385, This paper describes how a parametric-model-based recommendation system is developed for an interior floor layout optimization problem which supports user involvement in different aspects of the process. The system connects the design objectives and the user preferences to propose customized space layouts in the operation stage of buildings, and one of the feasible relaxations of this design study is to substantially generalize it as a multi-objective optimization problem; page 388, 3.2 Research Objectives, the study aims at developing a system that is capable to find the space planning layout of a building that fits the characteristics of the new functions so as to best re-allocate the floor plan according to the customer’s definition of specific needs), the method comprising:
generating a first logic formula based on a first statement of a first design intent and at least one fuzzy geometric predicate (page 387, Figure 1; 2.2 Decision-Making in Multi-Objective Question, In terms of deciding the objective function (i.e. a first logic formula), fuzzy logic (i.e. fuzzy geometric predicate) is taken into consideration because it is commonly employed as a control rule to decide the degree of output membership … fuzzy logic is a practical parameter configuration method as it could form a mono-objective function through convex combinations effortlessly; page 388, 3.2 The core algorithm aims at achieving the best coupling between the inputs of requirement and preferences from customers (i.e. a first statement of a first design intent) and the physical comfort of the building; page 389 Concerning the user-involving input: On the starting stage, the customers are asked to define the priority class of every function. Then the requirements of each function could be given either quantitatively or qualitatively; page 397 The optimization procedure recommends the plans that best suffice the optimal user requirements comprehensively, of which the assessment is made based on fuzzy logic for quantitative features and situation-wise scoring dictionaries for descriptive items);
computing, for a first spatial object, a first plurality of desirability values for a first plurality of candidate placements within a first design based on the first logic formula (page 390 As illustrated in Figure 2, the plan optimization system starts with calculating the decision thresholds, and then screens the eligible spaces for each function … In the plan generation part, the system will allocate the functions to the interior spaces with respect to the specific screening results; page 391 In the optimization part, the sufficiency of pairs of functions and spaces are calculated by fuzzy logic, which linearly calculates how much percent the space feature fits the optimal scope of the corresponding function; page 394-395 In Figure 6, three visualizations of the plan recommendations after Priority B are illustrated; page 396 Table 2 presents the scores of five recommended plans after the final iteration of the optimization system).
Wen does not explicitly disclose selecting a first candidate placement from the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first plurality of desirability values, wherein the first candidate placement specifies at least one of a position or an orientation of a center of a bounding box associated with the first spatial object within the first design; and generating a second design based on the first design, wherein the first spatial object has the first candidate placement within the second design.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gadelkarim teaches
selecting a first candidate placement from the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first plurality of desirability values (Col 2, lines 65-67 and Col 3, lines 1-15 Broadly, the present invention provides a method for improving the similarity of the positioning of circuit elements in a physical layout with regard to the positioning of those same circuit elements in a template. The circuit elements' placement is incrementally improved by attaching a cost to each placement, with a lower cost reflecting a better match between circuit element placement in the physical layout and the template. Fuzzy logic concepts are employed in this application to determine the cost of a given layout. Accordingly, in one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for improving layout efficiency for integrated circuits. Initially, a first and second circuit element are selected from the several circuit elements of which the design consists. Next, differentials between the first and second circuit elements' placement are computed for both the layout and the template. These differentials are compared to arrive at a placement cost for the physical layout placement of the second circuit element with respect to the first circuit element); and
generating a second design based on the first design, wherein the first spatial object has the first candidate placement within the second design (Col 3, lines 15-25 A different second circuit element is then selected from the remaining possible circuit elements and the above steps are repeated. These remaining (unselected) circuit elements may represent the entire set of circuit elements, or just the circuit elements in the immediate neighborhood surrounding the first circuit element. Once all possible circuit elements have been analyzed with respect to the current first circuit element, a new circuit element is selected as the (current) first circuit element, and the process repeated. This continues until all circuit elements have been selected as the first circuit element).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of an automated template-driven layout methodology that creates a physical integrated circuit layout which approximates a specified template as closely as practicably possible as suggested in Gadelkarim into Wen’s system because both of these systems are addressing computer aided design (CAD) tools used for design and development of design layout. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for a layout technique which creates a physical layout accurately reflecting the arrangement of elements on a given template (Col 2, lines 51-54).
The combination of Wen and Gadelkarim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first candidate placement specifies at least one of a position or an orientation of a center of a bounding box associated with the first spatial object within the first design.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Badar teaches wherein the first candidate placement specifies at least one of a position or an orientation of a center of a bounding box associated with the first spatial object within the first design ([0033] The placement information may for example include location information including one or more sets of coordinates and an orientation (e.g., vertical or horizontal in a Cartesian layout). The coordinates may be relative to the boundary input, or relative to a larger layout. The orientation is based on the aspect ratio of the object, i.e., the object has a length which is greater than its width and the orientation corresponds to the length direction; [0034] Computer system 20 generates a layout abstract based on the placement information and displays the layout abstract 72 as a graphical image on a display device of computer system 20 for visual inspection by the designer. The circuit elements selected for placement are located within the boundary according to the assigned physical information. This image can be used to verify satisfactory placement of the selected subset of circuit elements, or to further fine tune the location data if desired. A schematic abstract may be used to create the layout abstract. The schematic abstract is basically a list of the selected objects with their corresponding physical information, embodying a logical representation of the elements selected for placement. The schematic abstract may also be displayed for designer reference. In the illustrative embodiment the schematic and layout abstract are not the full design, they represent only the elements in the HLDL file that have been assigned location information).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of the placement information including location information including one or more sets of coordinates and an orientation as suggested in Badar into Wen and Gadelkarim’s system because both of these systems are addressing computer aided design (CAD) tools used for design and development of design layout. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for an improved method for circuit design which could increase circuit performance, design efficiency and reduce time to completion for physical synthesis (Badar, [0017]).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. Gadelkarim further teaches
wherein selecting the first candidate placement comprises:
performing one or more comparison operations on the first plurality of desirability values to determine a greatest desirability value included in the first plurality of desirability values (Fig. 3; Col 5, lines 27-44 At step 310, the cost of the current physical placement is determined. Cost, in this sense, indicates the degree to which the designer's objective have been met. The higher the cost, the less satisfactory is the given physical layout, in terms of the design criteria. This step is further described in FIGS. 6 and 7. The new cost is then compared to the cost of the previous placement at step 320. The cost of the previous placement is initialized to an arbitrarily high cost for the first iteration to ensure that the initial placement is accepted (as no previous placement exists for the first iteration). If the new cost is less than the previous cost, the new placement is accepted at step 330. If the new cost is not less than the old cost, the process continues to step 340, where the cost of the new layout is normalized. At step 350, a random value is generated. Steps 340 and 350 are performed to avoid local minima. Once the random value is generated, the process determines whether the random value is less than the normalized cost of the new layout at step 360.); and
determining that the greatest desirability value corresponds to the first candidate placement (Col 5, lines 45-46 If the random value is less than the normalized cost, the new placement is accepted at step 330).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. Gadelkarim further teaches further comprising generating the first plurality of candidate placements such that the first spatial object does not overlap any spatial object already included in the first design (Col 11, lines 36-61 FIG. 10 illustrates an analysis which may be performed to determine the relative position of one component with respect to another component. This process begins at step 1000 by determining whether the two components in question overlap in the direction currently being analyzed. If the components being analyzed do overlap, the process proceeds to step 1010, where the amount that the two components overlap each other in the given direction is calculated. At step 1020, this overlap is translated into a relative position value in the range of -1 to 1 (exclusive). If the components do not overlap, the process proceeds to step 1030, where it is determined whether the first component is to the right of the second component. If this is the case, the process proceeds to step 1040 where the relative position value is set to -1. If the first component is not to the right of the second component (i.e., the first component is to the left of the second component), the relative position value is then assigned a value of 1 (step 1050). Likewise, if the components' relative positions are being analyzed in the Y direction, the decision at step 1030 will be analyzed in terms of whether the first component is below the second component. Again, if this is the case, a value of -1 will be returned at step 1040. If this is not the case (i.e., the first component is above the second component), a value of 1 will be returned at step 1050. If overlap exists, the relative position value will be assigned a value, as in steps 1010 and 1020).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. Gadelkarim further teaches further comprising generating the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first design and one or more design constraints (Col 4, lines 55-67 and Col 5, lines 1-8 The method of the present invention provides an automatic placement technique which provides a template-driven physical placement by adding template-driven placement to an iteration-based placement technique such as simulated annealing. For exemplary purposes only, a simulated annealing optimization technique is described herein as a framework within which to discuss the present invention. This template-driven placement is achieved by adding a new term to the cost function of the iterative technique that penalizes a lack in resemblance between the template and the design's physical layout. This cost is computed using a fuzzy logic-based function. The technique may also support placement criteria such as area, aspect ratio, wire length and other layout constraints. Because the goal of such an optimization process is minimization of the overall cost of the physical layout, the process attempts to minimize the weighted sum of the different terms including the template-to-layout scores (i.e., costs). Thus, the final outcome tends to make the layout topology (or relative placement) match that of the template as much as possible, in light of the given design constraints).
Regarding dependent claim 8, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. Gadelkarim further teaches further comprising generating a third design based on the first design and a placement sequence for a plurality of unplaced spatial objects, wherein the placement sequence for the plurality of unplaced spatial objects differs from another placement sequence for the plurality of unplaced spatial objects that is associated with the second design (Col 6, lines 22-38 A better solution, and a preferred embodiment according to the present invention is to choose only a subset of the remaining components when defining a component's position. Using this method, only the components within a given neighborhood of each component in the template are chosen. The particular components chosen as neighbors may vary depending on the circuit's topology and the neighborhood's radius. The neighborhood's radius is defined in terms of the number of neighbors encountered when proceeding out from the neighborhood's center (the position of the given component) to the edge of the neighborhood. Thus, the components closest to the given component are examined first. However, because components are not usually positioned in a uniform, regular fashion, the definition may be simplified to cover only major directions (e.g., above, below, left and right)).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. Gadelkarim teaches further comprising:
computing, for a second spatial object, a second plurality of desirability values for a second plurality of candidate placements within the second design based on the first logic formula (Col 3, lines 8-17 Initially, a first and second circuit element are selected from the several circuit elements of which the design consists. Next, differentials between the first and second circuit elements' placement are computed for both the layout and the template. These differentials are compared to arrive at a placement cost for the physical layout placement of the second circuit element with respect to the first circuit element. A different second circuit element is then selected from the remaining possible circuit elements and the above steps are repeated);
selecting a second candidate placement from the second plurality of candidate placements based on the second plurality of desirability values (Col 3, lines 8-17 Initially, a first and second circuit element are selected from the several circuit elements of which the design consists. Next, differentials between the first and second circuit elements' placement are computed for both the layout and the template. These differentials are compared to arrive at a placement cost for the physical layout placement of the second circuit element with respect to the first circuit element. A different second circuit element is then selected from the remaining possible circuit elements and the above steps are repeated); and
generating a third design based on the second design, wherein the second spatial object has the second candidate placement within the third design (Col 3, lines 18-25 These remaining (unselected) circuit elements may represent the entire set of circuit elements, or just the circuit elements in the immediate neighborhood surrounding the first circuit element. Once all possible circuit elements have been analyzed with respect to the current first circuit element, a new circuit element is selected as the (current) first circuit element, and the process repeated. This continues until all circuit elements have been selected as the first circuit element).
Regarding independent claim 11, it is a media claim that corresponding to the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. Gadelkarim further teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1 (Col 4, lines 32-35 The method and technique of the present invention is implemented within a CAD environment and typically resides on a storage medium inside a computer workstation having engineering design capabilities; Fig. 2; Col 4, lines 35-49 FIG. 2 shows a typical example of a computer workstation which houses various CAD modules such as circuit simulation and layout tools and the like … Cabinet 204 also houses familiar computer components (not shown) such as a processor, memory, and various support network elements that execute CAD modules).
Regarding dependent claim 14, it is a media claim that corresponding to the method of claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above.
Regarding dependent claim 16, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 that is incorporated. Gadelkarim further teaches further comprising generating the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first design and at least one of a requirement that spatial objects cannot overlap, a required clearance, or an alignment requirement (Col 11, lines 62-67 and col 12, lines 1-2 Another concern of analog designers is ensuring that certain components are aligned along an axis parallel to, for example, the X or Y axis. This is based on so-called device alignment requirements. Alignment requirements may be added to the cost function of the exemplary simulated annealing program in the form of an RMS distance from the average X or Y position of the group of devices in question, thus forming an axis parallel to the X or Y axis).
Regarding dependent claim 17, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 that is incorporated. Gadelkarim further teaches further comprising generating the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first design and at least one of a requirement that spatial objects cannot overlap, a required clearance, or an alignment requirement (Col 9, lines 35-43 Fuzzy functions are used to translate the R values for the X and Y directions into fuzzy variables. The fuzzy variables representing a component's relative position may be defined using any number of elements. In a preferred embodiment, the values are translated into fuzzy variables consisting of triplets. Using the X direction with triplet fuzzy variables as an example, the function reflects the degree of confidence (i.e., fuzziness) with which it can be said that one device is to the left, right or overlaps the other device).
Regarding dependent claim 18, it is a media claim that corresponding to the method of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 8 above.
Regarding independent claim 20, it is a system claim that corresponding to the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. Gadelkarim further teaches A system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories that, when executing the instructions, perform the steps of claim 1 (Fig. 2; Col 4, lines 35-49 FIG. 2 shows a typical example of a computer workstation which houses various CAD modules such as circuit simulation and layout tools and the like … Cabinet 204 also houses familiar computer components (not shown) such as a processor, memory, and various support network elements that execute CAD modules).
Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen, in view of Gadelkarim, in view of Badar as applied in claims 1 and 11, further in view of IORIO et al. (hereinafter IORIO), US 20150324493 A1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. The combination of Wen and Gadelkarim does not explicitly disclose wherein computing the first plurality of desirability values comprises: generating an arithmetic expression based on the first logic formula and the first design; and evaluating the arithmetic expression for the first candidate placement to compute a first desirability value included in the first plurality of desirability values.
However, in the same field of endeavor, IORIO teaches
wherein computing the first plurality of desirability values comprises:
generating an arithmetic expression based on the first logic formula and the first design ([0048] In general, each predefined syntax/sentence structure for a problem statement may specify a set of one or more required fixed terms and a set of one or more user-selectable terms, as well as the position and order of the fixed terms and the user-selectable terms within the problem statement. In particular, the syntax/sentence structure may specify the user-selectable terms by specifying particular types of user-selectable terms. Thus, a syntax structure may precisely specify the position and order of fixed terms and one or more types of user-selectable terms within the problem statement. A term may comprise a word, number value, or math operator; Fig. 4; [0052] FIG. 4 illustrates a flow diagram of method steps for generating a design solution for a design problem statement, according to one embodiment of the present invention; [0059] At step 460, the CNL engine 150 produces an executable job description based on the design problem model. The executable job description may comprise a set of executable commands or scripts that when executed by a design engine 160, produce a design solution for the design problem statement. Executable job descriptions may comprise objective functions, constraints, and boundary conditions. An objective function comprises a design variable to be minimized/maximized. A constraint may comprise allowed ranges for other design variables. A boundary conditions may comprise forces or other mechanical quantities applied on the design. In general, objective statements may be translated into objective functions (e.g., minimize (MechQuantity)), constraint statements may be translated into constraints (e.g., GeomQuantity<50), and function statements and environment object statements may be translated into boundary conditions (e.g., ForceApplied=Object.MechQuantity). These example expressions may be expressed in a programming language used to communicate to the design engine 160. Examiner note: A term may comprise a word, number value, or math operator. The problem statement comprises user-selectable terms. An executable job description (i.e. an arithmetic expression) based on the design problem model is generated); and
evaluating the arithmetic expression for the first candidate placement to compute a first desirability value included in the first plurality of desirability values ([0099] In some embodiments, the graphical user interface may graphically represent an object with a node 905 comprising a graphic illustration. In the example of FIG. 9, the graphic illustration for a node comprises a conventional circle. In other embodiments, the graphic illustration for a node may comprise any other illustration (as shown in the example of FIG. 11). The graphical user interface may display the nodes in positions in the graphical user interface so as to indicate relative spatial positions (i.e. desirability values) between the objects that are represented by the nodes. For example, the “door” node is placed above the “ground” node in the graphical user interface; [0101] The graphical user interface may also display text 915 that identifies names of the objects represented by the nodes. In the example of FIG. 9, the shaded node represents a “door” object and the unshaded node represents a “ground” object. The graphical user interface may also display text 915 for a numerical value associated with a relationship. In the example of FIG. 9, the spatial relationship between the “door” object and the “ground” object is “0.75 in.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of generating a design solution for a design problem statement, producing an executable job description based on the design problem model and computing relative spatial positions between objects as suggested in IORIO into Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar’s system because both of these systems are addressing developing solutions to design problems. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for more effective techniques for developing solutions to design problems using CAD systems (IORIO, [0007]).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. The combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar does not explicitly disclose
displaying an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) element within a GUI;
receiving, via the GUI, a first user event corresponding to a first interaction between a user and the interactive GUI element; and
generating the first statement of the first design intent based on the first user event.
However, in the same field of endeavor, IORIO teaches
displaying an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) element within a GUI ([0070] As shown in FIG. 6, the CNL user interface 600 may comprise several interactive sections and selectable buttons, including a lexicon section 605, term input section 620, “generate” button 630, candidate problem statements (CPS) section 640, and a “select” button 650; [0071] The lexicon section 605 may display different types of user-selectable terms 610 (e.g., Object 610a, Function 610b, Objective Function 610c, etc.));
receiving, via the GUI, a first user event corresponding to a first interaction between a user and the interactive GUI element ([0070] The CNL user interface 600 may receive input or and selections from a user/designer through various ways, such as speech or typed input; [0072] The term input section 620 may receive as input a set of one or more user-selectable terms from the user and display the received user-selectable terms. For example, the user may “drag and drop” user-selectable terms displayed in the lexicon section 605 into the term input section 620 (by selecting a term in the lexicon section 605 and dragging and dropping the term into the term input section 620 using a mouse or touchscreen)); and
generating the first statement of the first design intent based on the first user event ([0073] After inputting one or more user-selectable terms into the term input section 620 and the user is satisfied with the received terms, the user selects the “generate” button 630 which activates the CNL user interface 600 to generate a set of one or more candidate problem statements that are displayed in the CPS section 640. The CNL user interface 600 may generate the set of candidate problem statements based on the received user-selectable terms and the syntax structures defined by the CNL and stored to the syntax database 200. For example, the CNL user interface 600 may compare the received user-selectable terms with the CNL syntax structures to generate the set of candidate problem statements).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of a CNL user interface which comprises several interactive sections for users to generate problem statements as suggested in IORIO into Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar’s system because both of these systems are addressing developing solutions to design problems. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for more effective techniques for developing solutions to design problems using CAD systems (IORIO, [0007]).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim, Badar and IORIO teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 that is incorporated. IORIO further teaches
receiving, via the GUI, a second user event corresponding to a second interaction between the user and the interactive GUI element ([0092] If the user is unsatisfied with the displayed visualization of the design problem statement, the user may directly modify the graphical representation via the graphical user interface);
modifying the first statement of the first design intent based on the second user event to generate a second statement of a second design intent ([0092] Any modifications to the graphical representation will modify the design problem statement accordingly (via modification of the design problem model)); and
generating a third design based on the first design, wherein the third design reflects the second statement of the second design intent ([0092] If the user is satisfied with the displayed visualization of the design problem statement, the intended design problem statement/model is then converted to an executable job description).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. The combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar does not explicitly disclose further comprising storing design intent data in a memory, wherein the design intent data comprises at least one of the first statement of the first design intent or the first logic formula.
However, in the same field of endeavor, IORIO teaches storing design intent data in a memory, wherein the design intent data comprises at least one of the first statement of the first design intent or the first logic formula ([0062] In sum, a UI engine on a computing device 110 is configured to receive a design problem statement from a user/designer that describes a design problem. The design problem statement comprises a set of problem statements. The problem statements are expressed in a CNL that specifies lexicons and syntax structures permitted for the problem statements. The lexicons are stored on a lexicon database 300 and the syntax structures are stored on a syntax database 200).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of organizing and storing syntax/sentence structures permitted for problem statements in a database as suggested in IORIO into Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar’s system because both of these systems are addressing developing solutions to design problems. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for more effective techniques for developing solutions to design problems using CAD systems (IORIO, [0007]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, it is a media claim that corresponding to the method of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above.
Regarding dependent claim 13, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 that is incorporated. The combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar does not explicitly disclose wherein the first statement of the first design intent comprises a natural language statement about one or more spatial relations between spatial objects having one or more types.
However, in the same field of endeavor, IORIO teaches
wherein the first statement of the first design intent comprises a natural language statement about one or more spatial relations between spatial objects having one or more types ([0038] The design problem statement comprises a set of one or more problem statements that specify the goals and intent of a design problem. The design problem statement may reflect the designer's definition of the design problem. In some embodiments, the problem statements are expressed using a controlled natural language (CNL) described herein).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of using a controlled natural language for the problem statements as suggested in IORIO into Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar’s system because both of these systems are addressing developing solutions to design problems. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for more effective techniques for developing solutions to design problems using CAD systems (IORIO, [0007]).
Regarding dependent claim 15, it is a media claim that corresponding to the method of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 5 above.
Regarding dependent claim 19, the combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 that is incorporated. The combination of Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar does not explicitly disclose further comprising transmitting design intent data to at least one software application, wherein the design intent data comprises at least one of the first statement of the first design intent or the first logic formula.
However, in the same field of endeavor, IORIO teaches transmitting design intent data to at least one software application, wherein the design intent data comprises at least one of the first statement of the first design intent or the first logic formula ([0060] At step 470, the design engine 160 executes the executable job description to produce a design solution. The design solution comprises a solution for a design problem that is specified in the design problem statement. The design engine 160 may comprise a design application, such as a computer-aided design (CAD) application, computer-aided engineering (CAE) application, simulator application, modeler application, geometry generator application, or the like).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of using a design application to produce a design solution specified in the design problem statement as suggested in IORIO into Wen, Gadelkarim and Badar’s system because both of these systems are addressing developing solutions to design problems. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for more effective techniques for developing solutions to design problems using CAD systems (IORIO, [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
(1) Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, Applicant alleges the amended claims recite the specific steps of computing, for a first spatial object, a first plurality of desirability values for a first plurality of candidate placements within a first design based on the first logic formula, selecting a first candidate placement from the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first plurality of desirability values, wherein the first candidate placement specifies at least one of a position or an orientation of a center of a bounding box associated with the first spatial object within the first design, and generating a second design based on the first design, wherein the first spatial object has the first candidate placement within the second design. These steps quite clearly require the use of a computing device executing computer-aided design software to perform the computer- aided techniques for automatically generating designs that reflect design intents. Therefore, these steps cannot occur entirely in one's mind or using pen/paper. Accordingly, the amended claims are not directed towards mental processes. Applicant further alleges the amended claims do not recite any mathematical relations, formulas, or calculations and the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.
As to point (1), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that encompasses mental processes including evaluations or observations that are practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper or a mathematical concept of a mathematical relationship. The claims place no limits on how the mental steps are performed. The claims recite “automatically generating designs for floor spaces; selecting a first candidate placement from the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first plurality of desirability values; generating a second design based on the first design, wherein the first spatial object has the first candidate placement within the second design”. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claims encompass a mathematical concept of a mathematical calculation of calculating using mathematical methods in generating a first logic formula based on a first statement of a first design intent and at least one fuzzy geometric predicate and computing, for a first spatial object, a first plurality of desirability values for a first plurality of candidate placements within a first design based on the first logic formula. One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The consideration of whether the claim as a whole includes an improvement to a computer or to a technological field requires an evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. While the claims recite automatically generating designs that reflect design intents; generating a first logic formula based on a first statement of a first design intent and at least one fuzzy geometric predicate; computing, for a first spatial object, a first plurality of desirability values for a first plurality of candidate placements within a first design based on the first logic formula; selecting a first candidate placement from the first plurality of candidate placements based on the first plurality of desirability values; generating a second design based on the first design, wherein the first spatial object has the first candidate placement within the second design, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea rather than to any technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Any purported improvements are provided by the judicial exception alone, i.e. mathematical calculations/relationships, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims are patent ineligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as detailed in the rejections set forth above.
(2) Applicant’s prior art arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by amendment presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
COLLE et al. (US 20170109136 A1) discloses automatically generating an expression used to affect a user interface of an application.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AMY P HOANG whose telephone number is (469)295-9134. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:30-5:00PM.
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, JENNIFER WELCH can be reached at 571-272-7212. 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.
/AMY P HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2143
/JENNIFER N WELCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights