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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/19/2026 has been entered. As directed, claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-13, and 18-19
have been amended, claim 9 has been canceled, no claim has been added. Thus claims 1-8, and 10-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
…
Applicant submits that the amended claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least two reasons based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("2019 Guidance"). See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106(I) 9th Ed Rev 10.2019, Last Revised Jun. 2020).
First, according to the 2019 Guidance, for a claim to be an abstract idea, the claim must recite limitations that incorporate mathematical concepts or constitute mental processes or certain methods or techniques of organizing human activity. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite any limitations falling within any of these enumerated groupings.
In that regard, the amended claims do not recite any mathematical relations, formulas, or calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The amended claims also do not recite any methods or techniques for organizing human activities, such as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or personal behaviors or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the amended claims are not directed towards mental processes. The Memorandum to technology centers 2100, 2600, and 3600 dated August 4, 2025, entitled Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (herein the "August Memo") "provides important reminders pertaining to the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO's) subject matter eligibility guidance," including "reliance on the mental process grouping of abstract ideas." The August Memo indicates that "[t]he mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." In that vein, the August Memo also states that "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance, when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)." See also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Specifically, the amended claims recite the specific step of receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with a first component, and modifying the shared design model comprising an arrangement of a set of components within a 3D grid, each component in the set of components being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates, by generating a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates that define the first component and placing the first set of voxels within the updated shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates. These steps quite clearly require the use of a computing device and do not constitute steps that can be performed in a human mind or using pen/paper. In particular, a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations cannot be conducted without use of a computing device. In addition, modifying the shared design model in the manner recited in the claimed approach is computationally intensive and cannot be performed without use of a computing device.
Because none of the limitations recited in the amended claims are directed towards any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas, the amended claims cannot be properly interpreted as being abstract.
(see Response filed 03/19/2026 [pages 11-12]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagree that the amended claims are not directed towards mental processes.
As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III): Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Regarding claim limitations of “… only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add the first component and any other component included in the first plurality of different types of pre-defined components to the shared design model; in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model based on the first input to generate an updated shared design model,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Please refer to the current Office action for the detailed analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101, Step 2A, Prong One.
The recited “during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations” merely describes the environment in which the abstract idea is performed. The limitations do not change the nature of claimed operations, which include evaluating permissions, determining whether an action is allowed, and modifying a shared design.
Therefore, the claim limitation is a “mental process”, similar to the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A, Prong One is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
Second, the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.
In Ex Parte Desjardins, the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board explained that "[o]n the one hand, claims '[g]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use' are not patent eligible.... On the other, claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field are patent eligible." See Ex Parte Desjardins, Decision on Request for Rehearing at 7-8 (emphasis added); see also Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 4-5 ("[i]n computer-related technologies, examiners can conclude that claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception . .. [t]his consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem"); MPEP § 2106.04(d) ("[l]imitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: [a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field"). Applicant submits that the amended claims meet this standard.
In that regard, the amended claims provide improvements to technology, rather than generally linking a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In particular, the claimed approach is directed towards the practical application of enabling real-time collaboration of participants distributed across different locations to collectively generate and synchronize an updated shared design model comprising a set of pre-defined components that are defined as simplified voxel-based components in the updated shared design model. Through this practical application, the claimed approach imparts the technological improvement of allowing participants across different locations and possibly lacking design expertise to easily contribute to the shared design model through inputs relating to the set of pre-defined components of the shared design model. In this manner, the contributions of all participants in the collaboration of the shared design model can be used to update the shared design model, each updated shared design model being synchronized to all participants in the collaboration in real-time. See Application, paragraphs [0007] and [0112] - [0114]; see also Ex Parte Desjardins at 8-9 (where the Panel cites various advantages expressly described in the Specification to support patent eligibility); Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 4 ("[t]he examiner is reminded to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, and evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement").
In addition, these limitations place substantive and meaningful limits on the scope of the claims and similarly place substantive and meaningful limits on any purported abstract idea, thereby integrating any purported abstract idea into the practical application of generated computer-aided designs. See MPEP at § 2106.04(d) ("[a] claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception"); see also MPEP at § 2106.04(d)(I), citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that recite specifically limited steps or elements that effect a technological improvement or useful result are not abstract).
As the foregoing illustrates, any purported abstract idea recited in the amended claims is integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible.
Because the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, and because the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application, the present claims are subject-matter eligible under Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance.
(see Response filed 03/19/2026 [pages 12-14]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees that “the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.”
In order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” In other words, the specification should describe the claimed improvement over the background invention or existing technology, and the claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements (emphasis added) by specifying how the improvement perform the additional element different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
However, the additional elements of “receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with a first component from a set of pre-defined components associated with a shared design model, wherein the first component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, wherein the first persona is associated with a first plurality of different types of pre-defined components including a first type that includes the first component” and “causing the updated shared design model to be synchronized with at least one other participant in the plurality of participants included in the real-time collaboration session via the network,” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering and outputting (i.e., data transmitting via network), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). In particular, the additional limitation “during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations” merely describes the environment in which the abstract idea is performed. The recited real-time collaboration, network connectivity, and geographic distribution do not specify how the claimed inputs are received, how the shared design model is technically modified, or how synchronization is technically achieved. Instead, these features merely invoke generic computer networking and multiple user interaction to collect, transmit, and synchronize data, does not improve the functioning of computer or network, or to other technology or technical field.
Further, the additional elements of “… generate an updated shared design model comprising an arrangement of a set of components within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each component in the set of components being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates, wherein modifying the shared design model to generate the updated shared design model comprises adding the first component within the modified shared design model by generating a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates that define the first component and placing the first set of voxels within the updated shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In particular, the limitations merely recite representing a selected design component as voxel and coordinate data and placing that data within a three-dimensional design model. The limitations do not recite any specific manner of generating the voxel and the 3D coordinates, updating a spatial data structure, rendering the model, or improving the operation of the computer. Rather, the limitations merely state result of adding a component to a 3D design model using generic voxel and coordinate data. Therefore, this additional limitations merely use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea (i.e., mental process) and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Alternatively, these limitation merely limit the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a computer-aided three-dimensional design modeling environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The recitation of an arrangement of components within a 3D grid, voxels, and 3D coordinates links the abstract mental process to a 3D design modeling context, but does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, voxel processing, coordinate transformation, spatial modeling , rendering, memory management, or network synchronization. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f): “Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology."
In McRO, the claims recited specific rules for animation automation that improved the technological process of automated lip synchronization by replacing subjective human judgement with particularized objective rules, thereby improving computer animation technology. In contrast, the claimed limitations merely recite generic computer functions without reciting any specific technical rules, algorithms, or non-conventional processing techniques that improve computer functionality or any other technical field. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites the workstations, network, shared design model, 3D grid, voxels, 3D coordinates, and synchronization at a high level of generality and uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive information, represent a component as generic 3D model data, update the shared design model, and synchronize the updated data. The claim does not recite any specific technical implementation, unconventional arrangement of computer components, particular voxel and coordinate generation technique, particular synchronization technique. Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, merely apply the judicial exception using conventional computing components and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Accordingly, Independent claims 1, 11, and 18, and the claims dependent thereon, are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
The Federal Circuit has ruled in numerous cases that claims directed towards technological solutions to technological problems are not abstract under the two-step Alice test. Applicant submits that the amended claims are similarly directed towards a technological solution to a technological problem.
In that regard, the present Application makes clear that a technical problem that existed in the prior art prior to the development of the claimed approach was that a conventional design application required an experienced designer with a deep understanding of the design framework to generate and modify a problem specification (design model) for a design project. In addition, a conventional design application is not configured to enable a collaborative design process for participants distributed across different locations and does not allow multiple stakeholders of a design project to contribute to the problem specification (design model) for the design project. As a result, the design solutions that are generated based on the problem specification (design model) often do not balance or reflect the differing requirements and goals of all stakeholders in the design project. See Application, paragraphs [0002] - [0004] and [0024].
The present Application also makes clear that one of the technical advantages of the claimed approach is that the claimed approach allows participants lacking design expertise to easily contribute to the shared design model through inputs relating to a set of pre-defined components represented as simplified voxel-based components of the shared design model. In this manner, the contributions of all stakeholders/participants in the collaboration of the shared design model can be used to generate and update the shared design model. In addition, the claimed approach allows multiple stakeholders/participants distributed across different locations to simultaneously collaborate on the shared design model, each update to the shared design model being synchronized to all stakeholders/participants in the collaboration in real-time via a network. See Application, paragraphs [0007], [0023] - [0025], and [0112] - [0114]. Thus, among other things, the claimed approach solves the above technical problem that existed in the prior art.
Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under the legal rule set forth in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that recite specifically limited steps or elements that effect a technological improvement or useful result are not abstract), under the legal rule set forth in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed towards a technological improvement are not abstract), and the legal rule set forth in Weisner v. Google LLC, No. 2021-2228 (Fed. Cir. 2022) and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed towards a technical solution to a technical problem necessarily recite more than an abstract idea).
(see Response filed 03/19/2026 [pages 14-16]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees that “the claimed approach solves the above technical problem that existed in the prior art.” As discussed above, the claim recites the workstations, network, shared design model, 3D grid, voxels, 3D coordinates, and synchronization at a high level of generality and uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive information, represent a component as generic 3D model data, update the shared design model, and synchronize the updated data. The claim does not recite any specific technical implementation, unconventional arrangement of computer components, particular voxel and coordinate generation technique, particular synchronization technique.
The applicant cited several cases; however, these cases are not applicable because each case involves claims that recited specific, technical improvements to computer functionality, data structures, memory architecture, user interface navigation, security mechanisms, or network operation. In contrast, the instant claims do not recite any specific algorithm, data structure, network operation or configuration, computer architecture that improves how the computer itself operates, but instead merely use computing components to receiving and modifying model within a computer-aided three-dimensional design modeling environment, and synchronizing design data or information via network,, which are generic computer functions.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental process), are not integrated judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 18 have been considered but are moot
because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, the current Office Action no longer relies on Beaver to teach the argued persona based component type permission limitation. Rather, amended claims 1, 11 and 18 are rejected over De Biswas in view of Cera and Loop. De Biswas teaches the shared collaborative 3D design model, including components/sub-components associated with the shared design model. Cera teaches role/persona based control in a collaborative CAD environment, including associating roles with components, sub-assemblies, or security features, and controlling modeling/write permissions based on those roles. The newly applied reference Loop (US20150022521A1) teaches the voxel-based 3D grid and coordinate implementation. Therefore, the combination of teachings Biswas in view of Cera and Loop teach or suggest the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 18. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 11 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 17 of copending Application No. 17/718,185 in view of Cera (“Role-based viewing envelopes for information protection in collaborative modeling,” published in 2003).
Claim 1 of Benjamin ‘185 teaches all of the limitations of the instant claim 1, except “the first component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, wherein the first persona is associated with a first plurality of different types of pre-defined components including a first type that includes the first component and only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add the first component and any other component included in the first plurality of different types of pre-defined components to the shared design model” Benjamin ‘185 in view of Cera teaches “the first component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, wherein the first persona is associated with a first plurality of different types of pre-defined components including a first type that includes the first component and only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add the first component and any other component included in the first plurality of different types of pre-defined components to the shared design model.” (see Cera, Abstract, “This paper provides a framework for IA within collaborative design. It is based on a technique we call role-based viewing, which is achieved through integration of multi-resolution geometry and security models … In FACADE, groups of users work in a shared 3D modeling environment in which each user’s viewing and modeling privileges are managed by a central access control mechanism. ” Page.874, left column, “The access control framework presented in this paper provides a specification for actors(users), roles, and their authorized permissions on objects … Each of these regions, whether a point, a patch, a component, or a sub-assembly, is related with a set of roles.” Page.874, right column “ An assembly model consists of a set of component parts, possibly grouped into sub-assemblies … The collaborative CAD server manages access rights for the users, controlling what they see on their client workstations and what modeling operations are possible.” page.877, left column, par.5-6, “Roles, R = {r0; r1; …; rm}; are abstract objects that define both the specific users allowed to access resources and the extent to which the resources are accessed. The engineers (designers, process engineers, project supervisors, etc.) correspond to a set of actors A = {a0; a1;…;an}; each of which will be assigned to a set of roles.” Page.877, right column, “Such security features can correspond to assembly features, mating features, or other function-based features of M. The Model–Role Assignment can then be simplified to be the relation associating security features with roles: MR # SF £ R (Fig. 4) … Portions of b(M) not assigned to these roles, however, are ‘off limits’ to actor a3.” Page.878, left column, “Each cell of the access matrix distinguishes between read and write authorizations. It is reasonable to assume that write permission of a feature is exclusively given to a single role.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjamin ‘185 to incorporate the teachings of Cera, and apply a role-based access control framework in which users are assigned to roles, components or security features of a shared 3D model are associated with roles, and write/modeling permission for a component or security feature is restricted to a user assign to the corresponding role in order to control which participants are permitted to perform modeling operations on particular components of the shared design model, to protect sensitive design information, and to prevent unauthorized modification of components in a multi-user collaborative design environment.
Instant application of claims 11 and 18 recite substantially the same elements as instant application of claim 1, and are provisionally rejected for the same reasons by Co-pending application of claims 11 and 17 in view of Cera.
Instant Application 17/696,340
Co-pending Application 17/718,185
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a design model shared between multiple participants, the method comprising:
receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with a first component from a set of pre-defined components associated with a shared design model, wherein the first component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, wherein the first persona is associated with a first plurality of different types of pre-defined components including a first type that includes the first component and only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add the first component and any other component included in the first plurality of different types of pre-defined components to the shared design model;
in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model based on the first input to generate an updated shared design model comprising an arrangement of a set of components within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each component in the set of components being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates, wherein modifying the shared design model to generate the updated shared design model comprises adding the first component within the modified shared design model by generating a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates that define the first component and placing the first set of voxels within the updated shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates; and
causing the updated shared design model to be synchronized with at least one other participant in the plurality of participants included in the real-time collaboration session via the network.
Examiner note: although the claims are not identical in wording, the difference do not render the claims patentably distinct. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited components, block items, voxels, and 3D coordinate limitations are directed to corresponding 3D model elements used to define and place model content within a shared design model. Further, the co-pending application already recites a real-time collaboration session involving multiple participants, network connected workstations, and shared design model. Therefore, causing the updated/modified shared design model to be synchronized with another participant via the network would have been an obvious and predictable implementation for maintaining a shared model in the recited real-time collaborative environment. Accordingly, claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from the claim 1 of the co-pending application.
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a multi-objective model shared between multiple participants, the method comprising:
receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with placing a first selectable component within a shared design model,
wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with the shared design model; the first selectable component is of a first component type that only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model; and each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals that the shared design model represents in a multi-objective design problem;
in response to receiving the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each block item in the set of block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the block item, including generating a first block item defined by a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a first set of vertices of the first block item and placing the first block item within the modified shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model; and
generating, based on the modified shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, wherein each candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions includes additional selectable components of a second component type from the set of pre-defined selectable components, including generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model, each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item.
Examiner note: “Bold and Italic” indicate different or additional elements between the co-pending application and the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019, as well as subsequent USPTO eligibility guidance updates, and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-8 and 10 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, Claims 11-17 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and fall within the statutory category of manufacture;
Yes, Claim 18-20 is directed to system and falls within the statutory category of machine.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “… only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add the first component and any other component included in the first plurality of different types of pre-defined components to the shared design model,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of recognizing, based on the association between the first persona and the plurality of different types of pre-defined components includes the first component in the first type, that the participant is permitted to add the first component and any other component included in the plurality of different types of pre-defined components to the shared design model. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1: The limitations of, “in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model based on the first input to generate an updated shared design model …” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, after recognizing that a proposed design change has been confirmed, a persona is capable of considering the proposed design change and revising the shared design model to include the change for generating an updated version of the shared design model. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A Prong 1.
Claims 11 and 18 recites the similar elements as claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 18 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 11 and 18: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate a design model shared between multiple participants by performing the steps of” and “A system for generating a design model shared between multiple participants, the system comprising: a memory storing a generative design application; and a processor coupled to the memory that executes the generative design application by performing the steps of:” which are merely recitations of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitation “receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with a first component from a set of pre-defined components associated with a shared design model, wherein the first component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, wherein the first persona is associated with a first plurality of different types of pre-defined components including a first type that includes the first component” and “causing the updated shared design model to be synchronized with at least one other participant in the plurality of participants included in the real-time collaboration session via the network,” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering and outputting (i.e., data transmitting via network), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
In particular, the additional limitation “during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations” merely describes the environment in which the abstract idea is performed. The recited real-time collaboration, network connectivity, and geographic distribution do not specify how the claimed inputs are received, how the shared design model is technically modified, or how synchronization is technically achieved. Instead, these features merely invoke generic computer networking and multiple user interaction to collect, transmit, and synchronize data, does not improve the functioning of computer or network, or to other technology or technical field.
Further, the following additional element – “… generate an updated shared design model comprising an arrangement of a set of components within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each component in the set of components being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates, wherein modifying the shared design model to generate the updated shared design model comprises adding the first component within the modified shared design model by generating a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates that define the first component and placing the first set of voxels within the updated shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In particular, the limitations merely recite representing a selected design component as voxel and coordinate data and placing that data within a three-dimensional design model. The limitations do not recite any specific manner of generating the voxel and the 3D coordinates, updating a spatial data structure, rendering the model, or improving the operation of the computer. Rather, the limitations merely state result of adding a component to a 3D design model using generic voxel and coordinate data. Therefore, this additional limitations merely use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea (i.e., mental process) and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Alternatively, the limitation merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a computer-aided three-dimensional design modeling environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The recitation of an arrangement of components within a 3D grid, voxels, and 3D coordinates limits the abstract mental process to a 3D design modeling context, but does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, voxel processing, coordinate transformation, spatial modeling , rendering, memory management, or network synchronization. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 , 11 and 18 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 11 and 18: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
As explained in MPEP 210.05(d)(II): The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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); …
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); …
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; …
In particular, the claim recites the workstations, network, shared design model, 3D grid, voxels, 3D coordinates, and synchronization at a high level of generality and uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive information, represent a component as generic 3D model data, update the shared design model, and synchronize the updated data. The claim does not recite any specific technical implementation, unconventional arrangement of computer components, particular voxel and coordinate generation technique, particular synchronization technique. Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, merely apply the judicial exception using conventional computing components and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 11 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10, 12-17 and 19-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-8, 10, 12-17 and 19-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 11 and 18.
Claim 2 recites “adding the updated shared design model to a shared design space; generating, based on the updated shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that includes additional components from the set of pre-defined components; adding the first set of candidate design solutions to the shared design space; and displaying at least a portion of the shared design space.”
The limitation merely recites generating alternative candidate design solutions based on the updated shared design model and resenting those candidate design solutions in a shared design space. It merely an extension of mental process. For example, a person capable of considering an updated design model, drafting alternative design options by adding additional pre-defined components, placing those alternative design options into a shared design space or collection of design options, and presenting at least a portion of the collection. Therefore, the claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3 recites “computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution, wherein:
the updated shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items including (i) the first component of the first type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics, and
the set of metrics is computed based on the first set of characteristics and the second set of characteristics.”
The limitation merely recites evaluating a candidate design solution by computing performance metrics based on characteristics of block items included in the candidate design solution. It merely an extension of mental process. For example, a person capable of observing a candidate design solution that includes a first component have a first set of characteristics and a second component have a different second set of characteristics, considering those characteristics, and determining one or more metrics that reflect the performance of the candidate design solution. Therefore, the claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4 recites “performing, on at least one candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions, one or more optimization operations to generate an optimized candidate design solution, wherein the optimized candidate design solution maximizes or minimizes the set of metrics associated with the performance of the at least one candidate design solution.”
The limitation merely recites optimizing at least one candidate design solution by adjusting or selecting the candidate design solution so that one or more performance metrics are maximized or minimized. It merely an extension of mental process. For example, a person capable of reviewing a candidate design solution, considering the performance metrics associated with the candidate design solution, and determining how to revise or select the candidate design solution so that the desired metric are increased or decreased. Therefore, the claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 recites “causing the updated shared design model to be synchronized comprises: causing at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model to be broadcasted to the at least one other participant in the plurality of participants.”
The limitation merely recites synchronization is performed by broadcasting the first input or the updated shared design model to another participant. It is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data outputting (i.e., data transmitting via network), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6 recites “a synchronization service: receives the at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model; and updates, based on the at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model, a local instance of the shared design model to match the updated shared design model.”
The limitation merely recites using a synchronization service to receive the first input or updated share design model and update a local instance of the shared design model so that the local instance matches the updated shared design model. It is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not recite a particular synchronization protocol, data consistency technique, or other specific technical implementation. Therefore, the claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7 recites “the synchronization service: receives, before updating the local instance of the shared design model based on the at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model, at least one of a second input or a second updated design model; updates the local instance of the shared design model to generate an updated local instance of the shared design model, wherein the updated local instance of the shared design model is based on both (i) the at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model, and (ii) the at least one of the second input or the second updated design model; and transmitting the updated local instance of the shared design model to the at least one other participant.”
The limitation merely recites receiving multiple update inputs or updated models, updating a local instance of the shared design model based those received updates, and transmitting the updated local instance to another participant. It is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not recite any particular synchronization protocol, ordering rule, merge technique, data consistency technique, or other specific technical implementation for updating the local instance based on multiple received updates. Therefore, the claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8 recites “adding the updated shared design model to a shared design space; generating, based on the updated shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions; adding the first set of candidate design solutions to the shared design space; and causing the shared design space to be synchronized with the at least one other participant, wherein a synchronization service receives the shared design space and broadcasts the shared design space to the at least one other participant in the plurality of participants.”
The limitation merely recites generating candidate design solutions based on the updated shared design model, placing the updated shared design model and candidate design solutions in a shared design space, and broadcasting the shared design space to another participant. The generation step merely an extension of mental process. For example, a person capable of reviewing an updated shared design model and preparing candidate design options based on that updated share design model. The remaining limitations of adding the updated shared design model and candidate design solutions to the shared design space, and broadcasting the shared design space are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not recite any particular synchronization protocol, data consistency technique, network improvement, or other specific technical implementation. Therefore, the claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10 recites “the updated shared design model includes: the component of the first type having a first set of characteristics, and a second component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics.”
The limitation merely recites the updated shared design model includes at least two different component types, where each component type has a different set of characteristics. It merely an extension of mental process. For example, a person capable of observing a first component and a second component in the updated design model, considering the characteristics of each component, and recognizing the first component has a first set of characteristics and the second component has a different second set of characteristics. Therefore, the claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 12 recites substantially the same elements as claim 2, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 13 recites substantially the same elements as claim 3, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14 recites “the set of metrics is weighted based on the first persona.”
The limitation merely recites weighting the set of metrics according to the first persona. It merely an extension of mental process refers to claim 13 of evaluating a candidate design solution by assigning different importance to different metric based on the persona associated with the design activity. Therefore, the claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 15 recites “displaying the shared design space comprises displaying a map that includes a subset of the first set of candidate design solutions.”
The limitation merely recites display a map that includes only a subset of the first set of candidate design solutions in the shared design space. It is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data outputting (i.e., displaying data), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 16 recites “the first set of candidate design solutions are organized along one or more axes based on a set of metrics associated with the respective candidate design solutions.”
The limitation merely recites organizing the candidate design solutions along one or more axes according to metrics associated with the respective candidate design solutions. It merely an extension of mental process of reviewing candidate design solutions, considering the metrics associated with each candidate design solution, and arranging the candidate design solutions along one or more axes based on the metrics. Therefore, the claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same elements as claim 5, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 19-20 recite substantially the same elements as claims 2 and 5, and are rejected
for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim 1 recites “wherein the first persona is associated with a first plurality of different types of pre-defined components including a first type that includes the first component,” in lines 9-11, should read as “wherein the first persona is associated with a first plurality of different types of the pre-defined components including a first type that includes the first component.”
Claims 11 and 18 recite similar limitations and are objected to for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein modifying the shared design model to generate the updated shared design model comprises adding the first component within the modified shared design model by generating a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates that define the first component and placing the first set of voxels within the updated shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “the modified shared design model” refers to the previously recited “shared design model,” the “updated shared design model,” or a separate intermediate model. Further the claim is unclear because the first component is recited as being added within “the modified shared design model,” while the first set of voxels is recited as being placed within “the updated shared design model.” Thus, it is unclear which design model is modified by the addition of the first component and which design model contains the placed voxels.
For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that the limitation as “wherein modifying the shared design model to generate the updated shared design model comprises adding the first component to the shared design model by generating a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates that define the first component, and placing the first set of voxels within the shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates.”
Claims 11 and 18 also recite similar limitations using “the modified shared design model” and “the updated shared design model,” and are rejected for the same reasons.
The remaining claims are dependent upon one of the claims listed above and rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 10-11, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
De Biswas US20130144566A1 in view of Cera (“Role-based viewing envelopes for information protection in collaborative modeling,” published in 2004) and Loop US20150022521A1.
Claim 1, De Biswas teaches A computer-implemented method for generating a design model shared between multiple participants ([0003] … enabling real-time collaboration in 3D modeling and simulation. [0006] … enables multiple users to interact on a project by project basis in the collaborative design, modeling and testing of complex 3-Dimensional, or “3D”, models while maintaining version control of all elements of the project in a hierarchical fashion. [0009] … providing a user interface via which a plurality of users may simultaneously share a 3D model.), the method comprising:
receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with a first component from a set of pre-defined components associated with a shared design model, ([0090] … The user devices 202 may be any form of computing device capable of receiving inputs from users, such as via a user interface, and transmitting such input to a back end server 208, such as via the front end server 204. [0016] … presenting to a user a representation of each of the at least one version of a sub-component for selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component … in response to the selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component, rendering the sub-component identified by the selected one of the at least one version of the sub-component in the 3D model space. [0025] … a collaborative 3D model space configured for collaborative design by a plurality of users distributed over a network … an interface port of the 3D model space for providing access to at least one component so that each of the plurality of users can individually manipulate a three-dimensional view of the at least one component on disparate client computers. The disparate client computers may include at least two of a mobile phone, a tablet, a laptop, smart phone, notebook, desktop, and a workstation. The network may be the Internet. [0087] … the platform may provide shared 3D model space to enable synchronous remote collaboration. Examiner note: the reference teaches a collaborative 3D design platform in which a plurality of users simultaneously share a 3D model through a user interface and participate in synchronous remote collaboration. The plurality of users corresponds to the plurality of participants, and 3D model/component assembly corresponds to the shared design model. The reference further teaches user devices receiving user inputs through a user interface and transmitting the inputs to the server/platform, which corresponds to receiving first input. The reference also teaches project component elements and sub-components arranged in a hierarchical structure, presenting versions of sub-components for user selection, and rendering the selected sub-component in the 3D model space; therefore, the selected component or sub-component corresponds to the first component from a set of pre-defined components associated with the shared design model. The reference further teaches that the collaborative 3D model space is used by a plurality of users distributed over a network, that users manipulate components on disparate client computers including workstations, and that the network may be the internet.);
in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model based on the first input to generate an updated shared design model [0016] … presenting to a user a representation of each of the at least one version of a sub-component for selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component … in response to the selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component, rendering the sub-component identified by the selected one of the at least one version of the sub-component in the 3D model space. The rendering of the sub-component may include disposing the sub-component in an assembly of sub-components. [0020] The method may further include transmitting a first version of a sub-component to a user. The method may also include receiving from the user a second version of the sub-component that may include an updated version of the first version. The method may further include storing the second version of the sub-component in the 3D model space associated with the same node as the first version of the sub-component. [0036] The method may also include receiving from the user the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component. The method may further include integrating the at least one updated sub-component with the 3D model space. [0038] The method may also include receiving from the user the sub-space that may include at least one new sub-component. The method may further include integrating the at least one new sub-component with the 3D model space. Examiner note: the reference teaches selecting a version of a sub-component and, in response to that selection, rendering the selected sub-component in the 3D model space and disposing the selected sub-component in an assembly of sub-components. The user selection of the sub-component corresponds to the confirmation of the first input, and rendering/disposing the selected sub-component in the model space corresponds to modifying the shared design model based on the first input. The reference further teaches transmitting a first version of a sub-component to a user, receiving from the user a second version that includes an updated version of the first version, and storing the second version in the 3D model space, which corresponds to generating an updated shared design model. The reference also discloses receiving a sub-space that includes a new sub-component with the 3D model space, which corresponds to adding the first component within the shared design model. Therefore, the reference teaches modifying the shared design model based on the first input to generate an updated shared design model, including adding the first component within the shared design model); and
causing the updated shared design model to be synchronized with at least one other participant in a plurality of participants included in the real-time collaboration session via the network ([0139] … The users subscribing to a project space may receive synchronously updates of all changes (e.g. over a network, or via the Internet). Also, all changes made by the users may get synchronously updated in the 3D model space 400 associated with a project space as described above. [0142] Further, the applications enabling user interfaces on the user devices, 202, the front end server 204, an/or the back end server 208 may broadcast changes/computations to sub-components and sub-spaces in real-time or near real time streams. [0162] at 2610, the method 2600 may transmit the updated sub-component to the at least one of the plurality of users. Examiner note: The reference teaches that users subscribed to a project space receive synchronous updates of all changes over a network or the internet, and that changes made by users are synchronously updated in the 3D model space associated with the project space, and further teaches broadcasting changes to sub-components and sub-spaces in real-time or near real-time streams and transmitting an updated sub-component to at least one of the plurality of users. The changes or updated sub-component corresponds to the updated shared design model or update data associated with the shared 3D model/component assembly, and the plurality of users corresponds to the plurality of participant.).
However, De Biswas fails to teach the component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, wherein the first persona is associated with a first plurality of different types of pre-defined components including a first type that includes the first component and only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add the first component and any other component included in the first plurality of different types of pre-defined components to the shared design model.
Cera teaches the first component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, wherein the first persona is associated with a first plurality of different types of pre-defined components including a first type that includes the first component and only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add the first component and any other component included in the first plurality of different types of pre-defined components to the shared design model (Abstract, “This paper provides a framework for IA within collaborative design. It is based on a technique we call role-based viewing, which is achieved through integration of multi-resolution geometry and security models … In FACADE, groups of users work in a shared 3D modeling environment in which each user’s viewing and modeling privileges are managed by a central access control mechanism.” Page.874, left column, “The access control framework presented in this paper provides a specification for actors(users), roles, and their authorized permissions on objects … Each of these regions, whether a point, a patch, a component, or a sub-assembly, is related with a set of roles.” Page.874, right column “ An assembly model consists of a set of component parts, possibly grouped into sub-assemblies … The collaborative CAD server manages access rights for the users, controlling what they see on their client workstations and what modeling operations are possible.” page.877, left column, par.5-6, “Roles, R = {r0; r1; …; rm}; are abstract objects that define both the specific users allowed to access resources and the extent to which the resources are accessed. The engineers (designers, process engineers, project supervisors, etc.) correspond to a set of actors A = {a0; a1;…;an}; each of which will be assigned to a set of roles.” Page.877, right column, “Such security features can correspond to assembly features, mating features, or other function-based features of M. The Model–Role Assignment can then be simplified to be the relation associating security features with roles: MR # SF £ R (Fig. 4) … Portions of b(M) not assigned to these roles, however, are ‘off limits’ to actor a3.” Page.878, left column, “Each cell of the access matrix distinguishes between read and write authorizations. It is reasonable to assume that write permission of a feature is exclusively given to a single role.” Examiner note: the reference teaches a shared 3D modeling environment in which users’ viewing and modeling privileges are managed by a central access control mechanism. The cited “roles” correspond the personas, and “actors/users/designers” correspond to the participants. The reference also teaches that an assembly model includes component parts and sub-assemblies, and that design regions, including components or sub-assemblies, are related with roles. The reference further teaches security features corresponding to assembly features, mating feature, or other function based features, and further teaches associating security features with roles through model-Role Assignment. Thus, the reference teaches or suggests that a first component or component/design feature type is associated with a first persona, and that the first persona is associated with a plurality of different component or feature types including a first type that includes the first component. The reference further teaches that portions not assigned to the relevant roles are “off limits,” that the access matrix distinguishes between read and write authorizations, and that write permission of a feature is exclusively given to a single role. Therefore, the reference teaches or suggests associating a role or persona with particular components, component types, or design features, and permitting only a participant associated with the role or persona to write, model, add, or modify the corresponding components or features).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas to incorporate the teachings of Cera, and apply a role-based access control framework in which users are assigned to roles, predefined components and component types taught by De Biswas are controlled using the role-based permission framework taught by Cera, components or security features of a shared 3D model are associated with roles, and write/modeling permission for a component or security feature is restricted to a user assign to the corresponding role in order to control which participants are permitted to perform modeling operations on particular components of the shared design model, to protect sensitive design information, and to prevent unauthorized modification of components in a multi-user collaborative design environment. In this case, De Biswas teaches a real-time collaborative 3D design platform in which multiple users interact with and modify components of a shared 3D model. Cera teaches role-based access control in a collaborative CAD environment, including associating roles with components/security features and giving write permission for a feature exclusively to a single role. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of controlled collaboration by allowing authorized participants to add or modify components associated with assigned role while preventing unauthorized participants from modifying this components.
However, De Biswas and Cera fail to teach an updated shared design model comprising an arrangement of a set of components within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each component in the set of components being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates, wherein modifying the shared design model to generate the updated shared design model comprises adding the first component within the modified shared design model by generating a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates that define the first component and placing the first set of voxels within the updated shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates.
Loop teaches generate an updated shared design model comprising an arrangement of a set of components within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each component in the set of components being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates, wherein modifying the shared design model to generate the updated shared design model comprises adding the first component within the modified shared design model by generating a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates that define the first component and placing the first set of voxels within the updated shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates ([0005] Described herein are techniques and systems for reconstructing real-time 3D models using parallel graphics hardware. Embodiments of this disclosure relate to a voxel representation and a parallel processing of voxel information. [0015] Processes and systems described in this disclosure enable a computing device to perform voxel-based three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction modeling using parallel graphics hardware … To reconstruct the 3D model, the computing device may generate voxels using an initial low resolution to create a voxel list that includes the generated voxels. The voxels of the voxel list may be represented as index triples corresponding to the 3D coordinates of a voxel corner within a voxel grid (e.g., {ix, iy, iz}) … [0019] The modeling application 106 may generate voxels using an initial low resolution to create a voxel list as a basis for modeling the image data 110. In some embodiments, the modeling application 106 may represent voxels of the voxel list as an array of unsigned integer triples {ix, iy, iz} corresponding to coordinates of a voxel corner within a 3D grid. [0020] In some embodiments, the modeling application 106 may subdivide a voxel of remaining voxels (e.g., voxels that are not removed) to generate a new voxel list … The modeling application 106 may generate output voxels for image rendering. Examiner note: the reference teaches a 3D reconstruction/modeling operation in which a computing device or modeling application reconstructs or models a 3D model by generating voxels, creating a voxel list, representing the generated voxels as index triples corresponding to 3D coordinates within a voxel grid or 3D grid, generating a new voxel list through subdivision, and generating output voxels for rendering. Thus, the reference teaches that a 3D model or modelled object can be generated/defined using generated voxels and corresponding 3D coordinates in a 3D grid.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera to incorporate the teachings of Loop, and apply a voxel-based 3D modeling technique in which a 3D model is reconstructed or modeled by generating voxels, creating a voxel list, representing the voxels as coordinate triples within a voxel grid or 3D grid, and generating output voxels for rendering in order to provide a 3D geometric representation for defining, locating, and rendering component geometry within an 3D model. In this case, De Biswas teaches modifying and updating a shared 3D model by rendering, disposing, or integrating selected or new components/sub-components in a 3D model space. Cera teaches controlling which users are permitted to perform modeling operations on particular components or feature. Loop teaches voxel-based 3D reconstruction/modeling by generating voxels and representing the generated voxels with coordinate triples within a voxel grid or 3D grid. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of representing the updated shared 3D model and added component geometry using a structured 3D grid of voxels and corresponding coordinate data, thereby allowing the added component to be defined, positioned, and rendered within the shared 3D model using voxel-based model techniques.
Claim 5, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein causing the updated shared design model to be synchronized comprises:
causing at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model to be broadcasted to the at least one other participant in the plurality of participants ([0139] … The users subscribing to a project space may receive synchronously updates of all changes (e.g. over a network, or via the Internet). Also, all changes made by the users may get synchronously updated in the 3D model space 400 associated with a project space as described above. [0142] Further, the applications enabling user interfaces on the user devices, 202, the front end server 204, an/or the back end server 208 may broadcast changes/computations to sub-components and sub-spaces in real-time or near real time streams. [0147] Broadcasting 1120 may allow a user to broadcast a particular scene or sub-space rendering to collaborating users in near real time and let the users synch up their scenes post broadcasting. [0162] at 2610, the method 2600 may transmit the updated sub-component to the at least one of the plurality of users).
Claim 6, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein a synchronization service ([0087] In an embodiment, the platform may provide shared 3D model space to enable synchronous remote collaboration. [0139] In an embodiment, the project spaces provide solutions to a plurality of issues such as design concurrency and coherence. The users subscribing to a project space may receive synchronously updates of all changes (e.g. over a network, or via the Internet. [0142] Further, the applications enabling user interfaces on the user devices, 202, the front end server 204, an/or the back end server 208 may broadcast changes/computations to sub-components and sub-spaces in real-time or near real time streams.):
receives the at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model ([0020] The method may further include transmitting a first version of a sub-component to a user. The method may also include receiving from the user a second version of the sub-component that may include an updated version of the first version. [0162] Optionally, at 2608, the method 2600 may receive from one of the plurality of users an updated sub-component forming a part of the sub-space. [0163] At 2706, the method 2700 may receive from the user the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component); and updates, based on the at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model, a local instance of the shared design model to match the updated shared design model ([0139] Also, all changes made by the users may get synchronously updated in the 3D model space 400 associated with a project space as described above. [0147] Broadcasting 1120 may allow a user to broadcast a particular scene or sub-space rendering to collaborating users in near real time and let the users synch up their scenes post broadcasting. [0162] Optionally, at 2608, the method 2600 may receive from one of the plurality of users an updated sub-component forming a part of the sub-space. [0163] At 2706, the method 2700 may receive from the user the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component. Examiner note: the reference teaches a design platform/server side collaboration mechanism that provides shared 3D model space for synchronous remote collaboration and provides project spaces addressing design concurrency and coherence; therefore, the design platform, front-end/back-end server, and broadcasting/synchronous updating functionality correspond to the synchronization service. The reference further teaches receiving an updated version of a sub-component or an updated sub-component/sub-space from a user, which corresponds to receiving at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model. The reference also teaches that user changes are synchronously updated in the 3D model space, that scene or sub-space rendering are broadcast so collaborating users synchronize their scenes, that an updated sub-component is transmitted to other users, and the updated sub-component is integrated with the 3D model space. Thus, the reference teaches updating, based on the received update/input, a local user side scene/sub-space/model instance so that it matches or reflects the updated shared 3D model).
Claim 7, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the synchronization service:
receives, before updating the local instance of the shared design model based on at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model, at least one of a second input or a second updated design model ([0139] User changes/viewership details regarding any aspect of project spaces may be logged on a timeline corresponding to one or more project spaces …The users subscribing to a project space may receive synchronously updates of all changes (e.g. over a network, or via the Internet). [0162] Optionally, at 2608, the method 2600 may receive from one of the plurality of users an updated sub-component forming a part of the sub-space. [0163] At 2706, the method 2700 may receive from the user the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component. [0164] Optionally, at 2812 and 2814, the method 2800 may receive the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component from the user and translate the received at least one updated sub-component into the source format.);
updates the local instance of the shared design model to generate an updated local instance of the shared design model, wherein the updated local instance of the shared design model is based on both (i) the at least one of the first input or the updated shared design model, and (ii) the at least one of the second input or the second updated design model ([0139] Also, all changes made by the users may get synchronously updated in the 3D model space 400 associated with a project space as described above. [0140] An user may also perform assembly of any of the versions of a sub-component into a higher level assembly and check results (e.g. fit, and the like) to help decide which branch (e.g. which sub-component) to select for merging. [0141] Therefore, version control facilities of the distributed 3D design platform 100 facilitate automated assistance for selecting branches for merging. [0142] Sub-spaces may maintain coherency due to the real-time streaming and shared editing features. The coherence may be maintained algorithmically (e.g., smart compare and merge/thread locks) to prevent data corruption. [0163] At 2708, the method 2700 may integrate the at least one updated sub-component with the 3D model space. [0164] Optionally, at 2816, the method may integrate the received at least one updated sub-component into the 3D model space.); and
transmitting the updated local instance of the shared design model to the at least one other participant ([0142] Further, the applications enabling user interfaces on the user devices, 202, the front end server 204, an/or the back end server 208 may broadcast changes/computations to sub-components and sub-spaces in real-time or near real time streams. [0147] Broadcasting 1120 may allow a user to broadcast a particular scene or sub-space rendering to collaborating users in near real time and let the users synch up their scenes post broadcasting. [0162] Optionally, at 2610, the method 2600 may transmit the updated sub-component to the at least one of the plurality of users. Examiner note: The reference teaches a collaborative 3D model platform in which user changes to project spaces are logged, multiple users receive synchronous updates of all changes, and updated sub-components or sub-spaces are received from users before being integrated into the 3D model space. The reference further teaches maintaining coherence of shared sub-spaces using real-time streaming, shared editing features, smart compare, merge/thread locks, and is distributed version control facilities for selecting branches for merging. Thus, the reference teaches or suggests updating the shared/model instance based on multiple received charges or updates, corresponding to the update based on both the first input/updated share design model and the second input/second updated design model. The reference also teaches broadcasting changes/computations to sub-components and sub-spaces in real-time or near real-time streams, broadcasting scene or sub-space renderings to collaborating users so that users synchronize their scenes, and transmitting an updated sub-component to at least one of the plurality of users).
Claim 10, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the updated shared design model includes:
The first component of the first type having a first set of characteristics, and
a second component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics ([0007] Specifically, the component elements of a project may be arranged in a tree-like hierarchical fashion wherein, at each node, branches sub-divide into increasingly atomic sub-components … In addition, each node may be comprised of several versions of the same component or sub-component. [0008] For example, versions of sub-components may be tagged with attributes such as price, cost, license status/clearance, strength, stress/strain, weight, material properties, geometry and the like. [0012] The each node may include at least one version of a sub-component. The each version may include one or more attributes. [0014] The performance criteria may be a measure of strength of the sub-component. The performance criteria may be a measure of stress/strain tolerance of the sub-component. The performance criteria may be a measure of weight of the sub-component. The performance criteria may be an aspect of material properties of the sub-component.[0111] For example, attributes related to a sub-component's strength or resistance to aerodynamic stress or the like may be computed and added to a sub-component's attributes … Referring once again to the example of FIG. 5, sub-component 2 version 2.1 may be physically incompatible with sub-component 7 version 7.2. Examiner note: the reference teaches that a 3D model space includes component elements arranged in a hierarchical fashion, including nodes, branches, components, sub-components, and versions of components or sub-components. The components or sub-components correspond to the first and second components, and different component/sub-component nodes or versions correspond to components of different types. The reference further teaches that each version of a sub-component includes one or more attributes, and the attributes may include price, cost, license status/clearance, strength, stress/strain, weight, material properties, geometry, compatibility and resistance to aerodynamic stress. These attributes correspond to the sets of characteristics. The reference also provides an example involving “sub-component 2 version 2.1” and sub-component 7 version 7.2,” which supports different components/sub-components in the 3D model space. Therefore, the reference teaches or suggests that the updated shared design model includes a first component of a first type having a first set of characteristics and a second component of a second type having a second set of characteristics different from the first set of characteristics).
The elements of claims 11 and 17 are substantially the same as those of claims 1 and 5. Further, claim 11 recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors” (see De Biswas, [0206], “The computer software, program codes, and/or instructions may be stored and/or accessed on machine readable media…”; [0208], “…software or hardware engineering practices, the depicted elements and the functions thereof may be implemented on machines through computer executable media having a processor capable of executing program instructions stored thereon…”). Therefore, the elements of claims 11 and 17 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1 and 5.
The elements of claims 18 and 20 are substantially the same as those of claims 1 and 5. Further, claim 18 recites “a memory storing a generative design application (see De Biswas [0045], “The system may also include an application data store accessible through the 3D modeling space. The application data store may include a plurality of applications for processing model data accessible in the sub-space. The plurality of applications may include a simulation tool. The simulation tool may include a finite element analysis. The simulation tool may include a fluid dynamics analysis. The plurality of applications may include a rendering tool. The plurality of application may include a prototyping tool. The plurality of applications may include a manufacturability analysis. The plurality of applications may include a failure mode analysis. The plurality of applications may include a facade generator.”); and a processor coupled to the memory that executes the generative design application by performing the steps of:” ([0209], “ hardware, software or any combination of hardware and software suitable for a particular application. The hardware may include a general purpose computer and/or dedicated computing device or specific computing device or particular aspect or component of a specific computing device. The processes may be realized in one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, embedded microcontrollers, programmable digital signal processors or other programmable device, along with internal and/or external memory.”). Therefore, the elements of claims 18 and 20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1 and 5.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
De Biswas and Cera and Loop as applied to claim 1, 11 and 18 above, and further in view of Cheong US20190197198A1.
Claim 2, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
adding the updated shared design model to a shared design space ([0041] The method may further include receiving the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component from the user, and translating the received at least one updated sub-component into the source format. The method may also include integrating the received at least one updated sub-component into the 3D model space. [0163] At 2706, the method 2700 may receive from the user the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component. At 2708, the method 2700 may integrate the at least one updated sub-component with the 3D model space. [0164] Optionally, at 2816, the method may integrate the received at least one updated sub-component into the 3D model space.);
displaying at least a portion of the shared design space ([0106] As illustrated, there is displayed a model space diagram 510 as might be returned from the back end server 208, such as via the front end server 204. The model space diagram 510 may be a graphic depiction of the model data accessed and transmitted by the back end server 208 and received and displayed by the user device 202 and/or the front end server 204 … In an exemplary embodiment, the model space diagram 510 may depict only those nodes and sub-components for which requested data was received (e.g. only certain component versions, only certain sub-spaces, only certain nodes, only nodes above/below a level in the component hierarchy, only components to which the requesting user is authorized to access, and the like).).
However, De Biswas and Cera and Loop fail to teach generating, based on the updated shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that includes additional components from the set of pre-defined components; adding the first set of candidate design solutions to the shared design space.
Cheong teaches generating, based on the updated shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that includes additional components from the set of pre-defined components ([0009] Various embodiments of the present invention set forth a computer-implemented method for generating design options for mechanical assemblies, including generating a partial design that defines a portion of a mechanical assembly based on first data received via a user interface, determining a set of design criteria associated with the partial design based on second data received via the user interface, generating, via one or more operations performed by one or more processors, a problem definition based on the partial design and the set of criteria, and causing, via one or more additional operations performed by the one or more processors based on an optimization algorithm, a set of design options to be generated based on the problem definition, wherein each design option included in the set of design options includes a different mechanical assembly derived from the partial design and satisfying the set of design criteria.; adding the first set of candidate design solutions to the shared design space. [0036] Component panel 310 includes a set of component types that may be incorporated into partial design 340 and any design options 170 generated for the mechanical assembly … Via add button 312, the end-user selects component types, from a library of available types of components, to be included in component panel 310. When iteratively generating design options 170, cloud computing platform 160 may only incorporate these selected component types into a given design option 170. [0038] When iteratively generating design options 170, cloud computing platform 160 uses partial design 340 as a starting point to constrain further design iteration. [0039] If a partial design is selected, then design engine 142 may initiate optimization to incorporate additional elements into the design and then optimize parameters of those components to meet the design criteria. [0044] Based on problem definition 150, cloud computing platform 160 generates design options 170. Each design option 170 is an extension of partial design 340 and adheres to the various criteria 306 indicated via definition panel 300 … [0045] As shown, design option 170 includes the various elements included in partial design 340 discussed above in conjunction with FIG. 3, and also includes additional elements introduced via iterative optimization. [0046] During optimization, cloud computing platform 160 implements a generative design process to include additional elements into partial design 340.);
adding the first set of candidate design solutions to the shared design space ([0034] As shown, UI 134 includes a definition panel 300, a component panel 310, a joint panel 320, and a design space 330. Design space 330 includes a partial design 340. [0044] Based on problem definition 150, cloud computing platform 160 generates design options 170. Each design option 170 is an extension of partial design 340 and adheres to the various criteria 306 indicated via definition panel 300 when subject to inputs 304 indicated via definition panel 300. [0051] At step 520, design engine 142 receives a design option 170 that addresses the design problem described by the problem definition. At step 522, design engine 142 renders for display graphics depicting an assembly of elements included in the design option. [0052] The goal-driven optimization algorithm generates a spectrum of potential design options. Each design option describes a mechanical assembly representing a potential solution to the design problem.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Loop to incorporate the teachings of Cheong, and apply a generative design process that uses an updated design model as a starting point to generate a set of design options, where the design options include additional elements selected from available component types, and to add the generated design option to the design space for review and display in order to automate the generation of additional candidate design solutions from the updated shared design model, thereby allowing participant in the collaborative design environment to explore multipole potential design alternatives without manually creating each alternative.
Claim 8, De Biswas teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
adding the updated shared design model to a shared design space ([0041] The method may further include receiving the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component from the user, and translating the received at least one updated sub-component into the source format. The method may also include integrating the received at least one updated sub-component into the 3D model space. [0163] At 2706, the method 2700 may receive from the user the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component. At 2708, the method 2700 may integrate the at least one updated sub-component with the 3D model space. [0164] … Optionally, at 2816, the method may integrate the received at least one updated sub-component into the 3D model space.);
causing the shared design space to be synchronized with the at least one other participant, wherein a synchronization service receives the shared design space and broadcasts the shared design space to the at least one other participant in the plurality of participants ([0139] … The users subscribing to a project space may receive synchronously updates of all changes (e.g. over a network, or via the Internet). Also, all changes made by the users may get synchronously updated in the 3D model space 400 associated with a project space as described above. [0142] Further, the applications enabling user interfaces on the user devices, 202, the front end server 204, an/or the back end server 208 may broadcast changes/computations to sub-components and sub-spaces in real-time or near real time streams. [0147] Broadcasting 1120 may allow a user to broadcast a particular scene or sub-space rendering to collaborating users in near real time and let the users synch up their scenes post broadcasting. [0162] at 2610, the method 2600 may transmit the updated sub-component to the at least one of the plurality of users).
However, De Biswas and Cera and Loop fail to teach generating, based on the updated shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions; adding the first set of candidate design solutions to a shared design space.
Cheong teaches generating, based on the updated shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions ([0009] Various embodiments of the present invention set forth a computer-implemented method for generating design options for mechanical assemblies, including generating a partial design that defines a portion of a mechanical assembly based on first data received via a user interface, determining a set of design criteria associated with the partial design based on second data received via the user interface, generating, via one or more operations performed by one or more processors, a problem definition based on the partial design and the set of criteria, and causing, via one or more additional operations performed by the one or more processors based on an optimization algorithm, a set of design options to be generated based on the problem definition, wherein each design option included in the set of design options includes a different mechanical assembly derived from the partial design and satisfying the set of design criteria.; adding the first set of candidate design solutions to the shared design space. [0036] Component panel 310 includes a set of component types that may be incorporated into partial design 340 and any design options 170 generated for the mechanical assembly … Via add button 312, the end-user selects component types, from a library of available types of components, to be included in component panel 310. When iteratively generating design options 170, cloud computing platform 160 may only incorporate these selected component types into a given design option 170. [0038] When iteratively generating design options 170, cloud computing platform 160 uses partial design 340 as a starting point to constrain further design iteration. [0039] If a partial design is selected, then design engine 142 may initiate optimization to incorporate additional elements into the design and then optimize parameters of those components to meet the design criteria. [0044] Based on problem definition 150, cloud computing platform 160 generates design options 170. Each design option 170 is an extension of partial design 340 and adheres to the various criteria 306 indicated via definition panel 300 … [0045] As shown, design option 170 includes the various elements included in partial design 340 discussed above in conjunction with FIG. 3, and also includes additional elements introduced via iterative optimization. [0046] During optimization, cloud computing platform 160 implements a generative design process to include additional elements into partial design 340.); adding the first set of candidate design solutions to a shared design space ([0034] As shown, UI 134 includes a definition panel 300, a component panel 310, a joint panel 320, and a design space 330. Design space 330 includes a partial design 340. [0044] Based on problem definition 150, cloud computing platform 160 generates design options 170. Each design option 170 is an extension of partial design 340 and adheres to the various criteria 306 indicated via definition panel 300 when subject to inputs 304 indicated via definition panel 300. [0051] At step 520, design engine 142 receives a design option 170 that addresses the design problem described by the problem definition. At step 522, design engine 142 renders for display graphics depicting an assembly of elements included in the design option. [0052] The goal-driven optimization algorithm generates a spectrum of potential design options. Each design option describes a mechanical assembly representing a potential solution to the design problem.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Loop to incorporate the teachings of Cheong, and apply a generative design process that uses an updated design mode as a starting point to generate a set of design options and to add the generated design option to the design space for review and display in order to automate the generation of additional candidate design solutions from the updated shared design model, thereby allowing participant in the collaborative design environment to explore multipole potential design alternatives without manually creating each alternative.
The elements of claims 12 and 19 are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Therefore, the elements of claims 12 and 19 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas
and Cera and Loop and Cheong as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Stoddart US20190347382A1.
Claim 3, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising
the updated shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items including (i) the first component of the first type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics, and
([0007] Specifically, the component elements of a project may be arranged in a tree-like hierarchical fashion wherein, at each node, branches sub-divide into increasingly atomic sub-components … In addition, each node may be comprised of several versions of the same component or sub-component. [0008] For example, versions of sub-components may be tagged with attributes such as price, cost, license status/clearance, strength, stress/strain, weight, material properties, geometry and the like. [0016] The method may further include, in response to the selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component, rendering the sub-component identified by the selected one of the at least one version of the sub-component in the 3D model space. The rendering of the sub-component may include disposing the sub-component in an assembly of sub-components. [0022] The plurality of versions may include a first version of a sub-component having a first value of an attribute and a second version of a sub-component having a second value of the attribute … The first value may be different than the second value … The attribute may be a performance criterion. The performance criteria may be a measure of strength of the sub-component. The performance criteria may be a measure of stress/strain tolerance of the sub-component. The performance criteria may be a measure of weight of the sub-component. The performance criteria may be an aspect of material properties of the sub-component. Examiner note: the reference teaches that a 3D model space includes component elements arranged hierarchically, where nodes and branches divide into components and sub-components. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the components and sub-components correspond to the block items because they are discrete design/model elements arranged within the 3D model space. The reference further teaches rendering a selected sub-component in the 3D model space and disposing the selected sub-component in an assembly of sub-components, which corresponds to the updated shared design model including an arrangement of a set of block items/components. The reference also teaches first and second versions of a sub-component having different values of an attribute, and attributes/performance criteria such as strength, stress/strain tolerance, weight, and material properties. These attributes/performance criteria correspond to the first and second sets of characteristics. Therefore, the reference taches the updated shared design model including an arrangement of block items/components having different sets of characteristics).
However, De Biswas and Cera and Loop and Cheong fail to teach computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution; the set of metrics is computed based on the first set of characteristics and the second set of characteristics.
Stoddart teaches computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution ([0027] The metric definition list 124 includes, without limitation, any number of design metrics (not shown in FIG. 1), where each design metric may represent any type of information associated with the automobile. For instance, in some embodiments, the design metrics include, without limitation, structural metrics (e.g., mass), performance-related metrics (e.g., driving dynamics), and program management metrics (e.g., cost, part availability, manufacturing time, etc.). [0035] For each set of parameter values included in the parameter value matrix 142, the automobile modeling subsystem 150 generates a different design based on the set of parameter values and the parameterized automobile model 152. [0036] In particular, the automobile modeling subsystem 150 generates representations and design data to enable the evaluation engine 160 to compute values for the design metrics. [0038] The evaluation engine 160 generates the metric value matrix 162 based on the generational design space 152, the metric definition list 124, and any number of the simulation tool(s) 170. For each of the designs included in the generational design space 152, the metric value matrix 162 includes a set of metric values for the set of design metrics. [0039] In operation, for each of the designs included in the generational design space 152, the evaluation engine 160 computes the metric value for each of the design metrics based on the associated representations and the associated design data in any technically feasible fashion. [0040] Notably, as part of computing metric values, the evaluation engine 160 may configure any number of the simulation tools(s) 170 to execute any number and type of simulations based on the representations included in the generational design space 152. [0076] The evaluation engine performs any number of evaluations operations, such as simulations, on the designs included in the generational design space to generate a metric value matrix. For each design in the generational design space, the metric value matrix includes a different set for metric values for the set of design metrics.); the set of metrics is computed based on the first set of characteristics and the second set of characteristics ([0023] The parameterized automobile model 152 may be any type of model that parameterizes a set of structural components in the structural system of an automobile in any technically feasible fashion. In various embodiments, the parameterized automobile model 152 may specify a functional design hierarchy of instances of parameterized components. [0028] In particular, each metric definition may define the associated design metric based on any number (including one) of scores derived from any amount and type of design data, simulation measurements, other design metrics, and/or any number of constituent metrics. For example, a mass design metric could be defined as a single value that is the total mass of the automobile. In another example. a driving performance design metric could be a single value that is a function of local stiffness and local stress simulation measurements. [0039] In operation, for each of the designs included in the generational design space 152, the evaluation engine 160 computes the metric value for each of the design metrics based on the associated representations and the associated design data in any technically feasible fashion. [0059] The design metric 230(2) has the metric name 232(2) “driving performance” and the metric definition 234(1) is specified as a function of local stiffness and local stress measurements. The design metric 230(3) has the metric name 232(3) “driving dynamics” and the metric definition 234(3) is specified as a function of mass and global displacement measurements. The design metric 230(4) has the metric name 232(4) “noise, vibration, and harshness (“NVH”)” and the metric definition 234(4) is specified as a function of mass and global stress measurements. ).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Loop and Cheong to incorporate the teachings of Stoddart, and apply a metric computation technique in which, for each generated design in a design space, a set of metric values is computed based on design data, representation, simulation measurement and constituent metrics associated with the generated design, in order to quantitatively evaluate the performance of each candidate design solution generated from the updated shared design model and allow users to compare and select candidate design solutions based on objective performance metrics. In this case, De Biswas teaches an updated shared 3D model including components and sub-components having characteristics/attributes. Cheong teaches generating a set of candidate design options from an existing/partial design and incorporating additional elements into the generated design options. Stoddart teaches generating design in a generational design space and computing, for each design in the generational design space, a set of metric values for design metrics based on associated representations and associated design data. The combination of teachings would predictably provide the benefit of representing each candidate design solution with objective performance metrics computed from the design data and component characteristics of the candidate design solution, thereby allowing users in the shared design environment to compare, evaluate, and select candidate design solutions based on measurable performance rather than visual inspection.
Claim 4, De Biswas and Cera and Loop and Cheong fail to teaches, but Stoddart teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising:
performing, on at least one candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions, one or more optimization operations to generate an optimized candidate design solution, wherein the optimized candidate design solution maximizes or minimizes the set of metrics associated with the performance of the at least one candidate design solution ([0006] The method includes computing a first set of metric values based on a set of metrics associated with one or more design goals and a first set of parameter values for a parameterized automobile model; performing one or more optimization operations on the first set of parameter values based on the first set of metric values to generate a second set of parameter values; and generating at least one design based on the second set of parameter values that is more convergent with respect to at least one of the design goals than a previously generated design. [0035] For each set of parameter values included in the parameter value matrix 142, the automobile modeling subsystem 150 generates a different design based on the set of parameter values and the parameterized automobile model 152. [0042] To initiate each subsequent iteration, the optimization engine 140 executes a multi-objective optimization algorithm based on the metric value matrix 162, the optimization type list 126, the parameter value matrix 142, and the constraint list 122 to generate a new parameter value matrix 142. [0060] More precisely, the optimization type 240(x) specifies how the optimization engine 140 is to optimize the design metric 230(x). The optimization type 240(x) may specify a goal for the design metric 230(x) in any technically feasible fashion. For instance, in some embodiments, each of the optimization types 240 is equal to minimize, maximize, pass/fail, minimize within range, or maximize within range. See also [0061], [0073] and [0077]. Examiner note: the reference teaches generating different designs in a generational design space, which correspond to candidate design solution, and further teaches computing metric values for those designs and performing optimization operations based on the metric value matrix and optimization type list to generate new parameter values and new/optimized designs. The optimization type list specifies whether each design metric is to be optimized by minimization or maximization.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Loop and Cheong to incorporate the teachings of Stoddart, and apply an optimization operation, in which one or more optimization operations are performed based on a metric value matrix and an optimization type list to generate an optimized design in order to improve the quality of at least one candidate design solution by optimizing the performance metrics associated with the candidate design solution.
Claim 15, De Biswas and Cera and Loop and Cheong fail to teach, but Stoddart teaches The one
or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 12, wherein displaying the shared design space comprises displaying a map that includes a subset of the first set of candidate design solutions ([0046] In general, the GUI 192 enables the designer to efficiently explore the designs included in the optimized design space 172 based on the representations (e.g., the CAD geometry models), the design metrics, design data, and any number of additional criteria. [0047] In various embodiments, the exploration engine 180 enables the designer to compare the time required to procure parts for different designs based on metric values for a part availability design metric. [0063] The exploration engine 180 represents each design included in the optimized design space 172 as a different dot in the depicted plot. [0064] The plot configuration pane 310 depicts the design metrics 230 that are selected to be represented via the X-axis, the Y-axis, size, and color of the plot. [0067] As shown, based on the plot of the optimized design space 172, the designer selects three of the designs included in the optimized design space 172 as the production design(s) 198. For each of the production designs 198, the GUI 192 displays a thumbnail of the CAD geometry (not shown in FIG. 3) that is stored in the optimized design space 172. Examiner note: the reference teaches display, through GUI, a plot of an optimized design space. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “plot of the optimized design space” corresponds to the “map” because the plot visually arranges and represents designs within the design space using axes, size and color. The reference further teaches that each design in the optimized design space is represented as a different dot in the plot and the GUI displays thumbnails of selected designs from the optimized design space. The generated designs in the optimized design space correspond to the candidate design solutions, and the selected designs/any number of displayed designs correspond to a subset of the first set of candidate design solutions).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Loop and Cheong to incorporate the teachings of Stoddart, and apply a design space visualization technique in which candidate design solutions in a design space are displayed in a plot/map and selected candidate design solutions are displayed as a subset of the generated designs, in order to allow users to visually explore, compare, and select candidate design solutions within the shared design space.
Claim 16, De Biswas and Cera and Loop and Cheong fail to teach, but Stoddart teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the first set of candidate design solutions are organized along one or more axes based on a set of metrics associated with the respective candidate design solutions ([0046] In general, the GUI 192 enables the designer to efficiently explore the designs included in the optimized design space 172 based on the representations (e.g., the CAD geometry models), the design metrics, design data, and any number of additional criteria. [0063] As shown, the GUI 192 includes, without limitation, a plot of the optimized design space 172, a plot configuration pane 310, and thumbnails of designs from the optimized design space 172 that are selected as the production designs 198. The exploration engine 180 represents each design included in the optimized design space 172 as a different dot in the depicted plot. [0064] The plot configuration pane 310 depicts the design metrics 230 that are selected to be represented via the X-axis, the Y-axis, size, and color of the plot. As shown, for a particular design, the location of the corresponding dot along the X-axis represents the value of the driving dynamics design metric 230(3). The location of the corresponding dot along the Y-axis represents the value of the mass design metric 230(1). The size of the corresponding dot represents the value of the NVH design metric 230(4). The color of the corresponding dot represents the value of the driving performance design metric 230(2). [0065] For instance, in some embodiments, the evaluation engine 160 computes the values for “local stress” and “local stiffness” constituent metrics for each of the designs included in the optimized design space 172 when computing the values for the driving performance design metric 230(2) … Subsequently, the exploration engine 180 is configured to display values for the local stress constituent metric and the local stiffness constituent metric along, respectively, the X-axis and the Y-axis of the plot. Examiner note: the reference teaches display a plot of an optimized design space, where each generated design in the optimized design space is represented as a dot in the plot. The generated designs in the optimized design space correspond to the first set of candidate design solutions, and further teaches the design metrics are selected to be represented by the X-axis, Y-axis, size, and color of the plot, and specifically teaches that the location of each design dot along the X-axis and Y-axis represents corresponding metric values.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Loop and Cheong to incorporate the teachings of Stoddart, and apply a design space plotting technique in which generated candidate design solutions are represented in a plot and organized along one or more axes based on selected design metrics associated with the respective candidate design solutions in order to allow users to visually compare the candidate design solutions according to metric values and identify relative performance tradeoff within the design space.
The elements of claim 13 is substantially the same as those of claim 3. Therefore, the elements of claim 13 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 3.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and Cera and
Loop and Cheong and Stoddart as applied to claims 13 above, and further in view of Osman US20220191731A1.
Claim 14, De Biswas and Cera and Loop and Cheong and Stoddart fail to teach, but Osman teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein:
the set of metrics is weighted based on the first persona ([0059] In a particular example, a subscriber who has been determined to have a Talker persona is requesting the network slice load. The analysis module 120 may query a table for the weighting associated with the ‘Talker’ persona. This table will have scores for voice application with different weightings compared to those with other personas, for example, a Gamer, a Video watcher, or the like.[0060] … The Score (MOS) for each subscriber persona that are on the slice=k1*Throughput+k2*Loss+k3*Round Trip Time (RTT). It will be understood that k1, k2, k3, are different for video persona, gamer persona, talker persona, and the like, as different personas will be differently affected by changes in Throughput, Loss, and RTT. As an example, a video persona may be more affected by a change to throughput over a change Round Trip Time. [0067] Given the Persona of the subscribers on that network slice instance, Score (MOS) may be determined by k1*Throughput+k2*Loss+k3*RTT, where k1, k2, k3 are different for video persona, gamer persona, talker persona, and the like. Examiner note: the reference teaches that the score is determined by applying weighting coefficients to a set of metrics, including Throughput, Loss, and Round Trip Time. The reference further teaches that the weighing coefficients k1, k2, and k3 are different for different personas, including video persona, gamer persona, and talker persona. Therefore, Throughput, Loss, and Round Trip Time corresponds to the claimed set of metrics, and k1, k2, and k3 correspond to weights applied to the set of metrics based on the persona.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Loop and Cheong and Stoddart to incorporate the teachings of Osman, and apply a persona based metric weighting technique in which weighting coefficients are assigned to particular metrics based on a persona in order to customize the weighting of the set of metrics according to the persona of the participant and thereby evaluate candidate design solutions based on the relative importance of different metrics to the persona. In this case, De Biswas teaches a shared collaborative design model. Cera teaches persona based control in a collaborative design environment. Loop teaches the voxel based 3D grid and coordinate implementation. Cheong and Stoddart teach generating and evaluating candidate design solutions using a set of metrics associated with performance of the candidate design solutions. Osman teaches determining a score using a set of metrics and weighing coefficients applied to the metrics are different for different personas. The combination of teachings would predictably provide the benefit of producing evaluations that better reflect the goals or priorities associated with the persona.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamilton US20080027924A1 teaches metrics is weighted associated with persona ([0022] Metrics
can comprise, for example, ease with which a user locates a desired feature, a number of times the user abandoned the feature after initiating, a click path associated with locating and initiating the feature, most frequently used features, common ordering of feature utilization, etc. [0023] According to still other aspects, an application can be personalized based upon a persona of the individual, such as a role the individual fills (e.g., application developer, application installer, application user, . . . ). [0043] Scores can be computed from multiple inference rules like the above, using a weighted approach. [0044] Inferences related to mapping a user to one or more personas can be a function of weights assigned to particular metrics. For instance, content that is clearly relevant to a developer persona can be given a weight of 1 for that persona, while content that is deemed relevant mainly to a developer but also somewhat relevant to a technician persona can be weighted for both personas. For example, a weight associated with a given piece of content can be 0.75 for a developer persona and 0.25 for a technician persona … Similarly, search terms can be weighted (e.g., when employing a search term-based rule) as can URLs and/or titles thereof (e.g., when utilizing a URL-based rule), etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to YI HAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571)272-3652. 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.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights