DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/15/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1, 11 and 17 have been amended, no claim has been canceled, claim 21 is added. Thus claims 1-21 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:
…
First, the claims do not recite limitations that incorporate mathematical concepts or constitute mental processes or certain methods or techniques of organizing human activity under Step 2A, prong one. See id.
In that regard, the pending claims 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).
In addition, the pending claims do not recite any mathematical concepts. Notably, the amended claims do not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols. See Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 3 ("[e]xaminers should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis); see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Here, the pending claims recite limitations that are only based on or involve mathematical concepts, such as computing, based on the modified shared design model and the first input, a set of metrics including a first behavioral metric, and modifying, based on the set of metrics, one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution. Importantly, claims that are merely based on or involve a mathematical concept, but that do not recite the mathematical concept, itself, do not fall into the mathematical concepts grouping. See id.
Lastly, the pending claims are also not directed towards mental processes because the amended claims include limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or using pen/paper. See Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 2 ("[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). Instead, the pending claims are directed towards a particular method of performing a specialized multi-user computer- aided design process that enables modification of elements of a shared design model using a common synchronized framework that tracks and scores real-time collaborative actions by multiple participants on different workstations. These limitations are necessarily performed using computers and, therefore, are not operations that can be practically performed in the human mind or using pen/paper. See Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 2 ("[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). ... [e]xaminers are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind"); see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the pending claims, when analyzed as a whole, are not directed towards a mental process.
In sum, because none of the limitations recited in the pending claims are directed towards any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas, the pending claims cannot be properly interpreted as being abstract.
(see Response filed 03/17/2026 [pages 11-12]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees.
a. The claims do recite a mental process.
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 “determining a set of actions made to generate a model …” and “…, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model …; generating a set of candidate design solutions …; computing, …, a set of metrics including a first behavioral metric; modifying, …, one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution included in the set of candidate design solutions; computing, …, a first collaboration score for a first participant and at least one other in the plurality of participants; and displaying a design space that includes one or more candidate design solutions included in the set of candidate design solutions, the modified shared design model and the first collaboration score,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Therefore, the claim limitation is a “mental process”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
b. The claims do recite a mathematical concept.
In MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A): “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” (emphasis added). Further, according to MPEP 2106.01(a)(2)(I): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).”
Regarding claim limitation, “computing, based on the modified shared design model and the first input, a set of metrics including a first behavioral metric; computing, based on the set of metrics, a first collaboration score for a first participant and at least one other in the plurality of participants” in light of specification, [0045], “… computes a set of metrics associated with the design model data associated with the shared design model 120. For example, the evaluation module 112 can compute specific metrics for a given shared design model 120 based on the actions performed by the participants and/or the arrangement of the block items within the shared design model 120 and generate one or more scores (e.g., one or more performance scores and/or one or more collaboration scores.” [0046], “… compute one or more behavioral metrics that measure how multiple users effectively collaborated during the real-time collaboration session to generate the shared design model 120. In such instances, the evaluation module 112 can compute a collaboration score that can indicate how well different stakeholders worked collaboratively to optimize the shared design model 120 to enhance the collective goals for the project. In various embodiments, the evaluation module 112 can compute separate collaboration scores for each pair of personas and also compute a separate collaboration score based on a combination of all personas.” [0105], “… compute one or more collaboration scores based on sets of sub-metrics. For example, the design block evaluator 404 can compute a collaboration score between a given pair of personas 510 as a sum of multiple metric values. CS={PM} +{BM} (1).” [0108], “…, the design block evaluator 404 included in the evaluation module 114 can track specific metric values and use those values to compute one or more collaboration scores 630: CS = {Daylight + Adjacency} + {Ratio + Enhancement} (2)”. It clearly states the metrics can be computed or calculated, and the collaboration scores can be calculated by equation 1 and 2. Therefore, the claim limitation is a “mathematical concept”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), 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 pending claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.
a. The Claims Provide Improvements to Technology:
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 ...[oln 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 (dated August 4, 2025) 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) ("[1]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 pending claims meet this standard.
In that regard, the pending 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 improves technology relating to a multi-user design process using generative computer-aided design software by enabling tracking and scoring of real-time synchronized collaborative actions by multiple designers on different workstations when generating and exploring collaborative design solutions, without requiring a great amount of technical knowledge. By contrast, conventional generative computer-aided design approaches are not configured to enable or encourage a multi-user design process because existing software often has a complex interface that is navigable by only experienced designers who have a deep understanding of the design framework. Further, the backend of conventional design systems is often tightly coupled to the complex interface and expects a rigid set of complex input parameters. As a result of this software architecture, conventional generative design software cannot be extended in a manner that would allow multiple users to collaborate on a single design, thereby resulting in designs that often lack inputs from multiple participants who could provide a variety of domain knowledge. As a result, conventional generative design software does not perform any actions to promote interactions between multiple participants or facilitate collaborative actions between two or more participants. The resulting designs thus do not balance or reflect the requirements of all stakeholders in the collaborative process and are often infeasible, incomplete, or both.
The present Application also makes clear that one of the technical advantages of the claimed approach is that the claimed approach allows multiple stakeholders who are not proficient in controlling a generative design to simultaneously provide inputs to a common synchronized framework that tracks and scores collaborative actions between participants, which greatly improves the process for generating candidate design solutions and selecting a specific design solution that meets goals and constraints associated with different stakeholders. The claimed approach further improves computer-related technology by enabling multiple designers to add or modify design elements in a shared design model during a real-time collaborative session using a subset of block items closely linked to a persona for a specific domain. These technological improvements are expressly described in the present Application. See Application at [0008], [0165]; 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 (dated August 4, 2025) 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"). Again, as the present Application makes clear, the claimed approach constitutes a technical improvement over conventional approaches. Through this practical application, the claimed approach imparts the technological improvements of performing a specialized multi-user computer-aided design process that enables modification of elements of a shared design model using a common synchronized framework that tracks and scores real-time collaborative actions by multiple participants on different workstations. See Application at [0008], [0165].
Further, the aforementioned improvements to technology are specifically tied to the pending claims, which recite the express steps of: "receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants, a first input associated with a first selectable component of a first component type, wherein the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, and the first component type includes a first set of characteristics," "in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model represented by a set of design model data, wherein the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component," "generating a set of candidate design solutions based on the set of design model data," "computing, based on the modified shared design model and the first input, a set of metrics including a first behavioral metric," "modifying, based on the set of metrics, one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution included in the set of candidate design solutions," "computing, based on the set of metrics, a first collaboration score for a first participant and at least one other in the plurality of participants," and "displaying a design space that includes one or more candidate design solutions included in the set of candidate design solutions, the modified shared design model and the first collaboration score." Notably, these limitations effectuate the improvements of enabling modification of elements of a shared design model using a common synchronized framework that tracks and scores real-time collaborative actions by multiple participants on different workstations, as discussed above. See Ex Parte Desjardins at 8-9 (finding that the claims at issue are patent eligible because one or more claim limitations reflect the improvement described in the Specification); see also Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 4-5 ("[t]he examiner is reminded to ... evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement"); MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Because the claimed approach improves technology and the limitations of the claims are specifically tied to those improvements, the amended claims necessarily integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. See Ex Parte Desjardins at 8-9 (where the Panel cites various advantages expressly described in the Specification to support patent eligibility); see also Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 4-5 ("[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"); MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)(II).
b. The Claims Apply Any Purported Abstract Idea in a Meaningful Way
In addition, according to 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]pplying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." Applicant submits that the pending claims meet this standard as well.
Notably, the pending claims place meaningful limits on the implementation of any purported abstract idea by reciting particularized limitations to implement the claimed approach. Importantly, the pending claims recite the particularized limitations of "receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants, a first input associated with a first selectable component of a first component type, wherein the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, and the first component type includes a first set of characteristics," "in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model represented by a set of design model data, wherein the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component," "generating a set of candidate design solutions based on the set of design model data," "computing, based on the modified shared design model and the first input, a set of metrics including a first behavioral metric," "modifying, based on the set of metrics, one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution included in the set of candidate design solutions," "computing, based on the set of metrics, a first collaboration score for a first participant and at least one other in the plurality of participants," and "displaying a design space that includes one or more candidate design solutions included in the set of candidate design solutions, the modified shared design model and the first collaboration score." These limitations ensure that the claimed approach covers a specific way of enabling modification of elements of a shared design model using a common synchronized framework that tracks and scores real-time collaborative actions by multiple participants on different workstations. Accordingly, the pending claims expressly recite the particularized practical application of enabling modification of elements of a shared design model using a common synchronized framework that tracks and scores real-time collaborative actions by multiple participants on different workstations.
Thus, the structure and language of the pending claims go far beyond simply linking an abstract idea to a given technological environment in a generic manner.
Because the claimed limitations apply any purported abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking an abstract idea to a technological environment, the pending claims as a whole integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §§ 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"). For these reasons, Applicant requests that the § 101 rejections of the claims be withdrawn.
c. Conclusion
In sum, because the pending claims improve technology for enabling modification of elements of a shared design model using a common synchronized framework that tracks and scores real-time collaborative actions by multiple participants on different workstations, the pending claims integrate any purported judicial exception into a practical application.
As the foregoing illustrates, the independent claims do not recite an abstract idea, and the independent claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the independent claims and all claims dependent thereon are subject-matter eligible under Step 2A of the USPTO's subject matter eligibility analysis.
(see Response filed 03/17/2026 [pages 12-17]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees that “the pending claims integrate any purported judicial exception into a practical application.” As explained in 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." (emphasis added)
Further, In order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, See 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 claimed improvement perform the additional element different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field. Further, according MPEP 2106.05(a), “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”
However, the additional limitations are merely adding a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering (i.e., receive input data) activity and insignificant application (i.e., display design data/information) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and 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, which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
The additional limitation does not reflect or specify how the alleged improvement performs the additional element in a manner that is different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field or any known technical field. For example, how the claimed receiving first input during a real-time collaboration session and what is special for displaying a design space are technologically distinct from generic or conventional collaboration session and visual represent candidate design solutions, modified design model and score. Likewise, the claim does not provide any details indicating that the receiving, generating, modifying and displaying functions using any non-conventional techniques or specifies any technical improvement over known data gathering, processing and visualization methods. In contrast, the claim limitation broadly disclose the receiving, generating, modifying and displaying steps at a high level generality would not consider as an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Therefore, 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. (See MPEP 2106.05 (a), (b), (d), (f), (g) and (h)).
Further, the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to no more than applying computer components to perform well-understood, routine and conventional functions in the field of design modeling, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B, and independent claims 1, 11 and 17, and dependent claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental process and mathematical concepts), are not integrated judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”:
Applicant argues:
Claim 1 recites the limitations of generating a set of candidate design solutions based on the set of design model data, and modifying, based on the set of metrics, one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution included in the set of candidate design solutions. None of the cited references teaches or suggests these limitations. Therefore, no combination of the cited references can teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1.
Kuniavsky discloses a generative design platform that generates style grammars based on features extracted from visual representations, e.g., images, of products and uses the style grammars in a generative design process to generate product designs that maintain key visual aspects of a core stylistic design. See Kuniavsky at [0004]. The generative design engine 152 generates multiple candidate product designs based on the inputs received from the user and additional characteristics and/or constraints on the product being designed. See id. at [0036]. The generative design engine 152 can generate the candidate product designs using an iterative process in which the generative design engine 152 generates multiple candidate designs based on the various inputs. See id. The design evaluation engine 154 can evaluate the candidate product designs and can generate one or more scores for each candidate product design based on the evaluation. See id. The generative design process can include multiple iterations in which candidate product designs are generated and scored, with each iteration being different based on the candidate product designs selected by the user at each iteration. See id.
In Kuniavsky, a generative design platform 150 can generate the candidate product designs by varying a set of characteristics of the product template in accordance with the stylistic constraints, physical constraints, and any obstacle bodies defined by (or generated based on) the style grammar(s) and physical constraints. See id. at [0073]. The generative design platform 150 generates a set of scores for each candidate product design (308). See id. at [0074]. The generative design platform 150 selects, based on the set of scores for each candidate product design, a subset of the candidate product designs (310). See id. at [0078]. For example, the generative design platform 150 can select a specified number of candidate product designs having the highest overall scores. See id.
In the rejections, the Examiner maps the candidate design solutions, the set of design model data, and the set of metrics, recited in claim 1, to the candidate product designs, the product template, and the set of scores, respectively, disclosed in Kuniavsky. See Office Action at 34-35. Based on these claim mappings, to teach or suggest the above limitations of claim 1, Kuniavsky would have to teach or suggest the idea of generating a set of candidate product designs based on the product template representing a modified 3D model - and modifying, based on the set of scores, one or more aspects of at least one candidate product design included in the set of candidate product designs. Importantly, Kuniavsky contains no such teachings. Instead, Kuniavsky discloses a generative design process where multiple candidate product designs are generated based on user inputs and by varying characteristics or constraints of the product template, where the designs are evaluated to generate scores for each candidate product design. Notably, though, at no point does Kuniavsky teach or suggest modifying an aspect of a candidate product design based on a set of metrics, let alone generating a set of candidate product designs based on the product template representing a modified 3D model. It logically follows, then, that Kuniavsky also fails to teach or suggest modifying, based on the set of scores, one or more aspects of at least one candidate product design included in the set of candidate product designs, as required by claim 1. Kuniavsky is completely silent in these regards. In view of at least these distinctions, Applicant submits that Kuniavsky cannot be properly interpreted as teaching or suggesting the above limitations of claim 1.
A careful review of the remaining references cited by the Examiner shows that those references also fail to teach or suggest the above limitations of claim 1.
As the foregoing illustrates, no combination of the cited references can teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 and all claims dependent thereon are in condition for allowance in view of the cited references. Additionally, each of independent claims 11 and 17 recites limitations similar to those discussed above with respect to allowable claim 1. Therefore, claims 11 and 17 and all claims dependent thereon, respectively, are in condition for allowance for at least the reasons set forth herein.
New Claim
In addition, new claim 21 recites the limitations of synchronizing the modified shared design model by updating a local instance of the shared design model with data received from a user interface to generate an updated local instance of the shared design model; and transmitting the updated local instance of the shared design model to the plurality of participants. None of the cited references teaches or suggests these limitations. Therefore, no combination of the cited references can teach or suggest each and every limitation of new claim 21.
As discussed above, Kuniavsky discloses a generative design process where multiple candidate product designs are generated based on user inputs and by varying characteristics or constraints of the product template, and the designs are evaluated to generate scores for each candidate product design. Notably, though, at no point does Kuniavsky teach or suggest synchronizing the modified shared design model by updating a local instance of the shared design model with data received from a user interface to generate an updated local instance of the shared design model; and transmitting the updated local instance of the shared design model to the plurality of participants, as required by new claim 21. Kuniavsky is silent in this regard. In view of these distinctions, Applicant submits that Kuniavsky cannot be properly interpreted as teaching or suggesting the above limitations of new claim 21.
A careful review of the other references cited by the Examiner shows that those references also fail to teach or suggest the above limitations of new claim 21.
As the foregoing illustrates, no combination of the cited references can teach or suggest each and every limitation of new claim 21. Therefore, new claim 21 is allowable in view of the cited references irrespective of its dependence on allowable claim 1.
(see Response filed 03/17/2026 [pages 18-20]).
Applicant argues that Kuniavsky (US20210286921A1) fails to teach “generating a set of candidate design solutions based on the set of design model data … modifying, based on the set of metrics, one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution included in the set of candidate design solutions.”
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For the generation step, as previously cited, paragraph [0073], “the generative design platform 150 can generate the candidate product designs by varying a set of characteristics of the product template in accordance with the stylistic constraints, physical constraints, and any obstacle bodies defined by (or generated based on) the style grammar(s) and physical constraints.”
The reference teaches that “varying a set of characteristics of the product template” corresponds to the design model data (i.e., representing a modified design model). To support the operation of this generation process described in paragraphs [0073], for example, paragraphs [0036]-[0038] and [0052]-[0053] further clarify that the candidate product designs are generated based on inputs that define and modify characteristics of the product template. Specifically, paragraph [0036] teaches that candidate product designs are generated “based on the inputs received from the user,” while paragraph [0037] teaches that the inputs include a product template. Paragraph [0038] further teaches that the template includes baseline characteristics of the product, and “at least one of these characteristics are modified … when generating the candidate product designs.: Paragraph [0052] additionally teaches that the user can customize characteristics of the product template, and paragraph [0053] confirms that the generative design engine generates candidate product design based on these inputs. Thus, the supported paragraphs clarify that the product template is first defined and customized (i.e., modified via user inputs and constraints), and that the candidate product designs are generated based on those modified characteristics (i.e., design model data). Accordingly, the generation of candidate product designs is based on modified design model data, as recited in the claim.
For the modification step, as previously cited, [0078] teaches that “The generative design platform 150 selects, based on the set of scores for each candidate product design, a subset of the candidate product designs (310).” Paragraph [0036] further teaches that “The generative design process can include multiple iterations in which candidate product designs are generated and scored, with each iteration being different based on the candidate product designs selected by the user at each iteration.”
Applicant’s argument appears to interpret the claimed “modifying … one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution” as requiring a direct modification of the candidate design solution itself. However, the claim limitation does not impose that requirement. Rather, the claim broadly recites modifying “one or more aspects” of a candidate design solution based on the set of metrics, without specifying that the modification must be a direct alteration of the structure or geometry of the candidate design solution. Thus, Kuniavsky does not merely select candidate designs. Rather, the selection based on scores is used within an iterative process in which subsequent candidate product designs are different based on the selected designs. To support the operation of this iterative process described in paragraphs [0078] and [0036], paragraphs [0080]-[0084] clarify how this iterative process operates. After selection based on scores, the generative design platform determine whether to perform another iteration ([0080]) and, if so , updates parameters of the generative design process ([0081]). The platform evaluates characteristics of selected and non-selected candidate product designs, identifies similarities and difference in the characteristics and in their associated scores ([0081]-[0082]), and updates parameters by adjusting weights associated with those characteristics and modifying the scoring process ([0083]). The updated parameters are derived from the scores (i.e., metrics), and directly influence the characteristics of candidate product designs generated in subsequent iterations. As a result, aspects associated with candidate product designs are modified based on the scores, where the aspects include the characteristics and parameters that define or affect the candidate product design. Because the claim recites modifying “one or more aspects” of a candidate design solution, this encompasses modifying characteristics or parameters associated with the candidate design solutions. The selection based on scores in paragraph [0078], together with the iterative process described in paragraph [0036] and further clarified in paragraphs [0080] to [0084], results in subsequent candidate produce designs having different characteristics based on the scores. Accordingly, modification of one or more aspects of at least one candidate product design in the set of candidate product designs based on the scores, as recited in the claim.
Further, De Biswas (US 20130144566A1) teaches or suggests newly added claim 21, “synchronizing the modified shared design model by updating a local instance of the shared design model with data received from a user interface to generate an updated local instance of the shared design model; and transmitting the updated local instance of the shared design model to the plurality of participants.” (see paragraphs [0010] and [0034]).
Therefore, in view of the arguments presented by Applicant and for the reasons discussed above, Kuniavsky teaches the recited generating and modifying limitations, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C.103 is maintained.
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 claim(s) 1-21 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 1-10 and 21 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, Claim 11-16 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and fall within the statutory category articles of manufacture;
Yes, Claims 17-20 are directed to system and fall 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 limitation of recites: “determining a set of actions made to generate a model shared between multiple participants,” 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, multiple participants are capable of observing and evaluating their individual goals to decide on actions to generate a shared model, such as determining which characteristics a component should have, what changes to make to the model, or which parts should be replaced or modified (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).).
Claim 1, The limitation of recites: “… modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model …, wherein the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component,” 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 capable of modifying design model such as change or enhance or improve first or any other component of design model to create a new design model based on the prior decisions or goals (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).).
Claim 1, The limitation of recites: “generating a set of candidate design solutions …,” 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 capable of modifying design model such as change or enhance or improve first or any other component of design model to create a plurality of different modified design model based on the prior decisions or goals associate with model parameters (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).).
Claim 1, The limitation of recites: “computing, based on the modified shared design model and the first input, a set of metrics including a first behavioral metric; computing, based on the set of metrics, a first collaboration score for a first participant and at least one other in the plurality of participants;” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person capable of determining metrics, such as how many times a design model has been modified or how many pre-defined component was added, and then determine/compute a collaboration score for a participant based on the determined metrics (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).).
Claim 1, The limitation of recites: “modifying, based on the set of metrics, one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution included in the set of candidate design solutions,” 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 capable of modifying the candidate design solutions based on the metrics (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).).
Claim 1, The limitation of recites: “displaying a design space that includes one or more candidate design solutions included in the set of candidate design solutions, the modified shared design model, and the first collaboration score,” 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 capable of visualizing or drawing a plurality of possible design models, a modified design model and a defined collaboration score on paper, and then represent or share that representation with other participants (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).).
In MPEP 2106.04(II)(B) :”A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.”
Claim 1: The limitations of “computing, based on the modified shared design model and the first input, a set of metrics including a first behavioral metric; computing, based on the set of metrics, a first collaboration score for a first participant and at least one other in the plurality of participants;” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, can be reasonably considered to represent mathematical concept, specifically:
MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Further, MPEP recites: “For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
The limitations “computing … a set of metric; computing … a first collaboration score" can be considered to represent mathematical concepts under BRI in light of specification. In the specification: [0045], “… computes a set of metrics associated with the design model data associated with the shared design model 120. For example, the evaluation module 112 can compute specific metrics for a given shared design model 120 based on the actions performed by the participants and/or the arrangement of the block items within the shared design model 120 and generate one or more scores (e.g., one or more performance scores and/or one or more collaboration scores.” [0046], “… compute one or more behavioral metrics that measure how multiple users effectively collaborated during the real-time collaboration session to generate the shared design model 120. In such instances, the evaluation module 112 can compute a collaboration score that can indicate how well different stakeholders worked collaboratively to optimize the shared design model 120 to enhance the collective goals for the project. In various embodiments, the evaluation module 112 can compute separate collaboration scores for each pair of personas and also compute a separate collaboration score based on a combination of all personas.” [0105], “… compute one or more collaboration scores based on sets of sub-metrics. For example, the design block evaluator 404 can compute a collaboration score between a given pair of personas 510 as a sum of multiple metric values. CS={PM} +{BM} (1). [0108], “…, the design block evaluator 404 included in the evaluation module 114 can track specific metric values and use those values to compute one or more collaboration scores 630: CS = {Daylight + Adjacency} + {Ratio + Enhancement} (2).” It clearly states the metrics can be computed or calculated, and the collaboration scores can be calculated by equation 1 and 2. Therefore, these limitations represent mathematical relationship, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claims 11 and 17 recite the similar elements as claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 17 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 17: 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 determine a set of actions made to generate a model shared between multiple participants by performing the steps of:” and “A system for determining a set of actions made to generate a 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:” and “in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input “and “represented by a set of design model data,” which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the following additional element – “receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants, a first input associated with a first selectable component of a first component type, wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, and the first component type includes a first set of characteristics;” and displaying a design space …” which are merely adding a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering (i.e., receive input) and insignificant application (i.e., display model data or information) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) with broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC). Examiner note: the limitation of “displaying …” is recited at high level of generality and does not specify any particular manner of display, user interface structure, or presentation technique. Accordingly, the limitation can reasonably be interpreted as either a mental process (i.e., presenting information with pen and paper) or, alternatively, as merely insignificant extra-solution activities such as date outputting or insignificant application.
Further, the following additional element – “generating …” and “modifying, …” The limitations 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, and applying a computer component to perform a generic data processing function to generate candidate design solutions and modify candidate design solution at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic processing functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner note: the limitation of “generating …” and “modifying, …” are recited at high level of generality and does not specify any particular manner of data processing or any specific computing component. Accordingly, these limitations can reasonably be interpreted as either a mental process (i.e., evaluation and adjustment of design options) or, alternatively, as merely applying a computer component to perform a generic data processing functions.
For all of the additional limitations merely use a generic computer to perform data gathering (i.e., receiving input, data processing (e.g., generating and modifying), and insignificant application/post-solution processing (i.e., displaying) to the abstract idea. The additional limitations do not recite any improvement to computer related technology, functioning of computer, or to another technology or technical field that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Instead, the additional limitations are describe at a high level of generality and reflect only generic computer functions and insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong two.
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 17 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 17: 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)).
Further, 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); … 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; v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); …
The additional limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional limitations merely describe using generic computer to perform data gathering, data processing and displaying functions as described in the specification through generic computer operations. The claim does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional component, improved computer architecture, or any particular technological mechanism that performs the generic computer functions in an unconventional manner. Therefore, the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to no more than applying computer components to perform well-understood, routine and conventional functions in the field of numerical modeling, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
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 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-21 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 2-10, 12-16 and 18-21 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 11 and 17.
Claim 2 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising computing, based on the set of metrics, at least a second collaboration score and a third collaboration score, wherein:
the first collaboration score corresponds to a first set of one or more metric values associated with the first participant and a second participant in the plurality of participants;
the second collaboration score corresponds to a second set of one or more metric values associated with the first participant and a third participant in the plurality of participants; and
the third collaboration score corresponds to a third set of one or more metric values associated with the second participant and the third participant.”
This merely specifies first, second and third collaboration score for different combination of participates based on metrics by using equation and computation; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., mentally identify collaboration scores) and a mathematical concept (i.e., compute collaboration scores). Therefore, the claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising
computing a combined collaboration score based on the first collaboration score, the second collaboration score, and the third collaboration score.”
This merely specifies summing of collaboration score based on metrics; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., mentally summing collaboration scores) and a mathematical concept (i.e., compute sum of collaboration scores). Therefore, the claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first behavioral metric comprises one of:
a number of times the first participant performed an enhancement action, or
a number of pre-defined selectable components added to the modified shared design model.”
This merely further defines behavioral metric can be either a number of times the first participant performed an enhancement action or number of pre-defined selectable components added to the modified shared design model refers to claim 1; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process and a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the set of metrics further includes a set of performance metrics, and
computing the first collaboration score comprises computing a score based at least on the first behavioral metric and a first performance metric included in the set of performance metrics.”
This merely further defines metrics includes a set of performance metrics, and computation of collaboration score based on behavioral metric and performance metric can be observed, evaluated and calculated in mind; therefore, it is mere an extension of mental process and a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the first selectable component was previously placed by a second participant in the plurality of participants; and
the first input comprises an enhancement action performed by the first participant on the first selectable component, wherein the enhancement action modifies the first selectable component to a modified first selectable component includes a different set of characteristics than the first selectable component.”
This merely specifies first input modified the component added by other participant, and the first input as an enhancement action performed by the first participant on the first selectable component, wherein the enhancement action includes a different set of characteristics than the first selectable component; therefore, It merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., input data) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising computing a set of performance metrics associated with the performance of the modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items including:
a first block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a first type having a first set of characteristics, and
a second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics.”
This merely specifies computation of performance metrics and defined the shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items includes selectable components with characteristics; therefore, It is mere an extension of mental process (i.e., identify performance metrics) and mathematical concept (i.e., compute performance metrics). Therefore, the claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
adding the modified shared design model to a shared design space;
adding the set of candidate design solutions to a shared design space; and
displaying at least a portion of the shared design space.”
This merely specifies displaying shared space including modified shared design model and candidate design solutions; it merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., adding/inputting) and insignificant application (i.e., displaying) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving at least one of a second input or a second modified design model updated by the second input, wherein the second input is associated with a second selectable component of a second component type; and
updating, based on the at least one of the second input or the second modified design model, the modified shared design model to generate an updated modified shared design model; and
updating the first collaboration score based at least on the updated modified shared design model.”
This merely specifies second input is associated with a second selectable component of a second component type to update shared design model and collaboration score; therefore, It merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., input and update) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising
causing a display device to display a non-numerical visual representation of the first collaboration score.”
This merely specifies virtualization of a non-numerical visual representation of the first collaboration score; it merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity such as insignificant application (i.e., display non-numerical visual representation) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 21 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: synchronizing the modified shared design model by updating a local instance of the shared design model with data received from a user interface to generate an updated local instance of the shared design model; and transmitting the updated local instance of the shared design model to the plurality of participants.”
This merely specifies updating a local model based on received data and transmitting the updated model to other participants; it merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., receiving data for updating) and data outputting (i.e., transmitting data) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 21 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 12-16 and 18-20 recite substantially the same elements as claims 2-4, 6 and 10, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101. Further, the limitation of claim 15, “causing a display device to display a visual representation of the first input” is an insignificant extra-solution activity such as insignificant application (i.e., display visual representation of the first input) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
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) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over De Biswas US 20130144566A1 in view of Kuniavsky US20210286921A1 and Kodali US 20170102833A1 and Ravi US 20210004748A1.
Claim 1, De Biswas teaches A computer-implemented method for determining a set of actions made to generate a model shared between multiple participants (abstract, [0006], “a platform comprising a real-time design tool agnostic collaborative design platform is disclosed that 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 …”), the method comprising:
receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants, a first input associated with a first selectable component of a first component type (abstract, “A real-time collaborative design platform provides a hierarchical 3D model space … The platform also facilitates making the 3D model space accessible by multiple users over a network, such as the Internet.” fig.11, [0148], “…user may edit or insert a change such as a change in geometry of a model…”; [0100], “… component or sub-component in the 3D model space 400 is edited, modified…”; Examiner note: a POSITA would understand that a first input can be a modification/edit the component or sub-component or geometry of chair 1102 (i.e., first selectable component of first component type), wherein:
the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model (fig.11, chair 1102 including sub-components (chair seat and chair back) is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components (e.g., all components including chair in the user interface 1100), and the first component type includes a first set of characteristics (Fig.11 illustrates the chair as first selectable component in a set of pre-defined selectable components (e.g., including other components and chair) in the 3D model, the chair as first component type including first set of characteristics (e.g., dimensions and shape) showed in FIG.11);
in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model represented by a set of design model data, wherein the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component ([0148], “the user may edit or insert a change such as a change in geometry of a model, this change may be automatically updated ...”; [0100], “it is possible to assemble various different iterations of component 1 … by choosing different versions of sub-components … component or sub-component in the 3D model space 400 is edited, modified… The resulting component 1 is but one iteration created by the selection of different versions of sub-components, …”; Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that the system received a request (i.e., edit/modify) from user is interpreted as in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, the system would modify selected component or sub-component of selected component and generate an updated component or sub-component of component that modified shared design model, and the chair is a virtual object within a 3D environment, and all properties such as geometry, dimensions, material, and appearance must be digitally defined by specific numerical attributes for a computer program to store, display, and manipulate it);
(fig.11, [0148], “…user may edit or insert a change such as a change in geometry of a model…”; [0100], “… component or sub-component in the 3D model space 400 is edited, modified…” Examiner note: a first input is interpreted as modify/edit the component or sub-component or geometry of chair 1102 (i.e., first selectable component) to form a modified shared chair model),
displaying a design space that includes the modified shared design model (fig.11, modified 3D model in the user interface 1100 as design space),
However, De Biswas fails to teach generating a set of candidate design solutions based on the set of design model data; computing, based on the modified design model and the first input, a set of metrics including a first behavioral metric; modifying, based on the set of metrics, one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution included in the set of candidate design solutions; displaying a design space that includes one or more candidate design solutions included in the set of candidate design solutions and the first collaboration score.
Kuniavsky teaches generating a set of candidate design solutions based on the set of design model data ([0073], “The generative design platform 150 generates a set of candidate product designs for the product (306). As described above, the generative design platform 150 can generate the candidate product designs by varying a set of characteristics of the product template in accordance with the stylistic constraints, physical constraints, and any obstacle bodies defined by (or generated based on) the style grammar(s) and physical constraints.”); computing, based on the modified design model and the first input, a set of metrics ([0074], The generative design platform 150 generates a set of scores for each candidate product design (308). The scores can include a style score that represents a measure of how well the candidate product design conforms to the aesthetic characteristics of each style grammar.” [0036], “The generative design engine 152 generates multiple candidate product designs based on the inputs received from the user and additional characteristics and/or constraints on the product being designed.” Examiner note: the candidate product designs are generated from the product template as modified by user inputs and constraints, and the set of scores (i.e., metrics) is computed for each candidate product design are based on the modified design model and the first input from which each candidate product design is derived); modifying, based on the set of metrics, one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution included in the set of candidate design solutions ([0078], “The generative design platform 150 selects, based on the set of scores for each candidate product design, a subset of the candidate product designs (310).” [0036], “The generative design process can include multiple iterations in which candidate product designs are generated and scored, with each iteration being different based on the candidate product designs selected by the user at each iteration.” Examiner note: the selection based on the set of scores directly drives regeneration of modified candidate designs in subsequent iterations. This regeneration necessarily modifies one or more aspects of at least one candidate design solution based on the set of metrics); displaying a design space that includes one or more candidate design solutions included in the set of candidate design solutions ([0067], “… the selected candidate designs are displayed to the user. The user interface 114 of the client-side application 112 can display a visual representation of each selected candidate rim design and optionally the score(s) used to select the candidate rim designs that are displayed to the user.”) .
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 Kuniavsky, and apply generative design techniques in order to automatically generate , evaluate, modify and present multiple alternative design solutions within the shared collaborative design environment, thereby helping users efficiently explore and compare multiple design alternatives rather than manually creating and evaluating a single design at a time.
However, De Biswas and Kuniavsky fails to a first behavioral metric.
Kodali teaches a first behavioral metric ([0048], “data about the dashboard or other interface 403 may be collected and presented in its own “meta-dashboard”: that is, a dashboard that presents information about a dashboard. Information tracked for dashboard interfaces 403 could include a number of views, an update frequency, metrics about the editing process (e.g., number of edits made, number of users involved in editing, frequency of edits and/or the like)…” Examiner note: “metrics about the editing process” is based on the modified design/object and number of edits, and “number of edits made” is interpreted as behavioral metric).
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 Kuniavsky to incorporate the teachings of Kodali, and apply information tracked for dashboard interfaces in order to allow individual users can edit certain objects and view edits made by other users as such edits are made in real time. The finished interfaces may be shared, approved and monitored as desired so that future enhancements may be made and the benefits of created interfaces can be tracked [0049]; the dashboard design process can be made much more efficient and effective by allowing dashboards to be edited and reviewed in a collaborative, simultaneous multi-user setting [0015].
However, De Biswas and Kuniavsky and Kodali fail to teach computing, based on the set of metrics, a first collaboration score for a first participant and at least one other in the plurality of participants and displaying the first collaboration score.
Ravi teaches computing, based on the set of metrics, a first collaboration score for a first participant and at least one other in the plurality of participants ([0019] The system computes collaboration metrics for a user of the plurality of users based on the user interaction data, computes a collaboration strength score (examiner note: i.e., collaboration score) based the collaboration metrics for the user, and provides the collaboration strength score to a client device of the user. [0037] the collaboration strength computation module 306 calculates scores for various actions (for a collaboration between two users) depending on their importance/priority (which represents the edge weight between the 2 users in the collaboration)); and displaying the first collaboration score (fig.10, a graphical user interface of a collaboration strength score).
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 Kuniavsky and Kodali to incorporate the teachings of Ravi, and apply method for determining collaboration strength score among users and display the collaboration strength score in order to facilitate solving the technical problem of computing a collaboration strength score of a user and generating suggested application functions based on the collaboration strength score of the user [0020]. In this case, by using computation module to compute collaboration score and GUI to display collaboration strength score in the user interface 1100 would benefit all users in real-time collaboration in 3D modeling and simulation which provides valuable insights into team dynamics, allowing users to identify areas for improvement and enhance productivity.
Claim 2, De Biswas and Kuniavsky and Kodali and Ravi further teaches computing, based on the set of metrics, at least a second collaboration score and a third collaboration score, wherein: the first collaboration score corresponds to a first set of one or more metric values associated with the first participant and a second participant in the plurality of participants; the second collaboration score corresponds to a second set of one or more metric values associated with the first participant and a third participant in the plurality of participants; and the third collaboration score corresponds to a third set of one or more metric values associated with the second participant and the third participant (see Ravi; [0019] The system computes collaboration metrics for a user of the plurality of users based on the user interaction data, computes a collaboration strength score (i.e., collaboration score) based the collaboration metrics for the user, and provides the collaboration strength score to a client device of the user. [0037], the collaboration strength computation module 306 calculates scores for various actions (for a collaboration between two users) depending on their importance/priority (which represents the edge weight between the 2 users in the collaboration; Note: A POSITA would understand that computing different collaboration strength score can be calculated based on different set of metrics by two different users actions).
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 Kuniavsky and Kodali to incorporate the teachings of Ravi, and apply method for determining collaboration strength score among users in order to facilitate solving the technical problem of computing a collaboration strength score of a user and generating suggested application functions based on the collaboration strength score of the user [0020]. In this case, by using computation module to compute collaboration score would benefit all users in real-time collaboration in 3D modeling and simulation which provides valuable insights into team dynamics, allowing users to identify areas for improvement and enhance productivity.
Claim 4, De Biswas and Kuniavsky and Kodali further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first behavioral metric comprises one of: a number of times the first participant performed an enhancement action, or a number of pre-defined selectable components added to the modified shared design model (see Kodali; [0048], “… metrics about the editing process (e.g., number of edits made, number of users involved in editing, frequency of edits and/or the like)…” Note: “metrics about the editing process” is based on the modified design/object and number of edits, and “number of edits made” is interpreted as behavioral metric and edits update the design are interpreted as enhancement actions; Examiner note: A POSITA understand that edit/modified object can be interpreted as an enhancement action would improve or add functionality to an existing system, process, or product, making it more efficient, user-friendly, or better suited to meet current needs).
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 Kuniavsky to incorporate the teachings of Kodali, and apply information tracked for dashboard interfaces in order to allow individual users can edit certain objects and view edits made by other users as such edits are made in real time. The finished interfaces may be shared, approved and monitored as desired so that future enhancements may be made and the benefits of created interfaces can be tracked [0049]; the dashboard design process can be made much more efficient and effective by allowing dashboards to be edited and reviewed in a collaborative, simultaneous multi-user setting [0015].
Claim 5, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the set of metrics further includes a set of performance metrics (see De Biswas; [0016], “The performance criteria (note: i.e., performance metrics) 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. The performance criteria may be based on compatibility of the sub-component with other sub-components in the 3D model space.”),
and
However, De Biswas and Kuniavsky fails to teach behavioral metric.
Kodali teaches behavioral metric ([0048], “data about the dashboard or other interface 403 may be collected and presented in its own “meta-dashboard”: that is, a dashboard that presents information about a dashboard. Information tracked for dashboard interfaces 403 could include a number of views, an update frequency, metrics about the editing process (e.g., number of edits made, number of users involved in editing, frequency of edits and/or the like)…” Note: “metrics about the editing process” is based on the modified design/object and inputs, and “number of edits made” is interpreted as behavioral metric).
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 Kuniavsky to incorporate the teachings of Kodali apply information tracked for dashboard interfaces in order to allow individual users can edit certain objects and view edits made by other users as such edits are made in real time. The finished interfaces may be shared, approved and monitored as desired so that future enhancements may be made and the benefits of created interfaces can be tracked [0049]; the dashboard design process can be made much more efficient and effective by allowing dashboards to be edited and reviewed in a collaborative, simultaneous multi-user setting [0015].
However, De Biswas and Kuniavsky and Kodali fail to teach computing the first collaboration score comprises computing a score based at least on the first behavioral metric and a first performance metric included in the set of performance metrics.
Ravi teaches computing the first collaboration score comprises computing a score based at least on the first behavioral metric and a first performance metric included in the set of performance metrics ([0019] The system computes collaboration metrics for a user of the plurality of users based on the user interaction data, computes a collaboration strength score (i.e., collaboration score) based the collaboration metrics for the user, and provides the collaboration strength score to a client device of the user; [0018] The enterprise collects enterprise collaboration data (also referred to as user interaction data). The enterprise collaboration data may include data from the email applications, instant message (IM) applications, meeting applications, calendar applications, document sharing applications, and other collaboration data (i.e., performance data and behavior data); for example, performance data of document sharing applications: Metrics like file uploads, downloads, and document revisions can indicate document usage and collaboration levels; behavior data of document sharing applications: Data on which documents are accessed, edited, and shared can reveal collaboration workflows and knowledge sharing within a team or organization.).
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 Kuniavsky and Kodali to incorporate the teachings of Ravi, and apply method for determining collaboration strength among users based on behavioral metric and performance metric in order to facilitate solving the technical problem of computing a collaboration strength score of a user and generating suggested application functions based on the collaboration strength score of the user [0020]. In this case, by using computation module to compute collaboration score in the user interface 1100 would benefit all users in real-time collaboration in 3D modeling and simulation which provides valuable insights into team dynamics, allowing users to identify areas for improvement and enhance productivity.
Claim 6, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the first selectable component was previously placed by a second participant in the plurality of participants; and the first input comprises an enhancement action performed by the first participant on the first selectable component (fig.11, [0148], “…user may edit or insert a change such as a change in geometry of a model…”; [0100], “… component or sub-component in the 3D model space 400 is edited, modified…”; Note: a first input is interpreted as modify/edit the component or sub-component or geometry of chair 1102 (i.e., first selectable component)), wherein the enhancement action modifies the first selectable component to a modified first selectable component includes a different set of characteristics than the first selectable component ([0037], “a hierarchical 3D model space. The hierarchical 3D model space may include a plurality of nodes and at least one branch. The each node may include at least one version of a sub-component. The method may further include transmitting a sub-space that may include a portion of the 3D model space to a first user utilizing a first software tool. The method may also include transmitting the sub-space to a second user utilizing a second software tool. The method may further include receiving from the first user the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component. The method may also include receiving from the second user the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component. The method may further include integrating the at least one new sub-component from the first user and the at least one updated sub-component from the second user with the 3D model space.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that the sub-component can be previously done by second user, and transmitting it to first user to create a new updated sub-component, and the created new updated sub-component is interpreted as an enhancement action performed by first user and modified the sub-component includes different attributions than the previous version of sub-component).
Claim 7, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising computing a set of performance metrics associated with the performance of the modified shared design model ([0016], “The performance criteria (note: i.e., performance metrics) 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. The performance criteria may be based on compatibility of the sub-component with other sub-components in the 3D model space.”), wherein the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items (fig.11, chair and other components in different grids are interpreted as an arrangement of a set of block items in 3D model) including: a first block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a first type having a first set of characteristics (fig.11, chair including seat and back have a first type of a set of characteristic (e.g., dimension or color or geometry); Note: chair back and chair seat are interpreted as at least one of the selectable components (i.e., chair back or chair seat) from a set of pre-defined selectable components (fig.11, chair 1102 is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components (i.e., all components including chair and next to chair in the user interface 1100), and a second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics (fig.11, another components (i.e., other than chair) in the different grid would have a second type of a set of characteristic (e.g., dimension or color or geometry) associate to the component that is different than the first set of characteristics; Note: as discussed above the chair including chair back and chair seat is interpreted as one of the pre-defined selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable components (i.e., other components than chair); A POSITA would understand that the one of another component as second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the chair characteristics).
Claim 8, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: adding the modified shared design model (fig.11, 3D model in the user interface 1100) to a shared design space (Fig.11, 3D model in the user interface 1100 represent a 3D design space; [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.” Therefore, the user interface 1100 is interpreted as shared design space including all 3D models allow collaboration between users); adding the set of candidate design solutions to the shared design space (fig.5, user interface 500 is interpreted as new shared design space; [0107], “the user interface 500 may enable real-time interaction with data stored on the back end server 208 as well as with other users, such as users operating separate user devices while collaborating on a sub-space.” fig.11 depicts a user interface of a 3D collaborative design platform in which elements and sub-spaces of the platform are represented in a 3D design space; therefore, the “computer and power source” can be replaced by the 3D models in fig.11; therefore, the component with different version as a candidate design solution in the user interface 500 (i.e., shared design space)); and displaying at least a portion of the shared design space (fig.5, user interface 500 display on the users’ devices).
However, De Biswas fails to teach the set of candidate design solutions.
Kuniavsky teaches the set of candidate design solutions ([0073], “The generative design platform 150 generates a set of candidate product designs for the product (306). As described above, the generative design platform 150 can generate the candidate product designs by varying a set of characteristics of the product template in accordance with the stylistic constraints, physical constraints, and any obstacle bodies defined by (or generated based on) the style grammar(s) and physical constraints.”).
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 Kuniavsky, and apply generative design techniques in order to generate and add a set of candidate design solutions into the shared design space, thereby improving collaborative design efficiency and decision making by help users to visually compare multiple candidate design solutions within the same share design space.
Claim 9, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving at least one of a second input or a second modified design model updated by the second input, wherein the second input is associated with a second selectable component of a second component type; and updating, based on the at least one of the second input or the second modified design model, the modified shared design model to generate an updated modified shared design model (See De Biswas; [0148], “the user may edit or insert a change such as a change in geometry of a model,...”; [0100], “… component or sub-component in the 3D model space 400 is edited, modified…”; Examiner note: user edit or modify or insert is interpreted as one or more inputs associated with one or more different type of components or sub-components of components in the 3D model in the user interface 1100 to generate an updated shared 3D model); and
However, De Biswas and Kuniavsky and Kodali fail to teach updating the first collaboration score based at least on the updated modified shared design model.
Ravi teaches updating the first collaboration score based at least on the updated modified shared design model ([0019] The system computes collaboration metrics for a user of the plurality of users based on the user interaction data, computes a collaboration strength score (i.e., collaboration score) based the collaboration metrics for the user, and provides the collaboration strength score to a client device of the user. A POSITA would understand that the modified model associated with different metrics; therefore, the metrics is updated and the collaboration strength score is updated too).
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 Kuniavsky and Kodali to incorporate the teachings of Ravi, and apply method for determining collaboration strength score among users based on metrics in order to facilitate solving the technical problem of computing a collaboration strength score of a user and generating suggested application functions based on the collaboration strength score of the user [0020]. In this case, by using computation module to compute collaboration score in the user interface 1100 would benefit all users in real-time collaboration in 3D modeling and simulation which provides valuable insights into team dynamics, allowing users to identify areas for improvement and enhance productivity.
Claim 21, De Biswas further teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: synchronizing the modified shared design model by updating a local instance of the shared design model with data received from a user interface to generate an updated local instance of the shared design model ([0010], “users may be assigned to a sub-space and data defining a sub-space may be communicated to a user for use with one or more software modeling tools of the user's choosing … The user may then alter the data so provided and communicate it, perhaps as an updated version, back to the platform for subsequent storage …Upon receiving such data back from a user, the platform once again may translate the data so received from its data format of origin into a data format or data formats compatible and/or consistent with the 3D model data stored within or accessible to the platform.” Examiner note: the reference teaches that a portion of the shared 3D model space (i.e., sub-space) is communicated to a user for local use with modeling tolls, which corresponds to a local instance of the shred design model. The user modifies this sub-space via interaction with modeling tools, which corresponds to data received from a user interface. The modified sub-space is then returned to the platform as an updated version, which corresponds to updating the local instance to generate an updated local instance. The platform further translates the returned data into a format consistent with the shared 3D model data, incorporating the update into the shared model, which corresponds to synchronizing the modeled shared design model); and transmitting the updated local instance of the shared design model to the plurality of participants ([0034], “The method may further include receiving from one of the plurality of users an updated sub-component forming a part of the sub-space. The method may also include transmitting the updated sub-component to the at least one of the plurality of users.” Examiner note: the reference teaches receiving an updated sub-component and transmitting the updated sub-component to a plurality of users. The updated sub-component corresponds to an updated local instance of the shared design model, and transmitting the updated sub-component to the plurality of users corresponds to transmitting the updated local instance of the shared design model to the plurality of participants).
The elements of claims 11-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 are substantially the same as those of claim 1-2 and 4-9. Further, the additional limitation of claim 15 recites “a display device to display a visual representation of the first input.” (see De Biswas, fig.11, a user interface 1100; fig.5, user interface 500; fig.6; [0119], “a user interface 600a and a second user interface 600b appearing on the user devices 202a, 202b.”). Further, the additional limitation of claim 17 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:” (see De Biswas; [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.”); Further, the additional limitation of claim 11 recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors…” (see De Biswas, [198]-[200]); Therefore, the elements of claims 11-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1-2 and 4-9.
Claim(s) 3, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and
Kuniavsky and Kodali and Ravi as applied to claims 2, 12 and 18 above, and further in view of Hanna US 20210383261 A1.
Claim 3, De Biswas and Kuniavsky and Kodali and Ravi fail to teach The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising computing a combined collaboration score based on the first collaboration score, the second collaboration score, and the third collaboration score.
Hanna teaches computing a combined collaboration score based on the first collaboration score, the second collaboration score, and the third collaboration score ([0014] the system generates an overall collaborative score from a weighted or unweighted combination of the set of collaborative scores).
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 Kuniavsky and Kodali and Ravi to incorporate the teachings of Hanna, and apply system generates an overall collaborative score from a weighted or unweighted combination of the set of collaborative scores in order to leading to more informed decisions regarding development, ultimately boosting productivity. In this case, by using system generates an overall collaborative score would benefit all users in real-time collaboration in 3D modeling and simulation which provides valuable insights into team dynamics, allowing users to identify areas for improvement and enhance productivity.
The elements of claims 13 and 19 are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Therefore, the elements of claims 13 and 19 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 3.
Claim(s) 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and
Kuniavsky and Kodali and Ravi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Peters US 20210185276 A1.
Claim 10, De Biswas and Kuniavsky and Kodali and Ravi fail to teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising causing a display device to display a non-numerical visual representation of the first collaboration score.
Peters teaches a display device ([0516], “a display device, e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor”) to display a non-numerical visual representation of the first collaboration score ([0320], “their average collaboration scores for the session with accompanying bar chart.”).
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 Kuniavsky and Kodali and Ravi to incorporate the teachings of Peters, and apply a display device, e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor”) to display average collaboration scores for the session with accompanying bar chart in order to convey trends, patterns, or relative strengths and weaknesses within a dataset without getting precise numeric comparisons, and easy visual interpretation of which category has the highest or lowest score without needing to focus on exact numerical values.
The elements of claim 16 is substantially the same as those of claim 10. Therefore, the elements of claim 16 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Y. Deng et al., “The multi-user computer-aided design collaborative learning framework,” Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101446, Published on 14 November 2021, discloses new developments to computer-aided design (CAD) software transform a once solitary modelling task into a
collaborative one. The emerging multi-user CAD (MUCAD) systems allow virtual, real-time collaboration, with the potential to expand the learning outcomes and teaching methods of CAD. This paper proposes a MUCAD collaborative learning framework (MUCAD-CLF) to interpret backend analytic data from commercially available MUCAD software. The framework builds on several existing metrics from the literature and introduces newly developed methods to classify CAD actions collected from users’ analytic data.
Y. Zeng et al., “A smart performance measurement approach for collaborative design in Industry 4.0,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering 2019, Vol. 11(1) 1–15, The Author(s) 2019, discloses a smart design performance measurement approach, which can be utilized to support performance measurement implementation during a collaborative design process.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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