DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/17/2026 has been entered. As directed, claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-18
and 20 have been amended, no claim have been canceled and added. Thus claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
…
1. The Claims Do Not Fall Within Any Enumerated Grouping Of Abstract Ideas
First, according to the 2019 Guidance, for a claim to constitute an abstract idea, the claim must fall within the subject matter grouping of at least one of: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite any limitations falling within any of these enumerated groupings.
In that regard, the amended claims do not recite any mathematical relations, formulas, or calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). In addition, the amended claims do not recite any limitations that can be properly interpreted as being directed towards organizing human activities that are categorized as abstract, such as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Accordingly, the amended claims cannot be considered abstract under the category of organizing human activities.
Lastly, the amended claims are not directed towards mental processes because the claims recite limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind or using pen and 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).
For example, the amended claims recite the specific steps of receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input, and modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each block item in the set of block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the block item. The amended claims also recite the specific steps of generating a first block item defined by a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a first set of vertices of the first block item and placing the first block item within the modified shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model. The amended claims also recite the specific step generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model, each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item. These limitations quite clearly require the use of a computing device and are not operations that can be performed in someone's mind or using pen/paper. In particular, a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations cannot be conducted without use of a computing device. In addition, generating the modified shared design model and generating the first candidate design solution in the manner recited in the claimed approach is computationally intensive and cannot be performed without use of a computing device.
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the amended claims cannot be properly interpreted as being directed towards a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(111) ("[s]tep 2A determines whether: ... [t]he claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception"); see also MPEP § 2106.04(11) ("[t]he claim as a whole is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B, thereby concluding the eligibility analysis").
Because none of the limitations recited in the amended claims are directed towards any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas, the amended claims cannot be properly interpreted as being abstract.
(see Response filed 04/17/2026 [pages 15-17]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagree that the amended claims are not directed towards mental processes because the claims recite limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind or using pen and paper.
In MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
Regarding claim limitations of “… only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model; and each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals that the shared design model represents in a multi-objective design problem … in response to receiving the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model … generating, based on the modified shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, wherein each candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions includes additional selectable components of a second component type from the set of pre-defined selectable components,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. See specification, e.g., [0003], [0004], [0036] [0037], [0061], [0062] and [0063]. Therefore, the claim recites “mental process”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A, prong one is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
2. The Claims Recite Limitations that Necessarily Integrate Any Purported Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Second, the amended claims recite limitations that necessarily integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In this regard, the Ex Parte Desjardins decision makes clear that "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). The rule articulated in Ex Parte Desjardins is consistent with the standard set forth in other Patent Office guidance. See Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at pp. 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"); and MPEP § 2106.04(d). Applicant submits that the amended claims meet this standard.
In that regard, the present Application makes clear that the claimed approach improves collaborative computer-aided design technology. See Application, paragraphs [0002], [0006] and [0137] - [0139]. The present Application further explains that the claimed approach enables real-time collaboration of participants to collectively generate and modify a shared design model via pre-defined selectable components that are represented as simplified voxel-based block items in the shared design model. The claimed approach imparts the technological improvement of allowing different participants having different design goals - but lacking design expertise - to each easily contribute to the shared design model through inputs relating to the pre-defined selectable components. In this manner, the contributions of all participants having different design goals in the collaboration of the shared design model can be used to update the shared design model, where the updated shared design model is used to generate candidate design solutions that satisfy the different design goals for the different participants, thereby achieving these improvements to technology. See Application, paragraphs [0008], [0029] - [0030], and [0137] - [0139]. See Ex Parte Desjardins at 8-9 (where the Panel cites various advantages expressly described in the Specification to support patent eligibility); Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at p. 4 ("[t]he examiner is reminded to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field"); MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a).
In addition, the above improvements to technology are effectuated by the amended claims through the express steps of receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants, a first input associated with placing a first selectable component within a shared design model, wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components; the first selectable component is of a first component type that only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model; and each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals that the shared design model represents in a multi-objective design problem; modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each block item in the set of block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the block item; and generating, based on the modified shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, comprising generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model, each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item. Accordingly, the amended claims are directly tied to the improvements to technology described in the present Application, thereby making the amended claims patent eligible. 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 pp. 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 because the limitations of the amended claims are specifically tied to those improvements, the amended claims necessarily integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.
3. Conclusion
Because the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, and because the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application, Applicant submits that the amended claims and all claims dependent thereon are subject-matter eligible under the 2019 Guidance.
(see Response filed 04/17/2026 [pages 17-19]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees that “the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.”
However, 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 satisfying persona design goals and persona capability) 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.
However, the additional limitation of “receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with placing a first selectable component within a shared design model, wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with the shared design model; the first selectable component is of a first component type that only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model,” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., receiving input data), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The limitation merely describe receiving data in a generic networked collaboration environment and describe the content or attributes of the received input corresponds to the selectable component and the personas. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to the operation of the workstations, the network, the real-time collaboration session, access control, or design model technology. Rather, the limitation amount to data gathering, and generally linking the abstract idea to a computer based collaboration environment, which does not impose a meaning limit on the judicial exception. In particular, the additional limitation “during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations” merely describes the environment in which the abstract idea is performed. The recited real-time collaboration, network connectivity, and geographic distribution do not specify how the claimed inputs are received, how the shared design model is technically modified, or how communication is technically achieved. Instead, these features merely invoke generic computer networking and multiple user interaction to collect, transmit, and share data, does not improve the functioning of computer or network, or to other technology or technical field.
Further, the additional limitation of “the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each block item in the set of block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the block item, including generating a first block item defined by a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a first set of vertices of the first block item and placing the first block item within the modified shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In particular, the limitations merely recite representing a selected design component as a block item arranged in a 3D grid, wherein the block item is described using voxels, 3D coordinate data, and vertex information. The recited vertices merely identify geometric points of the block item, and the recited 3D coordinates merely correspond to the geometric points for purposes of defining and placing the block item in the design model. The limitations do not recite a particular technique for determining the vertices, generating the 3D coordinates from the vertices, mapping voxel data to vertex data, transforming coordinate data, updating a spatial data structure, rendering the modified model, or improving the operation of the computer or any other technology or technical field. Rather, the limitations merely state result of representing and placing the selected component as a voxel and coordinate defined block item within a 3D grid. Therefore, these additional limitations merely use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea (i.e., mental process) and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Alternatively, the limitation merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a computer-aided three-dimensional design modeling environment by requiring the selected component to be represented using voxels, 3D coordinates, and vertices, and placed within a 3D grid based on the 3D coordinates (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). However, limiting the abstract idea to the design modeling environment does not provide a specific improvement to computer functionality, voxel processing, vertex determination, coordinate generation, or any other technology or technical field.. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the additional limitation of “generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model, each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In particular, the limitations merely recite repeatedly adding additional block items to the modified shard design model to form a candidate design solution. The recited “iteratively generating and placing” describes the result of repeated generation and placement of additional block items, but does not recite a particular iterative algorithm, stopping condition, optimization technique, rule for selecting the next additional block item, or rule for determining the placement location of each additional block item. Although each additional block item is defined using voxels, 3D coordinates, and corresponding vertices are the same type of design model representation discusses above and merely specify how the additional block items are represented in the modified shared design model. Therefore, these additional limitations merely use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea (i.e., mental process) and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Alternatively, the limitation merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a computer-aided three-dimensional design modeling environment in which candidate design solutions are generated by repeatedly placing additional block items represented by voxels, 3D coordinates, and corresponding vertices (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). However, limiting the abstract idea to the design modeling environment does not provide a specific improvement to computer functionality, voxel processing, vertex determination, coordinate generation, or any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For step 2B, the claim recites the additional limitations at a high level of generality and uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive input, represent design components as generic 3D model data, modify the shared design model and generate candidate design solutions. The claim does not recite any unconventional computer components, unconventional arrangement of computer components, or specific technical improvement to how the computer receives input, represents voxel or coordinate data, determines vertices, places block items, modifies the design model, or generates candidate solutions. Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, merely apply the judicial exception using generic computing components and generic 3D design model data, and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 11 and 17, and the claims dependent thereon, are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
B. Federal Circuit Case Law:
The Federal Circuit has ruled in numerous cases that claims directed towards technological solutions to technological problems are not abstract under the two-step Alice/Mayo framework. Applicant submits that the amended claims are similarly directed towards a technological solution to a technological problem and, accordingly, are not abstract.
In that regard, the present Application makes clear that a technical problem that existed in the prior art prior to the development of the claimed approach was that a conventional design application required an experienced designer to generate and modify a problem specification (design model) for a design project. In addition, a conventional design application does not allow multiple stakeholders/participants of a design project to contribute to the problem specification (design model) for the design project. As a result, the design solutions that are generated based on the problem specification (design model) often do not balance or reflect the differing goals of all stakeholders/participants in the design project that do not have expertise in design applications. See Application, paragraphs [0003] - [0005] and [0027] - [0028].
The present Application also makes clear that one of the technical advantages of the claimed approach is that the claimed approach allows participants having different design goals but lacking design expertise to each easily contribute to the shared design model through inputs relating to pre-defined selectable components that are represented as simplified voxel-based block items in the shared design model. In this manner, the contributions of all stakeholders/participants in the collaboration of the shared design model can be used to generate and modify the shared design model. In addition, the claimed approach allows multiple stakeholders/participants to simultaneously collaborate on the shared design model, each update to the shared design model being used to generate candidate design solutions that satisfy the different design goals for the different participants. See Application, paragraphs [0008], [0029] - [0030], and [0137] - [0139]. Thus, among other things, the claimed approach solves the above technical problem that existed in the prior art.
Further, each of the amended independent claims recites the limitations of receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants, a first input associated with placing a first selectable component within a shared design model, wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components; the first selectable component is of a first component type that only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model; and each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals that the shared design model represents in a multi-objective design problem; modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each block item in the set of block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the block item; and generating, based on the modified shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, comprising generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model, each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item. These limitations are specific to imparting the technological improvement of the claimed approach. See Application, paragraphs [0008], [0029] - [0030], and [0137] - [0139].
Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under the legal rule set forth in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that recite specifically limited steps or elements that effect a technological improvement or useful result are not abstract), under the legal rule set forth in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed towards a technological improvement are not abstract), the legal rule set forth in Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed towards an improvement in the functioning or operation of a computer or computer network are not abstract), and the legal rule set forth in Weisner v. Google LLC, No. 2021-2228 (Fed. Cir. 2022) and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed towards a technical solution to a technical problem necessarily recite more than an abstract idea).
C. Conclusion
In sum, the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application, and the amended claims are directed towards a technological solution to a technological problem. Therefore, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under both the 2019
Guidance and controlling Federal Circuit case law. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
(see Response filed 04/17/2026 [pages 19-22]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees that “the claimed approach solves the above technical problem that existed in the prior art.” As discussed above, the claim recites the workstations, network, shared design model, 3D grid, voxels, 3D coordinates, vertices, and the iterative generation and placement of additional block items at a high level of generality. The claims uses processor or other generic computing components in their ordinary capacity to receive information, represent components using 3D model data, modify the shared design model, and generate candidate design solutions. The claim does not recite any specific technical implementation, unconventional arrangement of computer components, particular voxel, coordinate and vertices generation technique, particular candidate design solution generation technique.
The applicant also cited several cases; however, these cases are not applicable because each case involves claims that recited specific, technical improvements to computer functionality, data structures, memory architecture, user interface navigation, security mechanisms, or network operation. In contrast, the instant claims do not recite any specific algorithm, data structure, network operation or configuration, computer architecture that improves how the computer itself operates, but instead merely use computing components to receiving input data, modifying shared design model and the iteratively generating and placing additional block items within a computer-aided three-dimensional design modeling environment without recite any particular way improve the functioning of computer or any existing technology or technical field.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental process), are not integrated judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 17, in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks
Made in an Amendment,” pages 22-23, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of
rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or
matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The newly applied reference: Cera (“Role-based viewing envelopes for information protection in collaborative modeling,” published in January 2004) teaches assigning users to roles and controlling write permissions based on those assigned roles. Benjamin (US20190147118A1) teaches different stakeholders having different or competing design objectives, generating a set of candidate designs that satisfy the competing design objectives to varying degrees, and iteratively regenerating or modifying the candidate designs to improve satisfaction of the design objectives. O'Leary (US20160267705A1) teaches voxel-based three-dimensional modeling in a client server environment, including voxel data arranged in three-dimensional grids, voxel models composed from voxel data and associated with one or more meshes comprising vertices in three-dimensional space, voxel model vertices having position values relative to the model, and selectable voxel models positioned at local coordinates and inserted into voxel environments. Therefore, the combination of De Biswas (US 20130144566A1) in view of Cera and Benjamin and O'Leary teach or suggest amended claims 1, 11 and 17. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in
public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Co-pending Application 17/696,340
Instant Application 17/718,185
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a design model shared between multiple participants, the method comprising:
receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants
operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with a first component from a set of pre-defined components associated with a shared design model,
wherein the first component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, wherein the first persona is associated with a first plurality of different types of pre-defined components including a first type that includes the first component and only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add the first component and any other component included in the first plurality of different types of pre-defined components to the shared design model;
in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design
model based on the first input to generate an updated shared design model comprising an arrangement of a set of components within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each component in the set of components being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates, wherein modifying the shared design model to generate the updated shared design model comprises adding the first component within the modified shared design model by generating a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates that define the first component and placing the first set of voxels within the updated shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates; and
causing the updated shared design model to be synchronized with at least one other
participant in the plurality of participants included in the real-time collaboration session via the network.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
adding the updated shared design model to a shared design space;
generating, based on the updated shared design model, a first set of candidate design
solutions that includes additional components from the set of pre-defined components;
adding the first set of candidate design solutions to the shared design space; and
displaying at least a portion of the shared design space.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising
computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution, wherein:
the updated shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items
including (i) the first component of the first type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics, and
the set of metrics is computed based on the first set of characteristics and the second
set of characteristics.
4. (The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising:
performing, on at least one candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design
solutions, one or more optimization operations to generate an optimized candidate design solution, wherein the optimized candidate design solution maximizes or minimizes the set of metrics associated with the performance of the at least one candidate design solution.
Examiner note: although the claims are not identical in wording, the difference do not render the claims patentably distinct. For example, Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited the “set of components” in the co-pending application corresponds to the “set of block items” in the instant application, because both are voxel based three dimensional model elements arrange within a shared design model. The recitation that the three dimensional coordinates correspond to vertices merely further defines the same model geometry. Accordingly, claims 1 and 9 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from the claims 1-4 of the co-pending application.
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a multi-objective model shared between multiple participants, the method comprising:
receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with placing a first selectable component within a shared design model, wherein:
the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with the shared design model;
the first selectable component is of a first component type that only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model; and
each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals that the shared design model represents in a multi-objective design problem;
in response to receiving the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each block item in the set of block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the block item, including generating a first block item defined by a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a first set of vertices of the first block item and placing the first block item within the modified shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model; and
generating, based on the modified shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, wherein each candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions includes additional selectable components of a second component type from the set of pre-defined selectable components, including generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model, each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution, wherein:
the modified shared design model includes the arrangement of the set of block items including (i) the first block item comprising the first selectable component of a first component type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a second component type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics,
the set of metrics is computed based on one or more sets of characteristics included in the arrangement of the set of block items; and
performing, on at least one candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions, one or more optimization operations to generate an optimized candidate design solution, wherein the optimized candidate design solution maximizes or minimizes the set of metrics associated with a first set of design goals associated with the first persona.
Examiner note: “Bold and Italic” indicate different limitations between the co-pending application and the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 17696340 in view of Benjamin US20190147118A1 and O'Leary US20160267705A1.
Claims 1 and 2 of copending Application ‘340 teaches all of the limitations of the instant claim 1, except “each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals that the shared design model represents in a multi-objective design problem; generating, based on the modified shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, wherein each candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions includes additional selectable components of a second component type from the set of pre-defined selectable components, including generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model, each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item.” Copending Application ‘340 in view of Benjamin ‘118 and O'Leary ‘705 teach each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals that the shared design model represents in a multi-objective design problem; generating, based on the modified shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, wherein each candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions includes additional selectable components of a second component type from the set of pre-defined selectable components, including generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model, each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item (See Benjamin ’118; [0004], [0006] [0030]-[0035]. See also O'Leary; [0036], [0064]-[0066], [0074]-[0079], [0127] and [0132]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benjamin ‘340 to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin ‘118 and O'Leary ‘705 in order to generate candidate designs that reflect the different persona’s design goals while providing a defined three-dimensional representation of the design components.
Claims 3 and 4 of copending Application ‘340 teaches all of the limitations of the instant claim 9, except “a first set of design goals associated with the first persona.”
Copending Application ‘340 in view of Benjamin ‘118 and O'Leary ‘705 teach a first set of design goals associated with the first persona (see Benjamin ‘118; [0004], [0006] [0030]-[0035]). 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 copending Application ‘340 to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin ‘118 in order to generate candidate designs that reflect the different persona’s design goals while providing a defined three-dimensional representation of the design components.
Instant application of claims 11 and 17 recite substantially the similar elements as instant application of claim 1, and are provisionally rejected for the same reasons by Co-pending application ‘340 of claims 11-12 and 18-19 in view of Benjamin ‘118 and O'Leary.
Instant application of claim 16 recite substantially the similar elements as instant application of claim 9, and are provisionally rejected for the same reasons by Co-pending application ‘340 of claims 13-14 in view of Benjamin ‘118 and O'Leary.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 14, 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “(i) the first block item comprising the first selectable component of a first component type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a second component type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics” should read as “(i) the first block item comprising the first selectable component of the first component type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of the second component type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics.”
Claims 14, 16 and 20 recite similar limitation and are objected to for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as
failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the first selectable component is of a first component type that only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model.” It renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation requires that only the first persona is capable of placing the first selectable component within the shared design model, or only the first persona is capable placing selectable components of the first component type within the shared design model. For the purpose of examination, the examiner presumes that the limitation as “the first selectable component is of a first component type that only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing selectable components of the first component type within the shared design model.
Further, claim 1 recites “in response to receiving the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model,” and further recites “placing the first block item within the modified shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model.” It renders the claim indefinite because the claim first recites the modified shared design model as the result generated by modifying the shared design model, but later recites placing the first block item within the modified shared design model. Thus, it is unclear whether the first block item is placed within the shared design model to generate the modified shared design model, or the first block item is placed within an already existing modified shared design model. For the purpose of examination, the examiner presumes that the limitation as “the first block item is placed within the shared de3sign model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to generate the modified shared design model.
Further, claim 1 recites “wherein the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each block item in the set of block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the block item, including generating a first block item defined by a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a first set of vertices of the first block item and placing the first block item within the modified shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model.” This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what limitation is modified by the limitation “including generating a first block item.” In particular, it is unclear whether “including generating a first block item” modifies the step of “modifying the shared design model,” the “modified shared design model,” the “arrangement of a set of block items,” or the “set of block items.” For the purpose of substantive examination, the Examiner presumes that the step of modifying the shared design model includes generating the first block item and placing the first block item.
Further, claim 1 recites receiving “a first input associated with placing a first selectable component within a shared design model,” and later recites “generating a first block item defined by a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a first set of vertices of the first block item and placing the first block item within the modified shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model.” This renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not clearly define the relationship between the “first selectable component” and the “first block item.” In particular, it is unclear whether the first block item is the first selectable component, represents the first selectable component, corresponds to the first selectable component, or is a separate item used to place the first selectable component. Thus, the scope of the recited placement operation is unclear. For the purpose of substantive examination, the Examiner presumes that the first block item corresponds to the first selectable component and is placed to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model.
Claims 11 and 17 recites similar limitations, are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 4 recites “a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5, 9, 14, 16 and 20 recite similar limitation, are rejected for the same reason.
Further, Claim 14 recites “computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, wherein:” This renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not clearly recite what is being computed for each candidate design solution. In particular, the claim does not clearly indicate whether the computing step computes the set of metrics, the priority list, one or more characteristics, or some other value. For the purpose of substantive examination, the Examiner presumes that the computing step computes the set of metrics for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions.
Claim 15 recites “each block item included in the set of block items is defined by at least one of the selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable components comprising a set of voxels defined by one or more sets of vertices.” This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is modified by the limitation “comprising a set of voxels defined by one or more sets of vertices.” In particular, it is unclear whether the set of pre-defined selectable components comprises the set of voxels, the at least one selectable component comprises the set of voxels, or each block item comprises the set of voxels. Therefore, the relationship between the block item, the selectable component and the set of voxels is unclear. For the purpose of substantive examination, the Examiner presumes that each block item included in the set of block items is defined by at least one of the selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable components, wherein each block item comprising a set of voxels defined by one or more sets of vertices
The remaining claims are dependent upon one of the claims listed above and are rejected for the same reason.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to judicial exception an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019, as well as subsequent USPTO eligibility guidance updates, and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-10 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, Claims 11-16 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture;
Yes, Claim 17-20 are directed to system and falls within the statutory category of machine.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “… only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model; and each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals that the shared design model represents in a multi-objective design problem,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of reviewing a list identifying the capabilities and goals assigned to the respective personas, determining that a person acting under the first persona is permitted to place a particular category of component within a proposed design layout, and determining that persons acting under the respective personas have distinct design goals represented in the same multi-objective design problem. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) - MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1: The limitations of “in response to receiving the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, after receiving information identifying a selected component to be placed within a proposed design layout, a person capable of revising the layout, or revising a drawing of the layout, by adding the selected component at the identified location to produce a modified design layout. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) - MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1: The limitations of “generating, based on the modified shared design model, a first set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, wherein each candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions includes additional selectable components of a second component type from the set of pre-defined selectable components,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, after considering an modified design plan, persons acting under the respective personas/roles are capable of considering their respective design goals and preparing a first set of candidate design options that satisfy the design goals, wherein each candidate design option includes additional selectable components of a second component type from a pre-defined list of selectable components. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
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 - "A computer-implemented method for generating a multi-objective model shared between multiple participants, the method comprising” and “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions for generating a multi-objective model shared between multiple participants that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:” and “A system for generating a multi-objective model shared between multiple participants, the system comprising: a memory storing a generative design application; and a processor coupled to the memory that executes the generative design application by performing the steps of:” which are merely recitations of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP $2106.05(f)).
Further, the following additional elements - “receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with placing a first selectable component within a shared design model, wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with the shared design model; the first selectable component is of a first component type that only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model …” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., receiving input data), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The limitation merely describe receiving data in a generic networked collaboration environment and describe the content or attributes of the received input corresponds to the selectable component and the personas. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to the operation of the workstations, the network, the real-time collaboration session, access control, or design model technology. Rather, the limitation amount to data gathering, and generally linking the abstract idea to a computer based collaboration environment, which does not impose a meaning limit on the judicial exception. In particular, the additional limitation “during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations” merely describes the environment in which the abstract idea is performed. The recited real-time collaboration, network connectivity, and geographic distribution do not specify how the claimed inputs are received, how the shared design model is technically modified, or how communication is technically achieved. Instead, these features merely invoke generic computer networking and multiple user interaction to collect, transmit, and share data, does not improve the functioning of computer or network, or to other technology or technical field.
Further, the following additional elements - “the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each block item in the set of block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the block item, including generating a first block item defined by a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a first set of vertices of the first block item and placing the first block item within the modified shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In particular, the limitations merely recite representing a selected design component as a block item arranged in a 3D grid, wherein the block item is described using voxels, 3D coordinate data, and vertex information. The recited vertices merely identify geometric points of the block item, and the recited 3D coordinates merely correspond to the geometric points for purposes of defining and placing the block item in the design model. The limitations do not recite a particular technique for determining the vertices, generating the 3D coordinates from the vertices, mapping voxel data to vertex data, transforming coordinate data, updating a spatial data structure, rendering the modified model, or improving the operation of the computer or any other technology or technical field. Rather, the limitations merely state result of representing and placing the selected component as a voxel and coordinate defined block item within a 3D grid. Therefore, these additional limitations merely use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea (i.e., mental process) and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Alternatively, the limitation merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a computer-aided three-dimensional design modeling environment by requiring the selected component to be represented using voxels, 3D coordinates, and vertices, and placed within a 3D grid based on the 3D coordinates (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). However, limiting the abstract idea to the design modeling environment does not provide a specific improvement to computer functionality, voxel processing, vertex determination, coordinate generation, or any other technology or technical field.. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the following additional elements - “generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model, each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In particular, the limitations merely recite repeatedly adding additional block items to the modified shard design model to form a candidate design solution. The recited “iteratively generating and placing” describes the result of repeated generation and placement of additional block items, but does not recite a particular iterative algorithm, stopping condition, optimization technique, rule for selecting the next additional block item, or rule for determining the placement location of each additional block item. Although each additional block item is defined using voxels, 3D coordinates, and corresponding vertices are the same type of design model representation discusses above and merely specify how the additional block items are represented in the modified shared design model. Therefore, these additional limitations merely use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea (i.e., mental process) and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Alternatively, the limitation merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a computer-aided three-dimensional design modeling environment in which candidate design solutions are generated by repeatedly placing additional block items represented by voxels, 3D coordinates, and corresponding vertices (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). However, limiting the abstract idea to the design modeling environment does not provide a specific improvement to computer functionality, voxel processing, vertex determination, coordinate generation, or any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 , 11 and 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 and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski V. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker V. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
As explained in MPEP 210.05(d)(II): The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); 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; …
The additional limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations at a high level of generality and uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive input, represent design components as generic 3D model data, modify the shared design model and generate candidate design solutions. The claim does not recite any unconventional computer components, unconventional arrangement of computer components, or specific technical improvement to how the computer receives input, represents voxel or coordinate data, determines vertices, places block items, updates the design model, or generates candidate solutions. Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, merely apply the judicial exception using generic computing components and generic 3D design model data, and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 , 11 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 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:
receiving at least one of a second input or a second updated design model updated by the second input, wherein the second input is associated with a second selectable component of the second component type that is associated with a second persona in the plurality of personas; and
updating, based on the at least one of the second input or the second updated design model, the modified shared design model to generate an updated shared design model.”
The limitation merely recites receiving additional design information, including a second input or a second updated design model, wherein the second input is associated with a second selectable component of a second component type associated with a second persona, and updating the modified shared design model based on the received design model based on the received design information. It is merely an extension of the mental process discussed above. For example, a personal is capable of receiving a second design change or a revised design plan, identifying that the design change relates to another selectable component of a component type associated with a person acting under the second persona/role, and revising a previously changed design plan based on the second design change or revised design plan to produce an updated design plan. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Further, receiving the second input or the second updated design model is merely data gathering, and does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). 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:
generating, based on the updated shared design model, a second set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas,
wherein each candidate design solution in the second set of candidate design solutions includes the first selectable component, the second selectable component, and the additional selectable components of the second component type.”
The limitation merely recites generating a second set of candidate design solutions based on the updated shared design model, wherein the second set of candidate design solutions satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas and includes the first selectable component, the second selectable component, and additional selectable components of the second component type. It is merely an extension of the mental process discussed above. For example, persons acting under the respective personas/roles are capable of reviewing an updated design plan, considering their respective design goals, and preparing a second set of candidate design options that include the first selected component, the second selected component, and additional components of the second component type. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. 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, further comprising:
combining the distinct sets of design goals to generate a priority list shared among the plurality of personas;
computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution; and
generating, for each candidate design solution, a performance score based on the priority list.”
The limitation merely recites combining the distinct sets of design goals into a priority list shared among the plurality of personas, computing performance metrics for each candidate design solution, and generating a performance score for each candidate design solution based on the priority list. It is merely an extension of the mental process discussed above. For example, persons acting under the respective personas/roles are capable of identifying their respective design goals, combing those design goals into a shared priority list, reviewing each candidate design option, evaluating performance factors for each candidate design option, and assigning a performance score to each candidate design option based on the shared priority list. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. 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:
only the first persona is capable of removing a selectable component of the first component type in the shared design model, and
a first set of design goals associated with the first persona applies a first set of weights to a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution.”
The limitation merely recites a removal capability limited to the first persona for a selectable component of the first component type and a weighting of performance metrics based on the first set of design goals associated with the first persona. It is merely an extension of the mental process discussed above. For example, a person acting under the first persona/role is capable of reviewing a design plan and a persona/role capability list, determining that only the person acting under the first persona/role may remove a selectable component of the first component type from the design plan, apply weights from the first persona/role’s design goals to performance metrics, and evaluating the performance of the candidate design option using the weighted metrics. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. 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, further comprising:
receiving, from a second persona in the plurality of personas, a request for assistance,
wherein the first persona is capable of modifying pre-defined selectable components of the second component type.”
The limitation merely recites receiving a request for assistance from a second persona, and the first persona being capable of modifying pre-defined selectable components of the second component type. It is merely an extension of the mental process discussed above. For example, a person acting under the second persona/role is capable of requesting assistance regarding a design plan, and a person acting under the first persona/role is capable of reviewing the request and modifying pre-defined components of the second component type. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. 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:
receiving a second input associated with a second selectable component of the second component type to modify the second selectable component,
wherein:
the first persona is capable of modifying pre-defined selectable components of the second component type, and the second selectable component includes a set of characteristics; and
in response to receiving a confirmation of the second input, modifying the second selectable component to create a modified second selectable component, wherein the modified second selectable component includes a different set of characteristics than the second selectable component.”
The limitation recites receiving a second input for modifying a second selectable component of the second component type, the first persona being capable of modifying pre-defined selectable components of the second component type, the second selectable component having a set of characteristics, and modifying the second selectable component after receiving confirmation of the second input so that the modified second selectable component has a different set of characteristics. It is merely an extension of the mental process discussed above. For example, a person is capable of acting under the first persona/role to reviewing a design plan that includes a second selectable component having a set of characteristics, confirming change information for the second selectable component, and revising the second selectable component on the design plan so that the revised component has a different set of characteristics. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Further, it is merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., receiving input data), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). 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, wherein the first persona is associated with a capability set that specifies:
a first subset of pre-defined selectable components of the first component type that (i) only the first persona is capable of placing or deleting, and (ii) the first persona is not capable of modifying; and
a second subset of pre-defined selectable components of the first component type that the first persona (i) is not capable of placing or deleting, and (ii) is capable of modifying.”
The limitation recites a capability set associated with the first persona, wherein the capability set specifies different placement, deletion, and modification capabilities for different subsets of pre-defined selectable components of the first component type. It is merely an extension of the mental process discussed above. For example, a person acting under the first persona/role is capable of reviewing a capability list and determining that the person may place or delete one subset of pre-defined selectable components of the first component type but may not modify that subset, and may modify another subset of pre-defined selectable components of the first component type but may not place or delete the another subset. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. 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:
computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution, wherein:
the modified shared design model includes the arrangement of the set of block items including (i) the first block item comprising the first selectable component of a first component type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a second component type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics,
the set of metrics is computed based on one or more sets of characteristics included in the arrangement of the set of block items; and
performing, on at least one candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions, one or more optimization operations to generate an optimized candidate design solution, wherein the optimized candidate design solution maximizes or minimizes the set of metrics associated with a first set of design goals associated with the first persona.”
The limitation recites computing performance metrics for each candidate design solution based on one or more characteristics of block items in the modified shared design model, and performing optimization operations on at least one candidate design solution to generate an optimized candidate design solution that maximizes or minimizes the metrics associated with the first set of design goals associated with the first persona. It is merely an extension of the mental process discussed above. For example, a person acting under the first persona/role is capable of reviewing candidate design options on paper, identifying that the candidate design options include block items corresponding to different component type having different characteristics, calculating performance metrics based on the characteristics, and selecting or revising at least one candidate design option so that the calculated metrics are maximized or minimized according to the design goals associate with the first person acting under the first persona/role. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. 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 9, further comprising generating, based on the optimized candidate design solution, one or more suggested inputs for the modified shared design model.”
The limitation recites generating one or more suggested inputs/changes for the modified shared design model based on the optimized candidate design solution. It is merely an extension of the mental process discussed above. For example, a person is capable of reviewing an optimized design option, comparing the optimized candidate design option with a current design plan, and suggesting one or more changes for the current design plan based on the optimized candidate design option. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 15 recites “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein:
each block item included in the set of block items is defined by at least one of the selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable components comprising a set of voxels defined by one or more sets of vertices.”
The limitation further describes how each block item is represented in the shared design model by reciting that each block item is defined by at least one selectable component from the set of pre-defined selectable components, and each block comprises a set of voxels defined by one or more sets of vertices. The limitation merely further links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a computer-aided three-dimensional design modeling environment by describing the block item using voxel and vertex information (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 12-14, 16 and 18-20 recite the similar elements as claims 2-5 and 7-9, are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 1-3, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over De Biswas US20130144566A1 in view of Cera (“Role-based viewing envelopes for information protection in collaborative modeling,” published in January 2004) and Benjamin US20190147118A1 and O'Leary US20160267705A1.
Claim 1, De Biswas teaches A computer-implemented method for generating a multi-objective model shared between multiple participants (([0003] … enabling real-time collaboration in 3D modeling and simulation. [0006] … enables multiple users to interact on a project by project basis in the collaborative design, modeling and testing of complex 3-Dimensional, or “3D”, models while maintaining version control of all elements of the project in a hierarchical fashion. [0007] … the component elements of a project may be arranged in a tree-like hierarchical fashion wherein, at each node, branches sub-divide into increasingly atomic sub-components. [0008] different versions of sub-components may be selected for inclusion in forming the component based on various factors … Using these attributes, branches and/or versions of a component may be selected based, for example, upon business rules and constraints, performance criteria, compatibility rules, compatibility based on geometry and the like. [0009] … providing a user interface via which a plurality of users may simultaneously share a 3D model.)), the method comprising:
receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with placing a first selectable component within a shared design model ([0025] … a collaborative 3D model space configured for collaborative design by a plurality of users distributed over a network … an interface port of the 3D model space for providing access to at least one component so that each of the plurality of users can individually manipulate a three-dimensional view of the at least one component on disparate client computers. The disparate client computers may include at least two of a mobile phone, a tablet, a laptop, smart phone, notebook, desktop, and a workstation. The network may be the Internet. [0090] … The user devices 202 may be any form of computing device capable of receiving inputs from users, such as via a user interface, and transmitting such input to a back end server 208, such as via the front end server 204. [0016] … presenting to a user a representation of each of the at least one version of a sub-component for selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component … in response to the selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component, rendering the sub-component identified by the selected one of the at least one version of the sub-component in the 3D model space. The rendering of the sub-component may include disposing the sub-component in an assembly of sub-components. Examiner note: the plurality of users corresponds to the plurality of participants. The disparate client computers, including workstations, connected over the internet correspond to the plurality of workstations connected via a network and distributed across different locations. The input received from users via a user interface corresponds to the first input. The selected version of the sub-component corresponds to the first selectable component. Rendering the selected sub-component in the 3D model space and disposing the sub-component in an assembly of sub-components is interpreted as the first input is associated with placing the first selectable component within the shared design model), wherein:
the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with the shared design model;
the first selectable component is of a first component type
(([0016] The each node may include at least one version of a sub-component … The method may further include presenting to a user a representation of each of the at least one version of a sub-component for selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component … The way of presenting the representation of each of the at least one version of a sub-component may include presenting a subset of versions of the sub-component based on a predefined criteria for the one or more attributes. [0104] … Different versions of sub-components may be selected for inclusion in forming the component based on various factors … versions of sub-components may be tagged with attributes such as price, cost, license status/clearance, strength, stress/strain, weight, material properties, geometry and the like. [0188] The 3D on-line collaborative modeling methods and systems described herein may provide version control management features, capabilities, and the like via user interfaces that support manual and attribute-based component version selection. These same 3D on-line collaborative modeling methods and systems may facilitate access to a 3D modeling space, including access to specific versions of components via the version control features described herein.. In this way a user of a mobile phone may view a version selection user interface for manually selecting a version of a sub-component to be included in a component that a user of a laptop computer is editing via a web browser based 3D editing capability provided by the platform. Examiner note: the reference teaches versions of components and sub-components that are accessible in a 3D modeling space and presented to users for manual or attribute based selection. The selected version of a sub-component corresponds to the first selectable component, and the versions of components or sub-components accessible through the 3D modeling space correspond to the set of pre-defined selectable components associated with the shared design model. The reference further teaches that version of sub-components may be selected for inclusion in forming a component, may be tagged with attributes including material properties and geometry, and may be selected based on predefined criteria such as material type. Thus, the reference teaches that the selected sub-component is of a first component type);
in response to receiving the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items ([0109] … if a user makes a change to a selected attribute corresponding to a highlighted sub-component as described above and requests an updated model space diagram from the back end server 208, an updated model space diagram 510 may be displayed at approximately the same time as an updated model space rendering 508 is displayed. In this manner, changes to selected attributes in the model space diagram 510 result in near real-time changes to the model space rendering 508 allowing a user to readily visualize changes to sub-component attribute and version selections. [0154] … At 1806, the method 1806 may receive a second version of the sub-component comprising an updated version of the first version from the user. At 1808, the method 1800 may store the second version of the sub-component in the 3D model space associated with the same node as the first version of the sub-component. [0007] Specifically, the component elements of a project may be arranged in a tree-like hierarchical fashion wherein, at each node, branches sub-divide into increasingly atomic sub-components. Each such sub-component may itself be sub-divided into increasingly granular sub-components, and so on. [0016] The method may further include presenting to a user a representation of each of the at least one version of a sub-component for selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component. The method may further include, in response to the selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component, rendering the sub-component identified by the selected one of the at least one version of the sub-component in the 3D model space. The rendering of the sub-component may include disposing the sub-component in an assembly of sub-components. Examiner note: the reference teaches modifying the shared design model by updating the model space diagram and model space rendering in response to changes to selected sub-component attributes, and by storing an updated version of a sub-component in the 3D model space, and further teaches component elements arranges in a hierarchical structure that includes sub-components. The reference also teaches selecting a version of a sub-component, rendering the selected sub-component in the 3D model space, and disposing the selected sub-component in an assemble of sub-components. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the rendered an disposed first sub-component corresponds to the first block item, and the selected version of the sub-component corresponds to the first selectable component); and
([0007] Specifically, the component elements of a project may be arranged in a tree-like hierarchical fashion wherein, at each node, branches sub-divide into increasingly atomic sub-components. Each such sub-component may itself be sub-divided into increasingly granular sub-components, and so on. In addition, each node may be comprised of several versions of the same component or sub-component. [0016] The method may further include presenting to a user a representation of each of the at least one version of a sub-component for selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component … in response to the selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component, rendering the sub-component identified by the selected one of the at least one version of the sub-component in the 3D model space. The rendering of the sub-component may include disposing the sub-component in an assembly of sub-components. [0151] … At 1504, the method may receive sub-component selection criteria in an automated version selection facility. At 1506, the method 1500 may compare the one or more component attributes for each of the plurality of versions of the sub-component to determine at least one version of the plurality of versions that satisfies the sub-component selection criteria. At 1508, the method 1500 may configure the hierarchical 3D model space with at least one of the versions that satisfies the sub-component selection criteria. [0152] … At 1606, the method 1600 may select a version of a sub-component based, at least in part, upon the at least one attribute identifier. At 1608, the method 1600 may render the sub-component identified by the selected one of the version of the sub-component in the 3D model space in response to the selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component. Examiner note: the reference teaches a hierarchical 3D model space containing multiple components and sub-components, including multiple selected versions of the components or sub-components. The selectable versions correspond to the pre-defined selectable components, and the selected sub-components correspond to the additional selectable components. The reference further teaches configuring the hierarchical 3D model space with selected versions that satisfy selection criteria, and rendering an disposing selected sub-components in an assembly within the 3D model space. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the rendered and disposed sub-components correspond to additional block items placed within the modified shared design model).
However, De Biswas does not teach only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model.
Cera teaches only a first persona in a plurality of personas is capable of placing within the shared design model (Page.874, right column, para.6, “The collaborative CAD server manages access rights for the users, controlling what they see on their client workstations and what modeling operations are possible. For example, a designer working on a part for which he has write-access would receive a full-resolution NURBS-based model for that particular part. Other parts would be presented in appropriately reduced resolutions, which we call envelopes. Page. 877, left column, para.5, “Roles, R = {r0; r1;…; rm}, are abstract objects that define both the specific users allowed to access resources and the extent to which the resources are accessed. The engineers (designers, process engineers, project supervisors, etc.) correspond to a set of actors A = {a0; a1;…; an}, each of which will be assigned to a set of roles. Page.878, left column, para.3, “It is reasonable to assume that write permission of a feature is exclusively given to a single role.” Examiner note: the reference teaches that users are assigned to roles, and that the collaborative CAD server controls what modeling operations each user may perform based on the user’s role, and further teaches that write permission for a feature may be exclusively assigned to a single role. Therefore, a role assigned to a user corresponds to the first persona, and the exclusive write permission for a feature corresponds to that only the user assigned to that role is capable of placing or otherwise modifying the corresponding component within the shared design model).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas to incorporate the teachings of Cera and apply a role-based access control framework in which users are assigned to roles and write permission for protected objects or features are controlled according to the assigned role, in order to restrict modeling operations to authorized users within a collaborative design environment. In this case, De Biswas teaches a real-time collaborative 3D design platform in which multiple users interact with select, and modify components or subcomponents of a shared design model. Cera teaches assigning users to roles and controlling write permissions based on those assigned roles. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of restricting modification of the shared design model to users having the appropriate role-based permission.
However, De Biswas and Cera fail to teach each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals that the shared design model represents in a multi-objective design problem; generating a first set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, wherein each candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions includes additional selectable components of a second component type from the set of pre-defined selectable components, including generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model.
Benjamin teaches each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals that the shared design model represents in a multi-objective design problem ([0004] Most urban design projects are driven by multiple competing design objectives. For example, a design project associated with a neighborhood could be driven by a first design objective where population should be maximized as well as a second design objective where traffic congestion should be minimized.[0006] urban design projects are typically driven by competing design objectives derived from different stakeholders, which can complicate the process of making tradeoffs between various design objectives. For example, the designer could be tasked with maximizing population density in order to achieve a target profit level set by the owner of the property and also be tasked with minimizing traffic congestion to appease environmentally-friendly potential occupants. [0033] Performance modifications 222 can be obtained from different and potentially independent stakeholders in the urban design project. [0035] … candidate designs 206 can be generated to meet the various design objectives 204 to varying degrees … design options 140 can be generated which equitably meet the potentially conflicting interests of different stakeholders. Examiner note: the different stakeholders correspond to the plurality of personas, and the competing design objectives derived from the different stakeholders correspond to the distinct sets of deign goals associated with the respective persons. The urban design project having multiple competing design objectives, which are used to generate and evaluate candidate designs, corresponds to the multi-objective design problem represented by the shared design model); generating a first set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, wherein each candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions includes additional selectable components of a second component type from the set of pre-defined selectable components, including generating a first candidate design solution by iteratively generating and placing a set of additional block items within the modified shared design model ([0030] In operation, geometry engine 200 receives design criteria 202 and design objectives 204 and generates candidate designs 206 for the urban design project. Each candidate design 206 describes a different development plan for developing the physical property with various structures, roadways, and other fixtures associated with the urban design project … Candidate designs 206 also achieve design objectives 204 to varying degrees, including any competing design objectives included therein. [0031] Geometry engine 200 analyzes design metrics 212 in conjunction with candidate designs 206 and then regenerates and/or modifies candidate designs 206 to generate improved versions of candidate designs 206 that better achieve design objectives 204 while still meeting design criteria 202. In this fashion, geometry engine 200 and evaluation engine 210 complete one iteration of urban design pipeline 120. In a subsequent iteration, evaluation engine 210 generates design metrics 212 for these improved versions of candidate designs 206, and geometry engine 200 again regenerates and/or modifies candidate designs 206 … Geometry engine 200 and evaluation engine 210 iteratively generate and modify candidate designs 206 until one or more convergence criteria are met. When the convergence criteria are met, urban design pipeline 120 outputs the resultant set of candidate designs 206 to tradeoff engine 220. [0034] … Under circumstances where tradeoff engine 220 cannot find candidate designs 206 that effectively balance the competing design objectives, tradeoff engine 220 can also re-initiate the iterative design process in order to cause geometry engine 200 and evaluation engine 210 to generate additional candidate designs 206. [0035] … candidate designs 206 can be generated to meet the various design objectives 204 to varying degrees, thereby avoiding situations where one or more design objectives are altogether neglected … Accordingly, design options 140 can be generated which equitably meet the potentially conflicting interests of different stakeholders. Examiner note: the reference teaches generating a resultant set of candidate designs, generating the candidate designs based on design objectives, and iteratively regenerating or modifying the candidate design to better achieve the design objectives. The candidate designs correspond to the candidate design solutions, the competing design objectives correspond to design goals for the plurality of personas).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin and apply multiple stakeholders having district design objectives, generating candidate designs that satisfy the competing design objectives, and iteratively generating and refining candidate designs, in order to automatically generate and refine multiple design alternatives that balance different design objectives for collaborative design decision making. In this case, De Biswas teaches a collaborative shared design model including pre-defined selectable components, additional selectable components, and modifying the shared design model by selecting , rendering, and placing components or sub-components within the shared design model. Cera teaches assigning users to different roles and restricting modeling operations according to the assigned roles, thereby allowing only authorized users to place or modify particular components within the shared design model. Benjamin teaches different stakeholders having different or competing design objectives, generating a set of candidate designs that satisfy the competing design objectives to varying degrees, and iteratively regenerating or modifying the candidate designs to improve satisfaction of the design objectives. The combination teachings would provide the predictable benefit of enabling authorized users associated with different roles to collaboratively generate and iteratively refine multiple candidate design options within the shared design model, while satisfying the distinct design goals associated with the different roles.
However, De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin fail to teach an arrangement of a set of block items within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each block item in the set of block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the block item, including generating a first block item defined by a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a first set of vertices of the first block item and placing the first block item within the modified shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model; each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item.
O'Leary teaches an arrangement of a set of block items within a three-dimensional (3D) grid, each block item in the set of block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the block item, including generating a first block item defined by a first set of voxels and a first set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a first set of vertices of the first block item and placing the first block item within the modified shared design model based on the first set of 3D coordinates to place the first selectable component within the modified shared design model; each additional block item in the set of additional block items being defined as a set of voxels and a set of 3D coordinates corresponding to a set of vertices of the additional block item ([0036] … volumetric pixels (“Voxels”) are an approach to the modelling of three-dimensional spaces and objects contained therein that utilizes the concept of 3D space or grids, in which each point on the grid contains a value. [0064] The data segment in a zone file contains, for each chunk: a readable voxel mesh, the grid of voxel data for the chunk, and any additional data pertaining to the chunk in question. [0066] The minimum data required to constitute a mesh is a set of vertices (points in three-dimensional space) and indices (connections between vertices used to compose triangles, quadrangles or other shapes). [0074] … the present invention herein is also directed to the development of a binary file format for voxel models, where models are objects like houses, furniture, weapons, body parts (heads, arms, hands, etc.), as well as other types. [0075] This format contains encoded meshes ready to be rendered using WebGL in the browser and the voxel data from which the model is composed. [0076] … models above this size are preferably decomposed into multiple meshes within the file and the offsets of the vertices in these meshes are composed of values relative to the center of the model. [0079] … Voxel data for models is stored in a grid of dimensions equal to the bounding box of the model (the width, height, and depth of the model). [0127] In order to allow users to select voxel models for insertion into voxel environments, Applicant has also developed a web-based voxel model catalogue system. [0132] Chunk meta data contains references to voxel model unique identifiers, positioned at local coordinates within the chunk … Examiner note: the reference teaches three-dimensional objects and models represented using voxel data arranged in a three-dimensional grid, and further teaches that a voxel model includes voxel data and one or more meshes, wherein each mesh includes a set of vertices that are points in three-dimensional space, and also teaches vertex offsets relative to the center of the model and voxel models positioned at local coordinates within a chunk. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the voxel data corresponds to the set of voxels, the mesh vertices correspond to the set of vertices, and the three-dimensional vertex positions, vertex offsets, and local model coordinates correspond to the set of 3D coordinates).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin to incorporate the teachings of O'Leary and apply voxel-based three-dimensional modeling technique in which three-dimensional objects and environments are represented using voxel data arranged in three-dimensional grids, voxel models include one or more meshes comprising vertices in three-dimensional space, and voxel models are positioned at coordinates within a voxel environment, in order to provide a simpler and more efficient representation, editing, distribution, and rendering of three-dimensional components in a client server modeling environment. In this case, De Biswas teaches modifying a shared design model in responds to a user input, generating and placing a first block item corresponding to the first selectable component, and placing additional block items within the modified shared design model. Cera teaches assigning users to different roles and restricting modeling operations according to the assigned roles, thereby allowing only authorized users to place or modify particular components within the shared design model. Benjamin teaches different stakeholders having different or competing design objectives, generating a set of candidate designs that satisfy the competing design objectives to varying degrees, and iteratively regenerating or modifying the candidate designs to improve satisfaction of the design objectives. O'Leary teaches voxel-based three-dimensional modeling in a client server environment, including voxel data arranged in three-dimensional grids, voxel models composed from voxel data and associated with one or more meshes comprising vertices in three-dimensional space, voxel model vertices having position values relative to the model, and selectable voxel models positioned at local coordinates and inserted into voxel environments. The combination teachings would provide the predictable benefit of allowing authorized users having different design goals to collaboratively generate and iteratively refine candidate design solution, while representing the first block item and additional block items as selectable voxel-based models having three-dimensional coordinates and vertex based meshes within the modified shared design model.
Claim 2, De Biswas teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving at least one of a second input or a second updated design model updated by the second input, wherein the second input is associated with a second selectable component of a second component type
updating, based on the at least one of the second input or the second updated design model, the modified shared design model to generate an updated shared design model ([0163] At 2704, the method 2700 may transmit a sub-space comprising a portion of the 3D model space to a user. At 2706, the method 2700 may receive from the user the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component. At 2708, the method 2700 may integrate the at least one updated sub-component with the 3D model space.[0110] the user can control downloading of the one or more sub-components from the 3D model space for editing with the model editing software and uploading of a new version of the one or more sub-components from the model editing software to the 3D model space. [0154] At 1806, the method 1806 may receive a second version of the sub-component comprising an updated version of the first version from the user. At 1808, the method 1800 may store the second version of the sub-component in the 3D model space associated with the same node as the first version of the sub-component. Examiner note: the reference teaches receiving from a user an updated sub-space containing an updated sub-component and integrating the updated sub-component into the existing 3D model space. The updated sub-component corresponds to the second selectable component, the received updated sub-space corresponds the second updated design model, and integrating the updated sub-component with the 3D model space corresponds to updating the modified shared design model to generate an updated shared design model).
However, De Biswas fails to teach a second selectable component of a second component type that is associated with a second persona in the plurality of personas.
Cera teaches a second selectable component of a second component type that is associated with a second persona in the plurality of personas (Page, 877, left column, para.5-6, “Roles, R = {r0; r1;…; rm}, are abstract objects that define both the specific users allowed to access resources and the extent to which the resources are accessed. The engineers (designers, process engineers, project supervisors, etc.) correspond to a set of actors A = {a0; a1;…; an}, each of which will be assigned to a set of roles. Page.877, right column, para.2, “Each assembly is described by a set of security features, SF = {f0; f1;…; fk}, … Such security features can correspond to assembly features, mating features, or other function-based features of M: The Model–Role Assignment can then be simplified to be the relation associating security features with roles: … (Fig. 4).” Examiner note: the reference teaches a plurality of roles, R = {r0; r1;…; rm}, assigned to respective users, and a plurality of security features, SF = {f0; f1;…; fk}, including assembly features, mating features, and other function-based features, and further teaches Model Role Assignment that associates the security features with the roles. Thus, one security feature type associated with one role corresponds to the first component type associated with the first persona, and another role corresponds to the second component type associated with the second persona).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas to incorporate the teachings of Cera and apply associating different component features with corresponding roles through a role-based access control framework in order to control which users are permitted to modify particular types of components within a collaborative shared design model, thereby allowing collaborative design management and preventing unauthorized modifications.
Claim 3, De Biswas further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
([0007] Each such sub-component may itself be sub-divided into increasingly granular sub-components, and so on. In addition, each node may be comprised of several versions of the same component or sub-component. As a result, the branches of a tree forming a component may be traversed in a multiplicity of ways depending on which version of a sub-component is selected for inclusion when forming the overall component. [0008] … different versions of sub-components may be selected for inclusion in forming the component based on various factors. For example, versions of sub-components may be tagged with attributes such as price, cost, license status/clearance, strength, stress/strain, weight, material properties, geometry and the like. [0016] The way of presenting the representation of each of the at least one version of a sub-component may include presenting a subset of versions of the sub-component based on a predefined criteria for the one or more attributes … The predefined criteria may be a material type of the sub-component. [0100] … The resulting component 1 is but one iteration created by the selection of different versions of sub-components, specifically, version 2.1 of sub-component 2 and version 7.1 of sub-component 7. [0163] At 2706, the method 2700 may receive from the user the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component. At 2708, the method 2700 may integrate the at least one updated sub-component with the 3D model space. Examiner note: The previously selected sub-component corresponds to the first selectable component, the updated sub-component integrated into the 3D model space corresponds to the second selectable components. The reference further teaches selecting and including multiple additional sub-components in an overall component and selecting a subset of sub-component versions based on material type. The additional selected sub-components correspond to the additional selectable components, and the common material type used to select the subset corresponds to the second component type.).
However, De Biswas and Cera fail to teach generating, based on the updated shared design model, a second set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, wherein each candidate design solution in the second set of candidate design solutions.
Benjamin teaches generating, based on the updated shared design model, a second set of candidate design solutions that satisfy the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas, wherein each candidate design solution in the second set of candidate design solutions ([0030] In operation, geometry engine 200 receives design criteria 202 and design objectives 204 and generates candidate designs 206 for the urban design project … Candidate designs 206 also achieve design objectives 204 to varying degrees, including any competing design objectives included therein … The design metrics 212 generated for a given candidate design 206 quantify the degree to which design objectives 204 are met by the given candidate design 206. [0031] Geometry engine 200 analyzes design metrics 212 in conjunction with candidate designs 206 and then regenerates and/or modifies candidate designs 206 to generate improved versions of candidate designs 206 that better achieve design objectives 204 while still meeting design criteria 202 … In a subsequent iteration, evaluation engine 210 generates design metrics 212 for these improved versions of candidate designs 206, and geometry engine 200 again regenerates and/or modifies candidate designs 206 … Geometry engine 200 and evaluation engine 210 iteratively generate and modify candidate designs 206 until one or more convergence criteria are met. When the convergence criteria are met, urban design pipeline 120 outputs the resultant set of candidate designs 206 to tradeoff engine 220. [0035] … candidate designs 206 can be generated to meet the various design objectives 204 to varying degrees … Accordingly, design options 140 can be generated which equitably meet the potentially conflicting interests of different stakeholders. Examiner note: the reference teaches generating candidate designs, regenerating or modifying the candidate designs to generate improved versions, and outputting a resultant set of candidate designs, corresponding the second set of candidate design solutions generated based on the updated shared design model. The reference further teaches candidate designs that satisfy different or competing design objectives associated with different stakeholders. The different stakeholders correspond to the plurality of personas, and the different or competing design objectives associated with the respective stakeholders correspond to the distinct sets of design goals).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin and apply the candidate design generation technique, in which candidate designs are generated, evaluated against different or competing design objectives associated with different stakeholders, and regenerated or modified to produce an improved resultant set of candidate designs, in order to generate updated design alternatives that better satisfy the different design objectives represented in the collaborative design process. The combination would predictably provide the benefit of generating, form the updated shared design model of De Biswas, as second set of candidate design solution that includes the first selectable component, the second component, and the additional selectable components of the second component type, while better satisfying the distinct design goals associated with the respective stakeholders.
Claim 7, De Biswas teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a second input associated with a second selectable component of the second component type to modify the second selectable component,
wherein:
in response to receiving a confirmation of the second input, modifying the second selectable component to create a modified second selectable component, wherein the modified second selectable component includes a different set of characteristics than the second selectable component ([0008] … different versions of sub-components may be selected for inclusion in forming the component based on various factors. For example, versions of sub-components may be tagged with attributes such as price, cost, license status/clearance, strength, stress/strain, weight, material properties, geometry and the like. [0109] … For example, if a user makes a change to a selected attribute corresponding to a highlighted sub-component as described above and requests an updated model space diagram from the back end server 208, an updated model space diagram 510 may be displayed at approximately the same time as an updated model space rendering 508 is displayed. In this manner, changes to selected attributes in the model space diagram 510 result in near real-time changes to the model space rendering 508 allowing a user to readily visualize changes to sub-component attribute and version selections. [0110] The version selection techniques described herein for selecting one or more sub-components from a 3D modeling space may be integrated with third-party modeling software programs so that the rendering and 3D/2D manipulation capabilities of the third-party software may be used to create and/or modify a sub-component that has been accessed from the 3D model space … In an embodiment, a user interface may include a first portion that represents information, including graphic or hierarchical information about one or more sub-components in the 3D model space, and a second portion for editing the one or more sub-components with a model editing software that is separate from the 3D model space, wherein the user can control downloading of the one or more sub-components from the 3D model space for editing with the model editing software and uploading of a new version of the one or more sub-components from the model editing software to the 3D model space. [0154] At 1804, the method may transmit first version of a sub-component to a user. At 1806, the method 1806 may receive a second version of the sub-component comprising an updated version of the first version from the user. At 1808, the method 1800 may store the second version of the sub-component in the 3D model space associated with the same node as the first version of the sub-component. Examiner note: the highlighted sub-component corresponds to the second selectable component. The material type or another attribute associated with the sub-component corresponds to the second component type, and the plurality of attributes associated with the sub-component corresponds to the set of characteristics. The user’s change to a selected attribute and request for an updated model space diagram correspond to the second input and confirmation of the second input. The reference further teaches modifying or editing the sub-component, uploading an updated version, and storing the updated version in the 3D model space. The updated version having changed attributes corresponds to the modified second selectable component having a different set of characteristics).
However, De Biswas fails to teach the first persona is capable of modifying pre-defined selectable components of the second component type.
Cera teaches the first persona is capable of modifying pre-defined selectable components of the second component type (Page.877, left column, “Roles, R = {r0; r1;…; rm}, are abstract objects that define both the specific users allowed to access resources and the extent to which the resources are accessed.” Page.877, Right column, “Each assembly is described by a set of security features, SF = {f0; f1;…; fk}, where each fi is a topologically connected point set on b(M) and USF = b(M): Such security features can correspond to assembly features, mating features, or other function-based features of M: The Model–Role Assignment can then be simplified to be the relation associating security features with roles: … (Fig. 4). Example. Suppose that AR assigns actor a3 to roles r20; r23; and r75: This entitles a3 to view (and perhaps change) the security features assigned (by MR) to these roles.” Page.878, left column, “Each cell of the access matrix distinguishes between read and write authorizations. It is reasonable to assume that write permission of a feature is exclusively given to a single role.” Page.876, right column, “If a user has write permissions to a component, the user receives an editable, NURBS-based CAD model.” Examiner note: the roles corresponds to the plurality of personas, and the role having write permission corresponds to the first persona, The security features, including assembly feature, mating feature and other function-based features, correspond to different component types. The security features assigned to the role correspond to pre-defined selectable components of the second component type. The reference further teaches that the actor assigned to the role may change the assigned security features and receives an editable model for a component when the role has write permission).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas to incorporate the teachings of Cera and apply role-based permission framework, in which predefined features are associated with corresponding roles and write permission for a feature is assigned to the corresponding role, in order to control which persona is authorized to modify predefined selectable components of a corresponding component type within a collaborative design environment.
Claim 9, De Biswas teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
the modified shared design model includes the arrangement of the set of block items including (i) the first block item comprising the first selectable component of a first component type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a second component type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics ([0007] Specifically, the component elements of a project may be arranged in a tree-like hierarchical fashion wherein, at each node, branches sub-divide into increasingly atomic sub-components. Each such sub-component may itself be sub-divided into increasingly granular sub-components, and so on. In addition, each node may be comprised of several versions of the same component or sub-component. As a result, the branches of a tree forming a component may be traversed in a multiplicity of ways depending on which version of a sub-component is selected for inclusion when forming the overall component. [0008] As described in accordance with various exemplary and non-limiting embodiments, different versions of sub-components may be selected for inclusion in forming the component based on various factors. For example, versions of sub-components may be tagged with attributes such as price, cost, license status/clearance, strength, stress/strain, weight, material properties, geometry and the like. [0101] In an example, owner of component 1 may configure a version of this component (e.g. version 1.1) so that a specific arrangement of sub-components is identified when the version is selected. In the example, version 1.1 of component 1 might comprise [component 1-(2.1-(6)(7.1))(3-(4)(5))], while version 1.2 of component 1 might be composed of [component 1-(2.2-(6)(7.2))(3-(4)(5))], and the like. In this way, versions of sub-components may be directly associated with versions of sub-components higher up in the branching hierarchy. [0104] Different versions of sub-components may be selected for inclusion in forming the component based on various factors. For example, as noted above, versions of sub-components may be tagged with attributes such as price, cost, license status/clearance, strength, stress/strain, weight, material properties, geometry and the like. [0152] The 3D model space may include a plurality of nodes 402 and at least one branch from the one or more branches 408. Each node may include at least one version of a sub-component and each of the at least one version may include one or more attributes. At 1604, the method 1600 may receive a selection of at least one attribute identifier from a user. At 1606, the method 1600 may select a version of a sub-component based, at least in part, upon the at least one attribute identifier. At 1608, the method 1600 may render the sub-component identified by the selected one of the version of the sub-component in the 3D model space in response to the selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component. Examiner note: the reference teaches an arrangement of multiple components or sub-components within a hierarchical 3D model space. Each component or sub-component corresponds to a block item, and the arrangement of the components or sub-components corresponds to the arrangement of the set of block items. A first selected sub-component having a first group of attributes corresponds to the first block item comprising the first selectable component having the first set of characteristics. Another selected sub-component having a different material type or other different group of attributes corresponds to eh second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of the second component type having the second set of characteristics different from the first set of characteristics),
However, De Biswas and Cera fail to teach computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution; the set of metrics is computed based on one or more sets of characteristics included in the arrangement of the set of block items; and performing, on at least one candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions, one or more optimization operations to generate an optimized candidate design solution, wherein the optimized candidate design solution maximizes or minimizes the set of metrics associated with a first set of design goals associated with the first persona.
Benjamin teaches computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution; the set of metrics is computed based on one or more sets of characteristics included in the arrangement of the set of block items; and performing, on at least one candidate design solution in the first set of candidate design solutions, one or more optimization operations to generate an optimized candidate design solution, wherein the optimized candidate design solution maximizes or minimizes the set of metrics associated with a first set of design goals associated with the first persona ([0006] Second, urban design projects are typically driven by competing design objectives derived from different stakeholders, which can complicate the process of making tradeoffs between various design objectives. For example, the designer could be tasked with maximizing population density in order to achieve a target profit level set by the owner of the property and also be tasked with minimizing traffic congestion to appease environmentally-friendly potential occupants. [0030] Evaluation engine 210 evaluates each candidate design 206 based on the objective functions included in design objectives 204 to generate design metrics 212. The design metrics 212 generated for a given candidate design 206 quantify the degree to which design objectives 204 are met by the given candidate design 206. In one embodiment, design metrics 212 may quantify the solar energy collection, available sight lines, yard size, neighborhood variety, program distribution, total project cost, and total project profit for the given candidate design 206. [0031] Geometry engine 200 analyzes design metrics 212 in conjunction with candidate designs 206 and then regenerates and/or modifies candidate designs 206 to generate improved versions of candidate designs 206 that better achieve design objectives 204 while still meeting design criteria 202 … In one embodiment, geometry engine 200 and evaluation engine 210 execute a multi-objective solver in order to generate and/or update candidate designs 206. Geometry engine 200 and evaluation engine 210 iteratively generate and modify candidate designs 206 until one or more convergence criteria are met. [0032] The position of a given candidate design 206 along a particular dimension depends on a corresponding design metric 212 that is generated to indicate the degree to which the given candidate design 206 meets a specific design objective 204. [0033] Tradeoff engine 220 is configured to traverse design tradeoff space 224 based on performance modifications 222 to identify specific candidate designs 206 which most effectively balance the set of competing design objectives. [0064] … further comprising generating, via an evaluation engine included in the CAD application, a different set of design metrics for each candidate design included in the plurality of candidate designs based on a set of competing design objectives. Examiner note: the reference teaches generating a different set of design metrics for each candidate design. The metrics quantify characteristics and performance properties of the candidate design, including solar energy , collection , sight lines, yard size, program distribution, cost and profit. These measured properties correspond to the sets of characteristics included in the arrangement of the design elements, and the resulting design metrics correspond to the set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution. The reference further teaches using a multi-objective solver to iteratively regenerate or modify candidate designs to produce improved candidate designs to produce improved candidate designs that better achieve the design objectives. The reference identifies maximizing population density to achieve the property owner’s target profit level and minimizing traffic congestion to satisfy potential occupants. The property owner corresponds to the first persona, The iterative generating and modification using the multi-objective solver correspond to the optimization operations, and the improved candidate design corresponds to the optimized candidate design solution that maximizes or minimizes the associated metrics).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin and apply the multi-objective evaluation and optimization techniques, including computing a set of design metrics for each candidate design based on the characteristics of the candidate design and iteratively optimizing the candidate designs according to stakeholder specific design objectives, in order to quantitatively evaluate candidate design solutions and generate an optimized candidate design solution that better satisfies the design goals associated with a corresponding persona.
The elements of claim 11 is substantially the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, the elements of claim 11 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Further, the additional limitation: “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions for generating a multi-objective model shared between multiple participants that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:” See De Biswas, [0201].
The elements of claim 12 is substantially the same as those of claim 2. Therefore, the elements of claim 12 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 2.
The elements of claim 13 is substantially the same as those of claim 3. Therefore, the elements of claim 13 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 3.
Claim 15, De Biswas teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein:
each block item included in the set of block items is defined by at least one of the selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable components ([0007] Specifically, the component elements of a project may be arranged in a tree-like hierarchical fashion wherein, at each node, branches sub-divide into increasingly atomic sub-components. Each such sub-component may itself be sub-divided into increasingly granular sub-components, and so on. In addition, each node may be comprised of several versions of the same component or sub-component. As a result, the branches of a tree forming a component may be traversed in a multiplicity of ways depending on which version of a sub-component is selected for inclusion when forming the overall component. [0008] As described in accordance with various exemplary and non-limiting embodiments, different versions of sub-components may be selected for inclusion in forming the component based on various factors. [0016] The method may further include presenting to a user a representation of each of the at least one version of a sub-component for selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component. The method may further include, in response to the selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component, rendering the sub-component identified by the selected one of the at least one version of the sub-component in the 3D model space. The rendering of the sub-component may include disposing the sub-component in an assembly of sub-components. [0017] The method may further include configuring the hierarchical 3D model space with at least one of the versions that satisfies the sub-component selection criteria. [0152] At 1606, the method 1600 may select a version of a sub-component based, at least in part, upon the at least one attribute identifier. At 1608, the method 1600 may render the sub-component identified by the selected one of the version of the sub-component in the 3D model space in response to the selecting one of the at least one version of the sub-component. Examiner note: the reference teaches components and sub-components arranged in the hierarchical 3D model space correspond to the selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable components. A selected version of a component or sub-component rendered or disposed in the 3D model space corresponds to a block item defined by at least one selectable component).
However, De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin fail to teach a set of voxels defined by one or more sets of vertices.
O'Leary teaches a set of voxels defined by one or more sets of vertices ([0007] Some implementations of this disclosure involve an exemplary method of generating a mesh (e.g., vertices that form connected triangles) representing the surfaces in a 3D environment based on depth sensor measurements. [0008] The exemplary method further involves generating a first hash table storing 3D positions of a first set of voxels having a first resolution (e.g., big voxels) and signed distance values representing distances to the surfaces (e.g., to a nearest surface) of the physical environment based on the depth data. [0009] The exemplary method further involves generating a second hash table storing 3D positions of a second set of voxels having a second resolution (e.g., small voxels) and signed distance values representing distances to the surfaces of the physical environment based on the depth data, where the second resolution is different than the first resolution. [0010] The exemplary method further involves generating a mesh representing the surfaces based on the first hash table and the second hash table. The mesh may be generated by positioning vertices along a line connecting a first voxel (e.g., a position at the center of the first voxel) of the first set of voxels with a second voxel (e.g., a position at the center of the second voxel) of the second set of voxels. Additionally, or alternatively, vertices are generated between voxels within the same resolution (e.g., whenever there's a zero-crossing, where the TSDF value goes from negative to positive) … Performing a marching cubes meshing algorithm may involve parsing one or more hash tables and generating mesh triangles with vertices that represent the surfaces in the volume represented by the hash table(s). For each hash entry, the algorithm may build a vertex list of neighboring voxels of the cube that it belongs to, and identify the triangular surfaces that pass through the cube. Examiner note: the reference teaches first and second sets of voxels stored in the hash tables correspond to the set of voxels. The vertices positioned between or along lines connecting the voxels, together with the mesh triangles formed from those vertices, correspond to the one or more set of vertices defining the voxel based geometry).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin to incorporate the teachings of O'Leary and apply voxel and vertex based geometric representation in order to provide a structured three-dimensional representation suitable for generating and rendering the surfaces of the components in the shared design model, thereby facilitating generation and rendering of the component geometry in the 3D model.
The elements of claims 17 is substantially the same as those of claims 1. Therefore, the elements of claim 17 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1. Further, the additional limitation of claim 17: “A system for generating a multi-objective 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:” (See De Biswas, [0045] and [0199]).
The elements of claim 18 is substantially the same as those of claim 7. Therefore, the elements of claim 18 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 7.
The elements of claim 20 is substantially the same as those of claim 9. Therefore, the elements of claim 20 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 9.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and Cera
and Benjamin and O'Leary as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siraj (“PriEsT: an interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments.,” published in October 2013).
Claim 4, De Biswas and Cera fail to teach, but Benjamin teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution; and
generating, for each candidate design solution, a performance score ([0030] … Evaluation engine 210 evaluates each candidate design 206 based on the objective functions included in design objectives 204 to generate design metrics 212. The design metrics 212 generated for a given candidate design 206 quantify the degree to which design objectives 204 are met by the given candidate design 206. In one embodiment, design metrics 212 may quantify the solar energy collection, available sight lines, yard size, neighborhood variety, program distribution, total project cost, and total project profit for the given candidate design 206. [0044] In one embodiment, tradeoff engine 220 may quantify the degree to which any given candidate design 206 balances the competing design metrics relative to other candidate designs 206 by generating a combined metric for each candidate design 206. Tradeoff engine 220 may generate the combined metric for a given candidate design 206 based on the position of that candidate design within design tradeoff space 224. For example, for a given candidate design 206, tradeoff engine 220 could compute a ratio between a first design metric that should be increased and a second design metric that should be decreased. Tradeoff engine 206 could perform the same process with other candidate designs, and then compare the various candidate designs to determine which design maximizes the computed ratio. [0064] … further comprising generating, via an evaluation engine included in the CAD application, a different set of design metrics for each candidate design included in the plurality of candidate designs based on a set of competing design objectives. Examiner note: the reference teaches evaluating each candidate design to generate a corresponding set of design metrics that quantifies the degree to which the candidate design satisfies the design objectives. The corresponding set of design metrics is interpreted as the set of metrics associated with the performance of each candidate design solution. The reference further teaches generating a combine metric for each candidate design based on the design metrics associated with that candidate design. The combined metric corresponds to the performance score generated for each candidate design solution).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin and apply the candidate design generation technique, in which evaluating each candidate design based on objective functions to generate a corresponding set of design metrics that quantifies the degree to which the candidate design satisfies the design objective, and generating combined metric for each candidate design based on the design metrics associated with the candidate design, wherein the combined metric provides a quantitative value representing the overall performance of the candidate design with respect to the design objectives, corresponding the performance score , in order to quantitatively evaluate and compare how effectively the candidate designs satisfy the competing design objectives.
However, De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin and O'Leary fail to teach combining the distinct sets of design goals to generate a priority list shared among the plurality of personas; generating, for each candidate design solution, a performance score based on the priority list.
Siraj teaches combining the distinct sets of design goals to generate a priority list shared among the plurality of personas; generating, for each candidate design solution, a performance score based on the priority list (Page.1, para.3, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), proposed in (Saaty, 1977), is an MCDM technique based on PC to assess relative importance of criteria and alternatives. The main benefit of using this approach is to convert both objective and subjective judgments into relative weights of importance.” Page.3, 2.4. Prioritization from Inconsistent PC Judgments, “The prioritization problem is to determine a priority vector w = (w1,w2, ...,wn)T which estimates the unknown preference vector r … There are many prioritization methods that can be applied to derive a priority vector from a set of PC judgments (Choo and Wedley, 2004).” Page.6, 3.2.1. List of Solutions and Gantt View, “The solutions generated by different methods are displayed as a list containing all numerical values of the generated weights.” Page. 10, “The final weights calculated using the EV and GM methods are found to be almost identical, as given in Table 1 in normalized form. Satellite communication (G4) is considered the most preferred alternative with a weight of 29.95% (using EV), followed by Microwave (G3) with a weight around 28.34% (using EV).” Examiner note: the reference teaches obtaining pairwise comparison judgments for multiple criteria and deriving a priority vector comprising relative priority weights, wherein the priority vector corresponds to the priority list, and further teaches calculating a numerical weight for each alternative based on the derived priority vector and using the numerical weights to rank the alternatives. The numerical weight calculated for each alternative corresponds to the performance score generated based on the priority list).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin to incorporate the teachings of Siraj and apply the priority estimation technique, including combining multiple criteria into a priority vector comprising relative priority weights and calculating a numerical weight for each alternative based on the priority vector, in order to quantitatively prioritize multiple design objectives according to the relative importance and generate a performance score for objectively comparing candidate design solutions.
Claim 5, De Biswas fails to teach , but Cera teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
only the first persona is capable of removing a selectable component of the first component type in the shared design model (Page.866, last paragraph, “In RBAC [33], system administrators create roles according to the job functions in an organization, grant permissions (access authorizations) to the roles, and then assign users to the roles.” Page.876, right column, para.1, “If a user has write permissions to a component, the user receives an editable, NURBS-based CAD model.” Page.877, right column, para.2-3, “The Model–Role Assignment can then be simplified to be the relation associating security features with roles: … (Fig. 4) … This entitles a3 to view (and perhaps change) the security features assigned (by MR) to these roles.” Page.878, left column, para.3, “Each cell of the access matrix distinguishes between read and write authorizations. It is reasonable to assume that write permission of a feature is exclusively given to a single role.” Page.879, left column, para.6, “Features are classified into positive/additive and negative/subtractive features. The negative features lead to depressions such as holes. In the first stage of our simplification process, such negative features may be removed from the original mode …” Examiner note: the reference teaches actors assigned to roles correspond to the plurality of personas, and the actor assigned to role having exclusive write permission corresponds to the first persona. The security features associated with the role corresponds to selectable components of the first component type. The reference further teaches that the actor having the assigned role may change the associated security features, receives an editable model for the component, and that features may be removed from the original model. Thus, the exclusive write permission assign to the role controls which actor is capable of removing the corresponding feature from the model), and
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas to incorporate the teachings of Cera and apply role-based permission framework, in which write permission for a feature is exclusively assigned to a corresponding role, in order to restrict modification or removal of particular selectable components to the persona associated with the corresponding component type and thereby prevent unauthorized changes within the shared design model.
However, De Biswas and Cera fail to teach a first set of design goals associated with the first persona applies a first set of weights to a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution.
Benjamin teaches ([0030] … Evaluation engine 210 evaluates each candidate design 206 based on the objective functions included in design objectives 204 to generate design metrics 212. The design metrics 212 generated for a given candidate design 206 quantify the degree to which design objectives 204 are met by the given candidate design 206. In one embodiment, design metrics 212 may quantify the solar energy collection, available sight lines, yard size, neighborhood variety, program distribution, total project cost, and total project profit for the given candidate design 206. [0053] A t step 404, evaluation engine 210 evaluates the set of candidate designs generated at step 402 to generate a set of design metrics. Evaluation engine 210 can generate a multitude of different metrics, including a solar energy collection metric, an available sight lines metric, a yard size metric, a neighborhood variety metric, a program distribution metric, a total project cost metric, and a total project profit metric, among others. Each metric generated by evaluation engine 210 quantifies the degree to which a particular design objective is met. Examiner note: the reference teaches evaluating each candidate design based on design objectives to generate a correspond set of design metrics. The design metrics quantify the degree to which the candidate design satisfies the design objectives and correspond to the set of metrics associate with the performance of the candidate design solution).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin and apply the candidate design evaluation technique, including evaluating each candidate design based on design objectives and generating a corresponding set of design metrics that quantifies the degree to which the candidate design satisfies the design objectives, in order to provide a quantitative measure of the performance of each candidate design solution.
However, De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin and O'Leary fail to teach a first set of design goals associated with the first persona applies a first set of weights to a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution.
Siraj teaches a first set of design goals associated with the first persona applies a first set of weights to a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution (Page.1, 1. Introduction, “Multi-criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) refers to making decisions in the presence of several, and often conflicting, criteria and objectives … The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), proposed in (Saaty, 1977), is an MCDM technique based on PC to assess relative importance of criteria and alternatives. The main benefit of using this approach is to convert both objective and subjective judgments into relative weights of importance … PriEsT better assists decision makers (DMs) to interactively identify and revise their inconsistent judgments based on newly proposed consistency measures.” Page.2, Background, “In AHP, the criteria are usually structured in a hierarchical fashion where ultimate goal is represented as root node and alternatives are placed at the bottom of this hierarchy.” Page.2, 2.1. Pairwise Comparison Judgments, “… In the PC method, a DM assesses the relative importance of any two elements, Ei and Ej , by providing a ratio judgment aij , specifying by how much Ei is preferred to Ej .” Page.3, 2.4. Prioritization from Inconsistent PC Judgments, “The prioritization problem is to determine a priority vector w = (w1,w2, ...,wn)T which estimates the unknown preference vector r. The priority weights in ratio-comparisons are considered to have non-zero positive values …” Page.3, 2.4. Prioritization from Inconsistent PC Judgments, “There are many prioritization methods that can be applied to derive a priority vector from a set of PC judgments …” Examiner note: The decision maker (DM) corresponds to the first persona. The “objectives” and “ultimate goal” correspond to the first set of design goals. The “criteria” correspond to the set of metrics, the “alternatives” corresponds to the candidate design solutions, and the “relative weights of importance” and “priority weights” correspond to the first set of weights. The reference further teaches the DM provides ratio judgments regarding the relative importance of the criteria or alternatives and the judgments are converted into relative weights of importance.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin and O'Leary to incorporate the teachings of Siraj and apply the priority weighting technique, including deriving relative weights of importance for multiple criteria and using the weights to evaluate alternatives, in order to reflect the relative importance of first persona’s design goals when assessing the performance of a candidate design solution.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and Cera and
Benjamin and O'Leary as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hekmatpour US20020156929A1.
Claim 6, De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin and O'Leary fail to teach, but Hekmatpour teaches The
computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from a second persona in the plurality of personas, a request for assistance,
wherein the first persona is capable of modifying pre-defined selectable components of the second component type ([0016] ... CHATSOC allows a design team and design team member to obtain outside assistance. The outside assistance is selected from a compiled database of outside assistance personnel in response to a request for assistance by the design team or design team member, and a peer-to-peer connection is dynamically established when an outside assistance personnel accepts and acknowledges the request. [0052] The Access_Privilege_Manager provides a two tier security abstraction; rolebased access and design object type enforcement. Each user profile includes an associated role. Access to processes and design objects are granted if the process object's scope includes (or supports) the requestor's role. Each user or process can only access design objects that have a type included in the user or process Access_Type_List. [0056] … (5) Each team involved in the design process will perform certain tasks on specific design components and therefore will have specific access and usage authorization … [0066] CHATSOC also serves as a broker for locating and routing a user with an outstanding Help request to an available registered expert. Once the expertise required has been identified, the user (his/her CHATSOC session) is forwarded to experts, who are certified and/or qualified for that field of expertise. Once at least one expert has acknowledged and accepted the outstanding request for help, a peer-to-peer connection is provided between the user and expert, where the expert is granted a guest account in the corresponding design environment. The expert will have access to all user data and tools (unless restricted by user). [0067] The functional block diagram of FIG. 6B shows the process of identifying expertise required for an outstanding Help request on an open design issue. CHATSOC is started as shown at block 601, and a determination made at block 603, whether a request for assistance has been received (from a user). Examiner note: the role associated with the design team member submitting the request for assistance corresponds to the second persona. The role associated with the registered expert who accepts the request and is granted access to the corresponding design environment, user data, and design tools corresponds to the first persona. The reference further teaches role-based access and design object type enforcement, wherein a user may access only design objects having a type included in the users Access_Type_List, and teaches performing authorized tasks on specific design components. The design objects having an authorized type correspond to the pre-defined selectable components of the second component type, and the expert’s access to the corresponding design environment and tools for addressing the design issue corresponds to the first persona being capable of modifying the components).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin and O'Leary to incorporate the teachings of Hekmatpour and apply the collaborative assistance framework, including receiving a request for assistance from a role associated with a design team member and grating a role associated with an expert access to the corresponding design environment and authorized design objects, in order to enable collaboration between different persona while ensuring that design modifications are performed by a persona having the appropriate authorization and expertise.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and Cera
and Benjamin and O'Leary as applied to claim 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Mundbrod (“OBJECT-SPECIFIC ROLE-BASED ACCESS CONTROL,” published in Feb. 2019).
Claim 8, De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin and O'Leary fail to teach, but Mundbrod teaches The
computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first persona is associated with a capability set that specifies:
a first subset of pre-defined selectable components of the first component type that (i) only the first persona is capable of placing or deleting, and (ii) the first persona is not capable of modifying; and
a second subset of pre-defined selectable components of the first component type that the first persona (i) is not capable of placing or deleting, and (ii) is capable of modifying (Page. 4, para.2, “An object type corresponds to a data structure that determines the structure of an object by
defining a set of attributes. The latter, in turn, are defined by a data type (e.g., String) and a name. Every object exactly references one object type and features values for the attributes of the object type.” Page.11, para.1, “In particular, the purpose of an object-specific role assignment is to specify that one or more agents obtain an object-specific role in relation to one or multiple guarded objects. In this respect, every object-specific role entails a key scope and, optionally, multiple additional scopes. These scopes are used to specify that certain privileges are only granted in relation to guarded objects of pre-defined guarded object types. Furthermore, the scopes determine the way object-specific role assignments are created: at run time, an object-specific role may be assigned to one or several guarded objects matching the pre-defined scopes of the object-specific role. The privileges, which are linked to the respective scope, are then evaluated only in relation to the selected guarded object and, if specified, its child objects.”Page.17, Definition 4.4, “scgo : … is a function that assigns a set of guarded objects … to every role scope … while keySC may only be assigned to exactly one … every additional scope … may be assigned to an arbitrary number of guarded objects …”. Page.7, Table 1: Basic Action Use Cases: AUC01, “A subject adds a new object to a parental object or to the root-level of the object model instance.” AUC06, “A subject wants to update an object, i.e., its attributes.” AUC08, “A subject may remove an object from its parental object(s).” Page.14, Definition 4.2. Page.15, Definition 4.3. “Page.16, page.1, “Definition 4.3 shows that an object-specific role may have different sets of priv-ileges associated with different scopes - the key scope and the additional ones … To enable agents to access actions on referenced guarded objects, every scope is linked to two sets of privileges: the first one contains privileges directly related to the referenced guarded object (realized by scpsc) in Definition 4.3; e.g., this set may contain privileges to read or update the guarded object.” Page.20, para.1, “If no object-specific role assignment can be found at all, an error will be returned indicating that the action cannot be performed.” Page.20-21, “ If such a check is positive, the set of scope-related privileges is evaluated to check whether it contains the required privilege.” Examiner note: the agent assigned to an object-specific role corresponds to the first persona, and the sets of scope-specific privileges associated with the role correspond the capability set. The reference teaches guarded objects of pre-defined guarded object types and a scope may be assigned to one or more selected guarded objects. The selected guarded objects assigned to one scope correspond to the first subset of predefined selectable components of the first component type, and the selected guarded objects assigned to another scope correspond the second subset. The reference also defines ADD, REMOVE, and UPDATE privileges and teaches that different sets of privileges may be associated with different scopes, and, an operation is permitted only when the privileges required for that operation is included in the applicable scope-specific privilege set).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin and O'Leary to incorporate the teachings of Mundbrod and apply object specific role based access control framework, including assigning different sets of ADD, REMOVE, and UPDATE privileges to different scopes containing selected objects of a predefined object type, in order to provide fine grained control over which operations a persona may perform on different subsets of selectable components.
The elements of claim 19 is substantially the same as those of claim 8. Therefore, the elements of claim 19 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and Cera
and Benjamin and O'Leary as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bhattacharya US20210241144A1.
Claim 10, De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin and O'Leary fail to teach, but Bhattacharya teaches The
computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising generating, based on the optimized candidate design solution, one or more suggested inputs for the modified shared design model ([0212] The analysis facility 108 may be configured to analyze simulation results of designs. The analysis facility 108 may include a filtering component 120. The filtering component 120 may be configured to use one or more numerical and/or analytical methods to evaluate and compare the performance of evaluated designs. The filtering component may identify optimal or near-optimal designs for one or more performance parameters. The filtering component may search the performance space and identify a set of optimal and/or near optimal designs for one or more performance parameters.
[0213] The analysis facility 108 may include a recommendation component 122. The recommendation component 122 may provide design recommendations. The design recommendations may be based on optimal or near-optimal designs determined by the filtering component 120. Recommendations may be adaptive based on settings, feedback, selections, triggers, and the like from the user, and/or other facilities in the platform 104. [0273] the prompt 2100 may include a presentation window 2110 having a message box 2112 which may display a textual question to the user, e.g., “What types of optimization engines would you like to use?” The prompt 2100 may also include one or more input fields 2114 for receiving the user input. The input fields 2114 may include text boxes, radio buttons, sliders, dropdown menus, checkboxes, and/or other suitable widgets for receiving user input. [0274] In embodiments, the prompt 2100 may include recommendation fields 2116 which may present one or more recommended values to a user for one or more trial design criteria and/or design parameters ... The advisor 1900 may then query one or more databases in the data facility 138 (FIG. 1) and present the user with one or more recommendations 2116 for one or more trial design criteria and/or trial design parameters … In embodiments, the recommendations 2116 may be single values and/or ranges for values … For example, an input field 2114 may be structured to receive a user input defining a number of simulations to run, and a corresponding recommendation field 2116 may recommend a specific value or a range for the user to enter into the input field 2114. Examiner note: the reference teaches the optimal or near-optimal designs identified by the filtering component correspond to the optimized candidate design solution. The design recommendations generated by the recommendation component based on the optimal or near-optimal designs correspond to the one or more suggested inputs generated based on the optimized candidate design solution. The recommended values for trial design criteria or design parameters correspond to suggested inputs for the design model. The correspondence between the recommendation fields and the input fields further establishes that the recommended values are inputs that may be entered to configure or modify the design model).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Biswas and Cera and Benjamin and O'Leary to incorporate the teachings of Bhattacharya and apply design recommendation, including generating recommended design parameter values based on an optimized candidate design solution, in order to assist a participant in applying characteristics of an optimized solution to the shared design model.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and Cera and
Benjamin and O'Leary as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Siraj (“PriEsT: an interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments.,” published in October 2013).
The elements of claim 14 is substantially the same as those of claims 4 and 9. Therefore, the elements of claim 14 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 4 and 9.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and Cera and
Benjamin and O'Leary as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Siraj (“PriEsT: an interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments.,” published in October 2013).
The elements of claim 16 is substantially the same as those of claims 5 and 9. Therefore, the elements of claim 16 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 5 and 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuniavsky US20210286921, discloses generative design process can include generating a set of candidate product designs for a product based on a template for the product, one or more style grammars, physical constraints in the design of the product, e.g., required materials, size, relationship between parts, etc., and/or performance objectives for the product. The generative design process can include multiple iterations and, at each iteration, the generative design platform can score the candidate product designs based on multiple factors, e.g., how well the candidate product design conforms to the aesthetic characteristics of the style grammar(s), the functional performance of the candidate product design, the manufacturability of the candidate product design, and/or other appropriate factors. The generative process can perform multiple iterations until converging on a set of candidate product designs for which information is presented to a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to YI HAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights